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

Skip to comments.

Bush Offers Migrant Plan Conservatives Can Support
Arizona Republic ^ | January 18, 2004 | Jeff Flake

Posted on 01/17/2004 6:54:51 PM PST by Reaganwuzthebest

President Bush's immigration initiative has sparked a great deal of discussion across the country. Perhaps the most interesting debate centers on whether the president, in announcing the initiative, has embraced conservative principles or abandoned them. I believe a temporary worker program is consistent with conservative principles, and here's why.

First, conservatives value national security, and the status quo encourages anything but national security. The presence of 8 million to 12 million illegal aliens within the confines of our borders should prompt the type of reform the president has suggested.

President Bush's proposal will ensure smarter border enforcement by redirecting resources for border security and the war on terrorism away from the dishwashers and landscapers who are trying to cross the border illegally and toward the smugglers and terrorists who are attempting to cross the border for purposes far more nefarious than filling jobs that American workers are not taking.

We can try to tighten up border enforcement even more than we already have (we've already increased spending on border enforcement six-fold over the past 20 years), but as long as the United States offers foreign workers more opportunity for work than their home countries do, people will risk their lives to cross the border.

According to Steven Camarota of the Center for Immigration Studies, "A real effort to control the border with Mexico would require perhaps 20,000 agents and the development of a system of formidable fences and other barriers along those parts of the border used for illegal crossings."

It should also be noted that some 40 percent of those illegally in the United States first entered the country legally and then overstayed their visas. Even if we did manage to seal the border from illegal crossings, the problem would still be with us. Clearly, we can't solve this problem through border enforcement alone.

A temporary worker program, coupled with serious workplace enforcement, would bring those who are in the shadows out into the open. Temporary workers would be registered. We would finally know who they are, how long they've been here, and when they must return to their home country or change their status.

Again, the "carrot" of a temporary worker program must be coupled with the "stick" of workplace enforcement. With a reasonable legal avenue available, workers should have no excuse for not utilizing it and employers should have no excuse for hiring those who do not.

The latter point is important. Conservatives respect the law. Our current immigration laws, everyone will agree, are so convoluted and out of touch with how people actually organize their lives that it does not foster respect for the law. If we want the law to be enforced, we need to have a law that can realistically be enforced given our labor needs. Which brings me to another point.

Conservatives recognize that America has a need for labor that Americans are unable or unwilling to fill. This is the case today, and will increasingly be the case in years to come as our workforce becomes older and better educated. Now, some will dispute this, noting that "there are some 10 million unemployed in this country, and some 10 million illegal aliens - do the math!"

This math adds up only if you accept that it is the federal government's role, for example, to persuade an unemployed fisherman in Maine to take a job as a landscaper in Phoenix. Or to move an unemployed schoolteacher in Indiana to the lettuce fields in Yuma. The former Soviet Union tried and failed with this type of economic planning for decades. Cuba is still trying. Neither are examples that conservatives should seek to emulate.

Third, conservatives are compassionate, despite what liberals will tell you. The fact that hundreds of illegal aliens, many of whom are women and children, die in the desert each year should compel us to action. Because a temporary worker program would allow workers to enter and exit the country through border checkpoints, the incentive to risk one's life in the desert would be diminished considerably. Under the current situation, those illegally crossing the border in search of work must make the calculation of whether to endure long periods, even years, without seeing their families, or to attempt to bring their families with them. The latter choice often leads to deadly consequences.

Finally, we conservatives are called conservatives because we want to "conserve" practices and principles that have withstood the test of time. There is little about the status quo in immigration policy that is worth conserving. Bush recognizes this. We conservatives, whether we agree with every detail of his plan or not, should applaud him for it.


TOPICS: Editorial; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: aliens; guest; illegal; immigrants; immigration; jeffflake; reform; workers
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-213 next last
To: alnick
Did you even read the article? If you did, did you read it with an open mind?

Yes I've read the article and no matter how much Flake tries to spin it's not an amnesty it is.

