Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Bush Proposal (Interesting article by Linda Chavez on the Immigration Proposal)
Town Hall ^ | Jan 8, 2004 | Linda Chavez

Posted on 01/08/2004 8:03:21 AM PST by PhiKapMom

The Bush proposal

Linda Chavez

January 8, 2004

President Bush announced a sweeping new immigration reform proposal this week that could become a hot-button issue in the November election. For months, insiders have hinted that the president would propose a new guest worker program aimed at allowing more foreign workers into the country on a temporary basis. Widely favored by the American business community, a guest worker program would allow employers to fill jobs in industries that routinely experience shortages of workers willing to do the often difficult, dangerous jobs Americans shun -- at least at wages that allow employers to remain in business.

But the guest worker provisions won't be the most controversial part of the administration's new proposal. Although some groups that want to limit immigration altogether -- such as the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) -- oppose guest worker plans, even such staunch restrictionists as Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) are on record supporting the idea of guest workers. The real battle will be over what to do with those millions of illegal aliens who are already here.

Some 8-12 million illegal aliens reside in the United States now -- up three- or four-fold from a decade ago. An estimated 60 percent of these are from Mexico alone, and it is no accident that the Bush plan was announced in anticipation of the president's meeting with his Mexican counterpart, President Vicente Fox, next week. The White House announced less than a week before the Fox meeting that millions of illegal aliens from Mexico and elsewhere will be allowed, over time, to earn legal status in the U.S., so long as they have been working continuously, paid taxes and not broken other laws. The plan will impose some penalties on these workers -- most likely fines similar to those proposed in legislation sponsored by Republican Representatives Jeff Flake and Jim Kolbe and Senator John McCain, all from Arizona.

These proposals may not offer perfect justice -- who can blame those who resent rewarding "line jumpers" with legal status while millions of other would-be immigrants wait patiently to enter the country legally. But "earned legalization" is probably the best solution to a largely intractable problem. There is no way that the United States can find and deport 8-12 million illegal aliens in this country, and even if we could, we would do more harm than good.

The American economy depends on these workers, who, along with legal immigrants, contributed significantly to the economic boon of the 1990s. If FAIR could wave a magic wand and make these illegal aliens disappear overnight, the rest of us would suffer by having to pay more for everything from the food we put on the table to the houses in which we live. Our office buildings wouldn't get cleaned, our crops wouldn't get picked, our meat wouldn't get processed, nor our tables cleaned when we go out to eat.

Sure, we could double wages to attract American-born workers to some of these jobs, but at even twice the salary it would be difficult to fill the nastiest of these tasks, like processing poultry. But why would we want American workers, who we've spent trillions of dollars educating for 13 or 14 years, on average, to perform jobs that require only the most minimal skills? Even if we got rid of all illegal aliens in the U.S., these jobs would likely go to foreign workers, like it or not.

What sense does it make to insist that we get rid of the very people doing these jobs now in order to make way for other foreign workers to take them under a new guest worker plan? It makes a lot more sense to figure out how to get those illegal aliens already employed at these jobs to come in from the shadows and become part of the legal system. They should pay a penalty for having broken the law in the first place by sneaking into the country or overstaying their visas, but it is better for all of us if they earn their way toward legal status than remain in the illegal netherworld where they now hide.

Linda Chavez is President of the Center for Equal Opportunity, a Townhall.com member organization.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: aliens; amnesty; bushishillary; bushisliberal; buyingvotes; commonsense; culturewar; illegalaliens; illegalmexicans; illegals; immigrantlist; immigration; lindachavez; mexico; nationalsuicide; rewardingcriminals; thirdworldcountry
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 381-400401-420421-440441-442 next last
To: krasdorf
BTW, the URL securebordersusa.com did not work.

P.S. I like your tag line.

401 posted on 01/08/2004 7:02:45 PM PST by Lady Eileen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 400 | View Replies]

To: Lady Eileen; fairfaxwatch; healey22
That person is a FREEPER!! The Webmistress of that site?!

