Posted on 07/14/2006 5:15:41 AM PDT by PDR
In his 1989 farewell address, President Reagan described America as a “shining city upon the hill,” quoting the Pilgrim John Winthrop, an early “freedom man.” In this vision Winthrop saw a “tall, proud city – teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace – with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors, and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here.”
With the passage of an immigration bill before this fall's elections seen as a political priority, Congress should remember Reagan's idea of America as a beacon to those yearning for freedom, peace and prosperity. None can exist without the others. Only a law true to these Republican principles will provide a solution to immigration reform.
There are two camps in immigration reform; the enforcement camp, which worries that illegal immigration threatens the peace of the nation and its laws, and the guest-worker camp, who worry that without these immigrants our prosperity will be at risk. But in reality, the goals of the two camps are complementary, not contradictory: With a legal path to work comes secure borders, and with secure borders comes economic prosperity.
To protect America from terrorism, drug trafficking and lawlessness, those in favor of an enforcement-only approach propose massive increases in funding for border control to stop the flow of illegal aliens across the U.S.-Mexico border. It is imperative, they argue, to regain control of the border, and with good reason. In 2005, Customs and Border Patrol stopped 1,189,114 people from illegally crossing the border, including more tha n 200 from Middle Eastern countries such as Iran, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia.
But few border crossers are terrorists or criminals. They are men and women taking enormous risks in order to find work or to be with their families. These workers are essential to our society. It is estimated that each job that these workers fill has a ripple effect and supports three and a half other jobs elsewhere in the economy. Any effort to limit their numbers below what businesses need would harm the economy. Legislation that brings these two warring factions together is the only way a bill reaches the president's desk.
One such proposal is the Border Integrity and Immigration Reform Act, drafted by Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind. Pence's bill has something to offer both sides – an approach that eases border security concerns by giving law-abiding job seekers a legitimate path to the American workplace, and a guest-worker program that accepts that these workers are necessary and helpful to the economy. And it goes one step further by allowing the free market to shape the guest-worker program businesses need and privatizes the issuance of work permits in the process, easing the burden on taxpayers.
Instead of government quotas, for the first three years businesses would hire as many guest workers as needed after first showing that they could not find enough American workers for the job. Rather than expanding the federal immigration bureaucracy that has failed to secure our borders, private companies would match willing workers with available jobs, improving efficiency and decreasing costs. This way, those seeking legitimate work would pay for their own visa processing, rather than burdening the taxpayers.
With the Pence plan, workers would remain in their own country until they qualified for a visa. After clearing a background check, guest workers would receive an identification card with critical information such as where they are employed, as well as biometric information such as a fingerprint. When hiring, businesses would merely swipe this card to see if an individual is in the database and is approved to work. By implementing this system, there would be far fewer incentives to hire illegal workers and even fewer incentives for workers to cross the border illegally.
This is not an amnesty bill. The guest-worker program is completely separate from the naturalization process. The more efficient, private-sector job-matching process would keep foreign workers from getting impatient and crossing the border in search of a better life before being granted their visas. It also avoids an ineffectual buildup of border agents – as occurred between 1993 and 2000, when the number of agents more than doubled while the number of illegal immigrants in the country increased by 4.5 million people.
Polling done by FreedomWorks has found that this approach is more widely accepted than either the pro-amnesty or enforcement-only options. It brings together Republican voters, garnering higher approval numbers than either border security or guest-worker proposals do alone. Most important, it would allow us to remain true to President Reagan's vision of America as a “city upon on a hill,” shining with freedom.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Armey, a former House majority leader, is chairman of FreedomWorks (www.freedomworks.com), a grass-roots organization that advocates for less government, lower taxes and more freedom.
PING
Posted by texastoo to Mr. Silverback; Reagan Man
On News/Activism 07/13/2006 9:06:16 AM PDT · 76 of 219
Here is another article on the Pence plan.
The Pence immigration plan has let conservatives down.
By Congressman Steve King
Shoeless Joe Jackson was a phenomenal baseball player caught up in the Black Sox Scandal in which some team members conspired to throw the 1919 World Series. A young fan watched his hero Shoeless Joe leave the courthouse and gave us the immortal line “Say it ain’t so, Joe.” I had much the same feeling when conservative and principled Congressman Mike Pence emerged from the Heritage Foundation after his speech outlining his “rational middle ground” immigration proposal. “Say it ain’t so, Mike.” Say it ain’t so that you have played into the hands of the Bush-Kennedy-McCain amnesty coalition.
