 |
CACIQUE'S RECOMENDED READING LIST
|
Posted on 5/15/2006, 2:44:39 AM by quidnunc
Like everybody else in America, I am the biological product of a variety of waves of immigration to this continent, including some pretty early ones. Some of my ancestors were the first Europeans to cross the Hudson River from New Amsterdam and settle in the wilds of what is now New Jersey. But more relevant to today's immigration debate is that I am also the father of three immigrants to America who came here as infants or toddlers.
That naturally makes me a supporter of immigration. It also favorably disposes me to "comprehensive" immigration reform of the kind the president supports. The great majority of immigrants (legal and illegal) come here to work hard and make a better life for themselves. Moreover, the "send them home" alternative is highly impractical, even if most of its advocates are well meaning. But my firsthand experience with the immigration process for my children suggests that the pro-reform camp inside the Beltway has focused exclusively on getting legislation passed, and forgotten about the practical realities of implementing reform.
-snip-
Comprehensive immigration reform promises that people already in the United States illegally can apply for citizenship, but requires them to "go to the back of the line." But a key question is, the back of which line? The reform bill before the Senate doesn't require illegal immigrants to go back home — to, say, Hong Kong, to the end of the 10-to-15-year line there — to get a green card. Instead, it allows the current illegals to receive their green card immediately — having, in effect, jumped the line at the U.S. consulate abroad. Then, like other green card holders, they will be able to work here, collect government benefits like food stamps and Medicaid, and travel as freely as if they had a U.S. passport.
The line the current illegals will go to the back of is the citizenship line. Under the proposed law, current illegals, newly minted green card in hand, will have to wait six years, then get in line to apply for citizenship. But even after six years, they will be years ahead of many people who have gone through the legal process and are waiting overseas for a consular official to let them come here. Once those who have been playing by the rules all along get here, they too have to wait six years before getting in line for citizenship.
If we really mean "the back of the line," that should be behind everyone who is already in the pipeline to come here legally. If you are granted your green card under the new "guest worker" system, you shouldn't be able to apply for citizenship until after everyone already on queue has had their citizenship adjudicated. It's a simple matter of not rewarding people for line-jumping.
This is more than an appeal for elementary fairness. There is a very practical reason to prevent queue jumping: It helps consular officials keep order on the front lines of immigration policy. How can anyone enforce the rules for entry to America if line-jumping becomes the law of the land? Once the world knows that we make citizenship easier for those who break the rules, enforcing the rules becomes a nonstarter.
-snip-
Three things must happen for comprehensive reform to work. First, "the back of the line" for citizenship must really mean the back of the line. No newly legalized illegal should obtain citizenship before anyone who has already begun the application process. Second, substantial money, manpower, and management skills must be committed as soon as possible to implementing the new immigration procedures. The government must be candid with the public about the enormous magnitude of the effort it is about to undertake. Otherwise, the inevitable missteps will undermine citizens' and would-be immigrants' confidence in our seriousness about the rule of law. Third, the government must make enforcement credible. This may mean physical barriers to entry; it certainly requires stepped-up enforcement at workplaces and by dispensers of government services. Logic would dictate that enforcement, particularly at the border, begin even before all of the administrative apparatus is in place. At the very least, government should act to minimize the size of the problem it faces.
-snip-
Bush has to thread the needle not only with his conservative base, but with Mexico as well.
If immigration reform is mishandled it could throw Mexico into recession and we'd probably end up with a Hugo Chavez wannabe as president of Mexico in their upcoming elections.
But whatever Dubya does, he's going to have to play it straight or the GOP base will in all probability split.
I know that's what those who've suddenly got religion on illegal immigration want to believe, but I have a feeling that come November the reality of what things will be like under a Democrat congress will convince a number of the stay-at-Homers to pull the lever for Republicans.
bump
good point
Complexity is overwrought when starting from the assumption that Bush is misguided or has some noble aim.
It is relatively simple. Wages of the middle and lower classes are a "cost." Labor costs can be depressed by outsourcing jobs into overseas labor pools. Many jobs cannot be transported overseas. In order to increase profits labor has to be insourced, legally and especially illegally.
The Senate bill is a short term profit increasing strategy. Long term effects are disastrous even to the proponents, but they think short term.