And one in good standing, too!
402 posted on 01/08/2004 7:02:53 PM PST by RaceBannon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 356 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom
Thanks for the ping to this thread and the earlier one.
403 posted on 01/08/2004 7:27:06 PM PST by PogySailor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: WOSG
"19 bad guys came in - legally - ... "

This needs qualification, as you correctly point out. Legally, in this instance, refer to form rather than substance. They broke many laws, told many lies, and failed to follow rules. But each of them had a passport and visa that were apparently valid when they entered the Country as commercial passengers.

Frightening, isn't it?

404 posted on 01/08/2004 7:29:50 PM PST by MainFrame65
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 397 | View Replies]

To: MainFrame65
"But each of them had a passport and visa that were apparently valid when they entered the Country as commercial passengers."

NO, I dont believe that is even the case. Some had overstayed visas is my understanding.

You'd probably can get the skinny on that from Michelle Malkin. here's a sample column with the various violations and abuses of the 245(i) and other loopholes by terrorists:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/michellemalkin/printmm20020802.shtml

I'd have answered sooner or more exactly on this point, but got caught up reading the amazon.com review of Malkin's "Invasion" book:http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0895261464/%20vdare/103-8802220-9269437

wow.

Moreover, you can point to the John Lee Malvo case as one where the INS "catch and release" led to deaths later.
405 posted on 01/08/2004 8:02:36 PM PST by WOSG (Freedom, Baby! Yeah!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 404 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom
Very good article. Bookmarked for future reference.

Thanks PKM.

406 posted on 01/08/2004 8:05:00 PM PST by Victoria Delsoul (Freedom isn't won by soundbites but by the unyielding determination and sacrifice given in its cause)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: WOSG
I need need to re-re-clarify:

"when they *entered* the Country as commercial passengers." ... you are technically right. I was thinking it was about whether they were legal on 9/11... BUT, understand, that overstaying visas is the second MOST COMMON FORM of illegal immigration after Mexico border crossers.
407 posted on 01/08/2004 8:06:00 PM PST by WOSG (Freedom, Baby! Yeah!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 405 | View Replies]

To: WOSG
I think you are correct, but my point was that AT THE TIME THEY CROSSED THE BORDER, they had apparently valid documentation. Part of the proposed changes include recording departures and matching them against entries to determine who overstayed their visas.
408 posted on 01/08/2004 8:18:19 PM PST by MainFrame65
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 405 | View Replies]

To: MainFrame65
Yes, sorry for confusion.

409 posted on 01/08/2004 8:31:24 PM PST by WOSG (Freedom, Baby! Yeah!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 408 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
Great ideas.
410 posted on 01/08/2004 8:41:51 PM PST by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez

"The credit belongs to the man who strives Valiantly... and spends himself in a Worthy cause; who, at best, knows the triumph of High Achievement; and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while Daring greatly,..
so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat." -- Theodore Roosevelt

These are the important parts, the striving valiantly, the worthy cause, the high achievement the Daring Greatly.

El Presidente Bush's encouraging of the illegal immigration invasion is in no way valiant. Valiant would be expelling the invaders not surrendering to them. Especially when we out number them more than 10 to 1.

El Presidente Bush's limp wristed amnesty to criminals for hoped for political gain is the exact opposite of anything worthy. It is unworthy of the law abiding Americans who waited years to enter this country honorably and loyally.
El Presidente Bush can claim no high achievement. When faced with 8 million law breakers, his only achievement is one so low that to call it surrender is to kind.

Daring greatly is Going to the moon and placing 12 men and 2 rovers there MORE THAN A QUARTER OF A CENTURY AGO! Today turning and running away from the challenge of rounding up 8 million illegal aliens who have invaded our country, destroyed our education system, overburdened our prisons courts and social services, can be described as the exact opposite of Daring.

El presidente Bush's Immigration policy is trully the product of very cold and timid souls indeed.

America has already started the long war against Terror. It will not stop because of a change at the top now. El Presidente can have the Illegal invader vote and he can have mine but he can't have both.

Lets not let the republican administration use this war as a shield from criticism of the other grave problems that are attacking this country.
411 posted on 01/08/2004 9:08:12 PM PST by TomasUSMC (from tomasUSMC FIGHT FOR THE LAND OF THE FREE AND HOME OF THE BRAVE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 361 | View Replies]

To: TomasUSMC
El Presidente Bush's .