I first want to be clear about one thing: Congressman Pence is a friend of mine, of whom I think so much that I have said, with deference to his committed Protestantism, that the only position for which I would not support him is pope. I believe Mike’s motives are pure. It is his policy and his timing I oppose. Our national character and destiny would be irrevocably altered by either the Senate version or the Pence proposal on immigration; its implications would be greater even than those of the War on Terror.
President Bush has aggressively promoted, without numerical limits, amnesty by any other name, and his support for the Senate bill amounts to support for a guarantee of citizenship to law breakers. Over the course of five-and-a-half years, the administration has quietly (and, I believe, intentionally) failed to enforce our existing immigration laws. An employer who willfully hired illegals was 19 times more likely to be sanctioned under Bill Clinton than George Bush. Illegal border crossings have increased under Bush, and the value of illegal drug trade across our southern border has risen to a whopping $65 billion dollars in 2005, dwarfing that of oil, Mexico’s largest legitimate industry of $28 billion, and more than tripling the $20 billion Mexicans working in the U.S. sent to their families in Mexico last year. Congress cannot force a president to enforce the law. Consequently, over the past 20 years, and especially during this administration, we have seen the flow of illegal immigration grow from a stream to a river to a flood. This deluge now threatens to sink what has become “Lifeboat America.”
In response to national outrage over illegal immigration, the House passed tough, common-sense enforcement provisions. The Senate watered down enforcement and added colossal amnesty provisions to legalize and grant a path to citizenship to more people than the grand total of all legal immigrants to the United States in all of our nation’s history. All these estimates are based upon the presumption of effective enforcement, in spite of the failure of the Bush administration to enforce our immigration laws thus far.
Many Republicans aren’t happy at all with the president’s plans, and so we had the makings of a fight. The opponents stepped up into the ring: in one corner, with a big, bright, scarlet letter “A” branded on their robes, were the amnesty mercenaries of the Senate, representing 42 percent of Republicans and 91 percent of Democrats; in the opposite corner, supported by the rule of law, were the patriotic passengers and crew of Lifeboat America, representing 88 percent of House Republicans and 18 percent of House Democrats. Then into the middle walked Congressman Pence to present his “no amnesty” (not right away, at least) “real rational middle ground” speech, in an effort to broker the peace and call off the battle royal. Pence injected into the debate the wrong kind of proposal at the worst possible time.
He teases conservatives with a “free market approach” that sets up private companies as “Ellis Island Centers” in foreign countries, where applications from aliens for temporary work cards to work legally in the U.S. can be processed. The bill requires all illegals who seek legalization to self-deport back to their home countries for papers, in an effort to avoid the strong objections to amnesty. There would be no limits (even the Bush-Kennedy-McCain Senate bill has limits) set on the number of “guest workers” during the first three years, so that the market could establish the demand for cheap labor. The open-border lobby calls it “labor market equilibrium.” The Pence plan says that “a reasonable limit...will be determined by the Department of Labor.” The plan would cede congressional constitutional authority over immigration to a presidential appointee who could expand the number of immigrants by millions. The power to transform America irrevocably would be granted to a bureaucrat to be named later by a president to be elected later. How many voting, legalized immigrants does Pence think would be too many for a President Hillary?
The Pence plan is a siren song, even more dangerous than the Senate bill, because it threatens to lure Lifeboat America onto the rocks to be sunk in the hazardous Sea of Presumption. No matter how promising the placid waters look, how enchanting the melody of enforcement sounds, or how luring the lyrics for legalizing cheap labor may seem, the result will be tens of millions of aliens pouring across our borders, both newly legalized and illegal. Without the will to deport, there exists no deterrent to stop them from coming. In fact, the Pence plan will add power to the jobs magnet, attracting more aliens.