And I do have an open mind to a guest worker program, in fact Tancredo has a bill that is supportable. But first the borders need to be closed and existing laws enforced otherwise illegal immigration will never stop.

51 posted on 01/17/2004 8:39:58 PM PST by Reaganwuzthebest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: seamole
It was a speech not a recitation of written legislation. A proposal, by definition, is ambiguous. He is asking Congress to either take up the issue and produce legislative language or to not address it at all. He did not do this by executive order and he could have. The president proposes and the Congress disposes. That is how our government works.
52 posted on 01/17/2004 8:42:09 PM PST by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: encm(ss)
About 20% of FReepers, if the survey hasn't been messed with, agree with the President. That doesn't make us freaks or not conservative. It just means that 80%, as usual, are not paying attention, nor do they comprehend the probably consequence of their tergiversation--a Dem in the White House for FOUR LONG YEARS.

And not just a Dem but a stupid, unqualified Dem. (Lieberman is the best they have, and they don't appreciate him.)
53 posted on 01/17/2004 8:45:21 PM PST by Triple Word Score (2004: Even M&Ms are now BLACK AND WHITE.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: quack
The jobs Americans won't do. Sorry, but that myth has been debunked over and over.

Yes it has. All one has to do is go to those states where illegals aren't to see that.

54 posted on 01/17/2004 8:46:44 PM PST by Reaganwuzthebest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
They don't get that either. I've heard people shrieking that he's "lying" and that his "edict" is illegal. I'd expect to see language like that on DU. (Well, if I could stand to go there.)

In my previous post, 'probably' should be 'probable.'
55 posted on 01/17/2004 8:47:09 PM PST by Triple Word Score (2004: Even M&Ms are now BLACK AND WHITE.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Reaganwuzthebest

56 posted on 01/17/2004 8:48:27 PM PST by Spiff (Have you committed a random act of thoughtcrime today?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Triple Word Score
Get Congress to fund it.

Glad you mentioned that. There's a bill in Congress right now called the CLEAR Act which would fund enforcement of immigration laws. Please give your congressman a call and urge him or her to support it.

57 posted on 01/17/2004 8:51:15 PM PST by Reaganwuzthebest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Reaganwuzthebest
It can't help that Pres. Fox is a dipstick who thinks he run's the USA. If we make him fix his own country before any action is taken it would help. If we took over Mexico-used it's tourism,oil,gas and ports to advance the Country their people would stay home.
58 posted on 01/17/2004 8:56:00 PM PST by Brimack34
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Spiff
Kolbe is getting blasted over this. Nice to see he's at least getting some heat over it.
59 posted on 01/17/2004 8:57:26 PM PST by Reaganwuzthebest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Marak
"those jobs should only be offered to foreigners that are NOT already in this country. You want to apply for one? Go home first."

EXACTLY.

Those people sitting in foreign countries, including Eastern Europe, Russia, Mexico, etc. who have already applied for legal immigration MUST get first preference over illegal immigrant lawbreakers already here.

That would be the only way I would ever consider supporting Bush's proposal.

Illegal immigrants already here must somehow be made to pay a penalty, whether immediate repatriation to their original country, or a huge fine, not a measly $1,500 or whatever it was that Bush proposed.

60 posted on 01/17/2004 9:00:54 PM PST by Edit35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: dyno35
I believe the suggested fee is $ 1000. Paying the fee would be cheaper than a roundtrip smuggle fee for most. I think for any plan to succeed, there has to be a way to severally punish those who are illegal. Make it mandatory for them to return before applying, or make those who are here illegally ineligible. This is the point that most people gripe about. He is proposing to reward those who have broken the law. It can only result in less regard for the laws of this nation.
61 posted on 01/17/2004 9:07:35 PM PST by Marak (Let me turn you on to Fantasy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Marak
I believe the suggested fee is $ 1000.

I don't about where you live,but here the illegal immigrants have that much as "walking around money".Since they get paid in cash and have no bank account,they keep it rolled up in their front pocket.

62 posted on 01/17/2004 9:10:25 PM PST by quack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Reaganwuzthebest
President Bush's proposal will ensure smarter border enforcement by redirecting resources for border security and the war on terrorism away from the dishwashers and landscapers who are trying to cross the border illegally and toward the smugglers and terrorists who are attempting to cross the border for purposes far more nefarious than filling jobs that American workers are not taking.

Lets see ,,,,, Make a law break a law rewrite the law to break it easier or just ignore the law for 50 years or so and when it comes up again rewrite the law and then break the law so it can be broken more easily then rewrite the law one more time to find certain law breakers but let the not so bad law breakers get away with breaking the law

What was the reason we have laws again ?

63 posted on 01/17/2004 9:10:42 PM PST by ATOMIC_PUNK (Mars make economical sense at a 7 to 1 return on investment + creature benefits)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reaganwuzthebest
He's a Flake, he must think conservatives are also.
64 posted on 01/17/2004 9:11:16 PM PST by MissAmericanPie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ATOMIC_PUNK
What was the reason we have laws again ?

We pass and repeal laws all the time.

65 posted on 01/17/2004 9:12:01 PM PST by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Reaganwuzthebest; FairOpinion
Not me, this is the same old joke
66 posted on 01/17/2004 9:14:05 PM PST by JustPiper (Register Independent and Write-In Tancredo for March !!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: quack
"I don't about where you live,but here the illegal immigrants have that much as "walking around money".Since they get paid in cash and have no bank account,they keep it rolled up in their front pocket."

That was kind of my point. The $1000 fee is neither a deterent nor a punishment. It was probably added to the speech so they could say 'gee, look at all this money we will make'.

I truly believe going after the companies that hire illegals is the best approach. Dry up the labor market and make it more expensive to hire an illegal. Hit these employers with a fine of $100,000 for each illegal they hire.
67 posted on 01/17/2004 9:16:23 PM PST by Marak (Let me turn you on to Fantasy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Reaganwuzthebest; Pro-Bush; FairOpinion; FoxFang; FITZ; moehoward; Nea Wood; Joe Hadenuf; sangoo; ..
One of the 3 stooges, yes I'm sure I believe any guest worker program he sponsors
68 posted on 01/17/2004 9:16:46 PM PST by JustPiper (Register Independent and Write-In Tancredo for March !!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Marak; Happy2BMe
A FReeper's Guide To Immigration Reform

"What remains to be seen is if this country has the capacity to accommodate, and assimilate, an unending wave of mass immigration ¯ because failure to do so will result in a balkanized, fragmented, strife-torn and dysfunctional America."

Federation for American Immigration Reform - FAIR

President Bush - stand up and tell us the truth

~ Take the FReeper Immigration Reform Poll ~

69 posted on 01/17/2004 9:19:46 PM PST by Happy2BMe (Liberty does not tolerate lawlessness and a borderless nation will not prevail.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Reaganwuzthebest
"There is nothing conservative about this plan.".. my thought exactly.
70 posted on 01/17/2004 9:26:49 PM PST by Zipporah (Write inTancredo in 2004)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MissAmericanPie
He's a Flake, he must think conservatives are also.

Flake is one of the most conservative members of Congress. However, on this issue, he's lost his frikkin' mind. Either that or Kolbe & McCain have some sort of blackmail material on him. I can't figure it out - Flake is a good guy. How could he let himself get mixed up with the likes of Kolbe and McCain!?

71 posted on 01/17/2004 9:27:08 PM PST by Spiff (Have you committed a random act of thoughtcrime today?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Reaganwuzthebest
"Simple suggestion: why not prosecute the employers?"

"That's the best solution I can think of. Put a few employers in jail and see how fast they stop hiring illegals."

==

That is the WORST solution. You can't expect employers to be the cops for the INS. You are expecting for employers hiring minimum wage help to do a background investigation on these people, which would have a prohibitive cost.

Businesses are over regulated as is, add this additional requirement and try to enforce it with criminal prosecurtion and you will see a great many businesses closing.
72 posted on 01/17/2004 9:32:04 PM PST by FairOpinion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Spiff
The Granola Gang -- a nut, a fruit, and a flake.
73 posted on 01/17/2004 9:37:48 PM PST by JackelopeBreeder (Proud to be a loco gringo armed vigilante terrorist cucaracha!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Marak
I truly believe going after the companies that hire illegals is the best approach. Dry up the labor market and make it more expensive to hire an illegal. Hit these employers with a fine of $100,000 for each illegal they hire.

I don't know where you live, but such a thing would be a joke in California. Ahh, yes, I could see the headlines now.. 'Mom and Pop restaurant shut down by heavy fine' I am sure, somewhere, there is a major corporation that has hired illegals, but such things would be rare. Sure, you might nail Taco Bell, but with so many companies now running credit checks on all their hires, they tend to catch illegals. When Jose Gonazalas' report comes back saying that Mrs. Marple has fair credit, the company declines to hire them.

Corporate farms, perhaps? Nahh, they use the guest worker program that we already have in place, even sending teams of people down into El Salvador and other dirt pits to sign up and hire people.

The places you'll really find them is in construction industries, independent contractor cleaning firms (like Wallyworld found out), clothing subcontractors (though their workers tend to be locked up) and the most likely place - employed by another illegal. They've got a huge market in landscaping.

I doubt that there would be much success in fining Walmart for having a subcontractor that hires illegals - the company that committed the crime isolates them. Hitting up the housing developer for the illegals hired by subcontractors again isolates the people with money.

So, anyway, I wish I could agree with you, because I really want there to be a simple solution. But the problem is twenty years old with a lack of enforcement coupled with courts that have given repeated rights to the criminals. In any case, I want SOMETHING done - I do not want the status quo to continue.
74 posted on 01/17/2004 9:38:59 PM PST by kingu (Remember: Politicians and members of the press are going to read what you write today.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Marak
"I truly believe going after the companies that hire illegals is the best approach. Dry up the labor market and make it more expensive to hire an illegal. Hit these employers with a fine of $100,000 for each illegal they hire."

===

In other words: make businesses close down or move to Mexico, because they couldn't stay in business.


I guess you want to pay $20/lb for strawberries too.
75 posted on 01/17/2004 9:40:53 PM PST by FairOpinion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
You can't expect employers to be the cops for the INS.

Criminal prosecution would apply only to those businesses who knowingly hire illegals. There's plenty of them openly doing it today with no penalties.

Congress is also going to have to get serious about mandating employee checks during the hiring process. Right now it's voluntary where businesses can call in and verify a SSN. Once a reliable system is set up employers will have no excuses for hiring those who shouldn't be here.

76 posted on 01/17/2004 9:42:38 PM PST by Reaganwuzthebest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: kingu
"I don't know where you live, but such a thing would be a joke in California. Ahh, yes, I could see the headlines now.. 'Mom and Pop restaurant shut down by heavy fine' "

==

Not to mention a bunch of small homeowners being fined and lose their homes, because they hired an illegal to mow their lawn or clear the brush from their backyard, babysit their kid, or take care of their elderly parent, while they are working.

Yeah, fine the "employers" of illegal aliens!

(/sarcasm)
77 posted on 01/17/2004 9:43:46 PM PST by FairOpinion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
[That is the WORST solution. You can't expect employers to be the cops for the INS. You are expecting for employers hiring minimum wage help to do a background investigation on these people, which would have a prohibitive cost.

Businesses are over regulated as is, add this additional requirement and try to enforce it with criminal prosecurtion and you will see a great many businesses closing.]

Actually, it is a great solution. All the companies have to do is verify the legal right to work in this country. They can use the SSN listed on the W4 filled out by the employee. Verify that the SSN is valid for the name given. This should not require a massive background check. If there are not systems in place today to handle this trivial detail, we should create it. It is a far better solution than ignoring the problem or trying to forciblly deport 12 million people.
78 posted on 01/17/2004 9:43:55 PM PST by Marak (Let me turn you on to Fantasy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: kingu
Right. Also, this is not a good time to hit American business with another huge government-imposed expense, singly or en masse. You want to see jackboots? Let the feds shut down a Denny's because one employee had a convincing social security card or someone managed to get his illegal cousin on the payroll. We saw what happened to our economy when the feds went after Microsoft during the Clinton regime. It wasn't a pretty thing. I doubt there's a large corporation anywhere in America that doesn't have illegals on the payroll in some way. The question is whether they know it--and whether they could afford to hire a legal, unionized employee to do the same job.

The economy won't grow if the government starts seizing businesses and locking up business owners left and right. And we know what a reversal of the upward trends means politically.
79 posted on 01/17/2004 9:44:43 PM PST by Triple Word Score (2004: Even M&Ms are now BLACK AND WHITE.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Marak
"It is a far better solution than ignoring the problem or trying to forciblly deport 12 million people."

===

So if the illegal immigrants couldn't work, because nobody would hire them, but by law (CA courts ruled Prop 187 illegal) you can't deny them benefits, such as welfare and medical, instead of working, they would all be on welfare.

So how would that improve the illegal immigrant problem?
80 posted on 01/17/2004 9:47:45 PM PST by FairOpinion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
I'm already paying $20/lb for strawberries. The only difference is that $16 of it is hidden in my tax bill.

Since I live on the border I also pay for them in ways you don't want to even begin to imagine.

81 posted on 01/17/2004 9:48:53 PM PST by JackelopeBreeder (Proud to be a loco gringo armed vigilante terrorist cucaracha!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
So if the illegal immigrants couldn't work, because nobody would hire them, but by law (CA courts ruled Prop 187 illegal) you can't deny them benefits, such as welfare and medical, instead of working, they would all be on welfare. So how would that improve the illegal immigrant problem?

Sounds like the voters in CA created this problem. Why don't they take away the incentive by repealing 187?

82 posted on 01/17/2004 9:53:09 PM PST by hobson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Reaganwuzthebest
This ought to be posted under a special section, "Lettuce shortage catastrophe" or something like that.
83 posted on 01/17/2004 9:58:41 PM PST by junta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hobson
Wow!

Was that a typo or do you really know nothing about Prop 187?

Prop 187 tried to bar illegal aliens from any welfare. One ding-a-ling judge ruled against it and Gov. Gray Davis caved and refused to appeal the decision. The same Gray Davis who tried to give driver's licenses to illegals to get enough votes to survive a recall.
84 posted on 01/17/2004 10:01:18 PM PST by JackelopeBreeder (Proud to be a loco gringo armed vigilante terrorist cucaracha!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: kingu
[I don't know where you live]
Southern Florida

[there is a major corporation that has hired illegals]
Tyson Foods for one

[Corporate farms, perhaps? Nahh, they use the guest worker program that we already have in place,] Actually there are plenty of illegals on the corporate farms here. They even are organized and give interviews to the newspapers.

[The places you'll really find them is in construction industries] Yes, discovered working on a Federal building in Miami among other places. The jobs were NOT jobs that Americans would refuse either.

[They've got a huge market in landscaping.]
Very huge. In fact, legal landscapers down here can't compete. Many of them are folding up.

The point is, it has to be painful to ignore the law. That is the ONLY way there will be any adherence to it. If subcontractors go out of business for knowingly hiring illegals, great. The legal contractors will have more jobs and require more legal workers.

If the case of Walmart and companies like that that utilize subcontractors to get around the law, I think they should be liable if it can be proved they knew that illegals were being used.

I am not declaring that I know the answer to this problem, but I think by discussing it a better plan can be found than the one the President is proposing.

I see three areas to address:
1) at the border. Make it harder to get in.
2) the employer. Make it harder for him to turn a blind eye to the practice of hiring illegals.
3) the illegal immigrant. Make the punishment for violating our laws hurt him. Whether that includes a fine, jail time, removal from the legal immigration process, etc.

Think about it. Maybe you will come with better ideas, but something needs to be done besides a blanket acceptance of the law breakers.
85 posted on 01/17/2004 10:01:26 PM PST by Marak (Let me turn you on to Fantasy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Reaganwuzthebest
I am not even going to bother to read what this amnesty-cheerleadering journo has to say. I have read far too many articles here on FR and thus far not one has convinced me that this plan will be anything but an economic disaster for lower and middle income workers in America.

I think this guy has spent way too much time setting up those water stations in the Arizona desert...tends to fry the brain.

86 posted on 01/17/2004 10:01:34 PM PST by HennepinPrisoner (I voted for GWB and I got Vicente Fox ...write-in Tancredo on March 9th.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
"That is the WORST solution"

You don't seem to get it Mr. Fair Opinion...

When a company hires an illegal at substandard wages the taxpayer ends up paying to support them. A family can't live and provide for them self on even minimum wage. He!!, it cost $10000 a year to insure a family of four, and as much as $20000 a year to send two kids to public schools. Who do you thiks pays for this when the worker makes $12000 a year?

When an employer hires these people at these wages, the taxpayer ends up subsidizing his payroll. These people do not contribute to our economy.
87 posted on 01/17/2004 10:05:54 PM PST by babygene (Viable after 87 trimesters)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: HennepinPrisoner
Two minutes with a knife turns a water station into a plastic recycling site.
88 posted on 01/17/2004 10:06:27 PM PST by JackelopeBreeder (Proud to be a loco gringo armed vigilante terrorist cucaracha!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Marak
All the companies have to do is verify the legal right to work in this country. They can use the SSN listed on the W4 filled out by the employee. Verify that the SSN is valid for the name given. This should not require a massive background check. If there are not systems in place today to handle this trivial detail, we should create it. It is a far better solution than ignoring the problem or trying to forciblly deport 12 million people.

Ghads, wouldn't it be nice if an employer could simply pick up the phone, enter in the social security number, and get back the name assigned to the number as well as the legal status?

Oh, bugger - there's a hole in that. One legal gives out his number to others to use. Yes, Jose is legal to work in this country - he's just working at 12,000 different places. To make something like that actually work, you're almost back to a national ID card.

Ironic that the average bus pass is harder to copy than a social security card.
89 posted on 01/17/2004 10:08:16 PM PST by kingu (Remember: Politicians and members of the press are going to read what you write today.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
[In other words: make businesses close down or move to Mexico, because they couldn't stay in business.
I guess you want to pay $20/lb for strawberries too.]

If $20 per pound for strawberries is what it takes to live in a country where the rule of law means something, count me in. If you want cheap strawberries, move south.

If businesses cannot remain solvent without illegal labor, then we have problems other than one of immigration.

If the minimum wage is too high, lower it.

If your product cost is too high with legal workers, get out of the business.

If there are not enough legal workers, increase the quotas for LEGAL workers.

A simplistic statement that we must have illegal workers or our businesses will die isn't working towards a viable solution. I think we can do better than that.
90 posted on 01/17/2004 10:08:35 PM PST by Marak (Let me turn you on to Fantasy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: JackelopeBreeder
Oops, I read that wrong. Anyway, there must be a way for CA to rectify that problem.
91 posted on 01/17/2004 10:12:52 PM PST by hobson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
[So if the illegal immigrants couldn't work, because nobody would hire them, but by law (CA courts ruled Prop 187 illegal) you can't deny them benefits, such as welfare and medical, instead of working, they would all be on welfare.]

Perhaps if some were deported while seeking benefits, the problem might be less than you think. Maybe there will have to be some mass deportations, but I believe that most will not want to live where they can't make a living and have to live under the threat of discovery and deportation.

Maybe California needs to take another shot at 187. I don't know the answer.
92 posted on 01/17/2004 10:14:01 PM PST by Marak (Let me turn you on to Fantasy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: babygene; Marak
You are both making the very points, why Bush's guest worker program is a step in the right direction.

Bush is addressing a serious problem, which existed and has been getting worse for the past 15 years.

As for the cost, I guess you don't mind paying for all the lazy bums collecting welfare, just as long as they are citizens.

As I said, on another thread, the illegal problem is strongly tied to the welfare problem. Many healthy people in the US rather sit and collect welfare, than do menial work -- that's what makes illegal workers attractive for employers.

93 posted on 01/17/2004 10:17:04 PM PST by FairOpinion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: HennepinPrisoner
"I am not even going to bother to read what this amnesty-cheerleadering journo has to say"

I read some of it but just have one word. ILLEGAL

94 posted on 01/17/2004 10:18:16 PM PST by AGreatPer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Marak
1) at the border. Make it harder to get in.

It is already harder to get in, but not impossible. Seems like the convicted felons that we deport somehow come back to join with their gangs. The borders need to be kept up, but I'll give the border patrol one thing - they're finally doing a better job. But how do you stop someone coming here through the border checkpoint itself? Mexicans are allowed to come into the United States to shop, to be tourists, etc. A reservation at the Disneyland Hotel and they have a foolproof method of entry.

2) the employer. Make it harder for him to turn a blind eye to the practice of hiring illegals.

There's no survey to back it up, but I'd say that the biggest employer of illegals are illegals themselves. You don't need to submit worker papers when you're being hired as a subcontractor, and faking a license is FAR too easy. Nailing those who pick up day laborers would be a great thing, except the courts have basically made it impossible to case those sites and nail the employers.

3) the illegal immigrant. Make the punishment for violating our laws hurt him. Whether that includes a fine, jail time, removal from the legal immigration process, etc.

Jail time? I don't want to pay for them in the first place, and now I have to pay $40,000+ a year per illegal? Fine them? Ok, if you nail the money in their pocket, you've got their nest egg. You've already said it - these people are already underpaid, what makes you think you'll get a successful fine? And as to removing them from the immigration process - they don't want to become citizens in the first place! They're here because they can make more money than in Mexico. They participate in their home elections through the consulate.
95 posted on 01/17/2004 10:18:53 PM PST by kingu (Remember: Politicians and members of the press are going to read what you write today.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: hobson
Anyway, there must be a way for CA to rectify that problem.

Cali has borrowed a few ideas from Arizona and revived 187. Instead of changing existing law, just make sure it existing law is amended to make it enforcable.

96 posted on 01/17/2004 10:18:55 PM PST by JackelopeBreeder (Proud to be a loco gringo armed vigilante terrorist cucaracha!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Marak
"Perhaps if some were deported while seeking benefits,"

==

I am all for that -- problem is the US courts, stuffed with liberals, who overturn any sensible measures voters try to pass, such as Prop. 187.

Some are trying to resurrect a different version of it.
97 posted on 01/17/2004 10:20:33 PM PST by FairOpinion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: kingu
Quietly clapping.
98 posted on 01/17/2004 10:21:17 PM PST by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: harpo11
This is complete fiction. The federal tax was supposed to be temporary too!

Let's see what legislation is proposed before we start making these judgements. We shouldn't just rely on promises to reverse beaurocratic inertia, a difficult task even if the Administration wants to take it up. But we can put an end to anchor babies and ban consular IDs and matricula cards. We could also have both employee and employer bond over some amount of cash, that would inspire some self enforcement.

99 posted on 01/17/2004 10:22:16 PM PST by MattAMiller
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: kingu
[To make something like that actually work, you're almost back to a national ID card.]

Hardly a national id card. Reporting of the SSN is already required by the government to work. Also known is the age and sex associated with that number. As for 12,000 people using the same id, it sure would be easy for the government to locate and round up the offenders. Oh, some might get by with using someone else's id, but there are easy ways to halt the massive use of a single SSN.

Again, I am not making a proposal here. I am making suggestions. If you find holes in my logic, think about them. Maybe you will find a way to fill them. It certainly is better than throwing our hands into the air and saying it can't be done.

100 posted on 01/17/2004 10:23:57 PM PST by Marak (Let me turn you on to Fantasy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-213 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