Any feelings of patriotism or identity with the condition of your nation's people is difficult. So the Cheaper Labor lobbies hired think tankers to praise Globalism and make it all sound inevitable. Also memes of compassion are thrown out, like our "tradition" of immigration and playing the race card.
These lobbies have Bush's ear. He either sees through them and is disdainful of the American people, or he fell for the policies and philosophies invented for the proposal. I think the latter. Certain memes have fallen by the wayside, such as the myth of Hispanic citizen support, but Bush needs a "win" with one of the lobbies for payback after 2008. He lost on Social Security reform for the brokers.
Bush will obstruct or veto. The Repubs will segregate themselves from Bush and show the Dems support Bush on this. House Repubs will pick up some seats.
And anyway, shouldn't we do the right thing?
Rove leaking that he's going to run on gay marriage shows how out of touch with the big issues he is.
I don't suspect Bush of cynicism or duplicity because this really is a complex issue with real ramifications for our economy, as well as that of Mexico.
The lobbyists like Grover Norquist don't give a darn about Mexico. They just want the labotr to depress domestic wages.
Mexico will survive. There is no Communist International that will take over Mexico if laws are enforced. We are not their permanent solution.
It really isn't low wages, that's a myth I spoke with an employer today that hires illegals and he said he pays them good wages cash, the benefit is in not paying taxes.
So what is the true reason for allowing 20 million invaders to break in and stay?
the pubbies have a problem. their choices like those of the people on flight 73 are between certain death and near certain death.
If they allow the illegals citizenship--the illegal/legals will do what they did after 1986: vote democratic and tip the country to a democratic majority as they have done in california and that because after 1993 in California many mexicans began voting in california to preserve gov bennies--for which the dems excel. There won't be social security benefit for Americans of retirement age from the illegals/legals because they will suck up what ever they put into the economy--as they are now. They won't yield a net gain. ie they won't pay for anyone's social security.
Everyone but everyone who has ever been to any government building that dispenses anything from health care to drivers lisences can't help but notice that the place is swamped with foreigners. Basically the welfare state system set up in the 1960's is being totally gamed by foreigners.
What the president looks like he is about to do will demoralize the republicans bringing on the effects of the 1992 & 1996 elections. There may not even be a third party but when W builds in a reversal of the fortunes of the war of 1848--it creates a kind of passivity in people when they see their leaders commit them to the status of world historical losers.
If Bush decides to put up a wall and expel the illegals then there is a chance to preserve Republican majorities. It would be helpful to promise that the USA will kill the cost of water desalination and transport so as to make it economically possible to turn the deserts 1000 miles from any desert seacoast -- green. (this would increase the habitable size of the USA by a third and double the habitable size of Mexico.)This work is already ongoing and will be accomplished in five years or so--or in about the same time frame that GM promises to have a cost effective fuel cell car. For GM as it is for the GOP its do or die time.
imho its a mistake for the bush's to put worries about fox ahead of worries about the USA. In any case if the USA returned the illegals to Mexico it would be a great boon to their economy because they would suddenly get an influx of skilled labor that they didn't have before (albeit mixed with troublemakers) and a people who would have a good picture of what a successful country looks like and demand the same for their own. Perhaps they would even demand good government.
Who cares if it works? We need at least 100 million more immigrants next year. Pass out citizenship to everyone in the world and invite them all to move here right now.
I believe the right middle ground is represented in this article. Guest workers, yes, but amnesty? Hell, no.
It is also represented in the viewpoint of Senator Cornyn and the Cornyn-Kyl proposals.
|
CACIQUE'S RECOMENDED READING LIST
|
So if we stay at home in November, the RINOs get re-elected...to a Democrat-controlled Congress...and the Conservatives are out.
Now, the reason that sends a signal to be a Conservative Congressman is...uh...
I don't specifically know about Grover Norquist's view on cheap immigrant labor...
but I do get the feeling he is part of a fifth column other than the
Mexican one:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/readarticle.asp?ID=11209&p=1
and
http://www.sperryfiles.com/media.shtml
(scroll about 2/3 down the page for "Is Grover Norquist An Islamist?")
We should begin now demanding their opinions on amnesty, and enforcement and let them know that will be on the top of the List in November.
BTW, I'm sorry but I cannot vote for a RINO, ever.
The Democrats thank you.
And before you say that has nothing to do with anything, start counting down the days to "Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Kennedy."
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.