The Pence plan has other major flaws. “Ellis Island Centers” would operate predominately in Mexico, earning a commission to process employees for American companies. Employers of illegals will offer a premium to centers to circumvent the law by legalizing their current employees without requiring them to return to their home countries. If this effort fails, employers will then require “Ellis Island Center” companies to pre-clear employees before sending them back home for a day. Free markets do not pay for bad or no results. That is why the government does background checks, not the hirelings of law breakers. The result would be chartered buses, loaded with illegal employees, making round-trips to Juarez, Nogales, and Tijuana“”
It is a major flaw to presume that “Ellis Island Centers” could process background checks more efficiently than the government, for they would still have to rely on U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) databases. Also, the beneficiaries of the services would be only those pre-cleared for specific employers. No one will leave America without a guarantee of a job upon return. Illegals who work here will stay here. More illegals will come on the promise of amnesty, and the 12 to 20 million in our midst will become 70 to 90 million within a generation. The Pence plan grants six years to each guest worker. If Pence is not willing to deport those here illegally now, why would he be willing to pull them out by their roots after an additional six years? This is the veil over the path to citizenship. Under the Pence “no amnesty” plan, citizenship becomes the implied reward and delayed amnesty the inevitable result.
Odysseus escaped the powerful temptation of the siren song only because his sailors, out of respect and affection for their captain, tied him to the mast. He thrashed about and called on his crew to untie him, but they refused until they had sailed past the temptation. Mike, Lifeboat America’s passengers and crew have to strap you to the mast as we chart this course through the rocky waters of the immigration debate. It’s a narrow channel, in hazardous seas, through which Lifeboat America must resist many alluring temptations. Congressman Pence, America is going to need you for a long time as a leader in the Conservative Movement. Just say it ain’t so, Mike.
93 posted on 07/08/2006 9:10:32 PM PDT by Reagan Man (Conservatives don't support amnesty and conservatives don't vote for liberals!) [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
There is no middle ground. Illegal aliens should go home and apply like the rest of the PLANET. Walking across the border gives them no more rights than the millions who are waiting to LEGALLY enter America.
Bump in agreement to that.
IBTOBL.
why does it bother you so much. what do you care if they cut in front of a line that you will never have to stand in?
Thank God there are strong principled men like Rep. Steve King.
I could not agree more!
Maybe someone could ask Mr. Armey if he supports a middle ground for the beating of politicians?
Armey is a jerk.
Jobs Magnet (Or How Congress ensured illegal aliens keep coming)
November 2, 1997
The first real showdown over last year's immigration law came in September 1995 when the House Judiciary Committee approved pilot projects to test whether something as simple as a phone call to the federal government could sharply cut illegal immigration. Employers would make the toll-free call to verify the Social Security number of every new employee, making it harder for unauthorized workers to get jobs. It was a key to curbing the flow, supporters said. But later, behind closed doors, House Majority Leader Dick Armey gave other key House Republicans a warning.Immigration Rising on Bush's To-Do ListThe immigration bill would die, the Texas Republican said, unless it was endorsed by small business. And that wouldn't happen if even one employer was required to take part in an employment verification pilot project
A White House-backed coalition of business groups and immigrant advocates, to be called Americans for Border and Economic Security, will be led by former U.S. Reps. Cal Dooley (D-Hanford) and Dick Armey (R-Texas)."There's two voices right now, and the noisy one is what I call the slam-the-borders crowd," Armey said. "The voice we want to speak with — and the one that will be in unison with President Bush — is the voice that echoes those marvelous words on the Statue of Liberty."
"To me, the Tancredo wing appeals to the more prurient character of our nature," Armey added. "We want to talk to the better angels of our nature."
Perhaps you would like it better if we put them all in camps until we could deport them -- or should we just stad them up in a line and frog march them back across the border?
Because we are a nation of laws?
If all people are not subject to the same laws then you have protected classes.
This (and dozens of other things) will divide America and destroy it from the inside.
Many are already more equal then others. From politicians, the rich, and the famous
Then we have protection from laws because of color or culture or because you are poor and are just trying to improve life for you and yours.
Citizenship in the greatest country in the world is not to be taken so lightly. I could go on. That question might work in high school though.
yes to all
Afterall if a mans family is starving then it should be permissable to steal a loaf of bread to feed them. When you get down to the LCD thats what it amounts to.
Frum hits a home run on illegal aliens. The Pence plan is "shamnesty lite" with some provisions that are worse the Senate's version. Pathetic!
What a stupid question.
Why does it bother any of us that the corner store or bank is robbed or drug dealers are on the street selling drugs, after all they are only trying to better there lives to idiot.
Either/Or works for me. Build the Wall! Blackbird.
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.