Kind of childish don't ya think?

412 posted on 01/08/2004 9:12:50 PM PST by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 411 | View Replies]

To: TomasUSMC
"El Presidente Bush's encouraging of the illegal immigration invasion is in no way valiant."

He is taking a stance in accordance to what he believes is best for this country. he is neither encouraging illegal immigration, nor rewarding it...he is simply dealing with the situation as it stands.

You on the other hand, are what Teddy talks about at the start of his quote:

"It is not the critic who counts..."

413 posted on 01/08/2004 9:12:58 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez (The Gift Is To See The Trout.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 411 | View Replies]

To: sarasota
I saw a piece last evening re: the housing market. It was pointed out that the job paid $8/hr. and if wages had to be raised (to attract "legals"), the house would cost $10,000-$15,000 more.

That's not really true because in California where there are many illegals, the houses are more expensive than in a state that has few illegals. California has the most illegals and has the most costly houses.

414 posted on 01/08/2004 9:20:17 PM PST by FITZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: okie01
Indeed, the problem didn't begin to occur until the LBJ administration cancelled the bracero program at the behest of Cesar Chavez and his United Farm Workers union.

So ---- that guest worker program wasn't so popular with the hispanics? The same hispanics who celebrated Cesar Chavez day? Cesar Chavez who insisted the border be controlled.

415 posted on 01/08/2004 9:23:02 PM PST by FITZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Puddleglum
In other words, is the house cheaper or the profit margin higher?

Illegals don't make our houses cheaper --- for one houses are more expensive than at any time in our history --- and there are more illegals now than at any time in our history. How can a house cost $300,000 and up in a state with the most illegals if they are someone supposed to be bringing housing prices down?

Another thing --- my dad bought a house in the 50's --- all American made which cost $15,000 then. The exact same house --- same house, same foundation, same wood, same nails would now sell for over $100,000. Illegals are definitely not helping the cost of homes stay low.

416 posted on 01/08/2004 9:29:45 PM PST by FITZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 388 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom
bttt
417 posted on 01/09/2004 12:38:30 AM PST by lainde (Heads up...We're coming and we've got tongue blades!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: 4ConservativeJustices
I know several people personally that decided yesterday, after the speech, not to vote for Bush in 2004. Everyone has a line that has been drawn ...

President Bush made proposals...It is up to the Congress to take those proposals and shape them into some sort of law...it is your congressman/woman whom you must persuade to your view NOT the President. Once Congress has messed around, added pork, etc, whatever they decide must pass muster in the Senate. President Bush, like all presidents simply started the ball rolling...Congress is your target not the President.

418 posted on 01/09/2004 4:26:22 AM PST by yoe (Mirror, mirror on the wall, who's the fairest............the Clark mantra)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom
I've been reserving judgement on this proposal until I've learned more of the details. I think after the initial knee-jerk reaction against it people will have time to consider it in full from several perspectives.

In the first place immigration from Mexico is as close to unstoppable as any thing we're likely to see. We've increased border patrols exponentially in the last decade and the problem's gotten worse. Therefore a large population of Mexican nationals, whether good or bad, is a given. We can continue to consider them illegal and force them underground w/ all the inherent pathologies associated w/ that or we can try and to "rehabilitate" them by offering incentives for coming forward.

I prefer the latter.

Secondly, the national security threat from porous borders is also a primary concern. If we have a method for regulating farm and service industry workers we should be able to better focus on the true undesirables that are infiltrating our country.

I believe both of these primary concerns have been addressed by this proposal. I think that in time most reasonable people will come to understand this.

Certainly not ALL concerns have been addressed and it is reasonable to anticipate further legislation that refines issues ranging from security, to economics, and cultural aspects of this migration. It is not the perfect solution (is there such an animal?) but it is a start in the proper direction.

419 posted on 01/09/2004 5:24:07 AM PST by Pietro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: FITZ
That's California for you. They can get the premiums that those in the Midwest can't afford/won't buy into.
420 posted on 01/09/2004 5:44:04 AM PST by sarasota
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 414 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 381-400401-420421-440441-442 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson