Posted on 11/10/2004 12:51:19 PM PST by VU4G10
(Washington, DC—November 10, 2004) It wasn't quite "Read my lips," but in the last presidential debate in Arizona, George W. Bush clearly stated that he would not support amnesty for illegal aliens. One week after being narrowly returned to office, the president has reneged on that pledge. Bush has dispatched Secretary of State Colin Powell to Mexico City to open discussions with the Mexican government about the size and scope of amnesty for illegal immigrants and for a massive new guest worker program.
"President Bush and Karl Rove have seemingly missed the message of their own, and the Republican Party's, success at the polls last week," said Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). "In spite of a poor record on jobs, further erosion of the middle class, and staggering budget deficits, the people returned the GOP to office because they believed that the Republican Party was more in tune with them on values and respect for the law. One of those gut issues that led voters to ignore the administration's poor record in other areas was the belief that Bush and the Republicans would enforce laws against illegal immigration, not reward illegal immigrants and auction off every job in America to the lowest bidder."
The immigration plan being dusted off in Washington and Mexico City is essentially the same one the administration introduced last January, which proved to be so wildly unpopular among voters that they were forced to shelve it. "Who is the president seeking to reward by reintroducing his amnesty/guest worker proposal?" asked Stein. "Not middle class workers who made it very clear that they are feeling squeezed. Not the millions of families who have lost their health insurance benefits because their employers no longer feel that it is necessary to offer such benefits to attract American workers. Not Hispanic voters, whom polls indicate do not consider this to be high priority and who voted in significant numbers in favor of an Arizona ballot measure that bars illegal aliens from receiving most public benefits.
"The only interest group, besides the estimated 10 to 12 million illegal aliens and their families who could be in line for legal U.S. residency, are cheap labor employers who have come to believe that it is their right to have workers who will work at whatever wages they wish to pay," Stein said.
The latest White House announcement will touch off yet another surge in illegal immigration and further compromise homeland security, predicted FAIR. Last January, when the president first proposed this plan, the U.S. Border Patrol reported a marked increase in the number of people attempting to enter the U.S. illegally in order to benefit from the proposed amnesty. "Aside from betraying the interests of millions of people who voted for him because they believed the president shared their core values, this irresponsible renewal of talk of amnesty will betray those who voted for him because they believed the Republicans were the party that could be entrusted to protect homeland security. You cannot have homeland security and chaos at the border. You cannot have homeland security while granting amnesty to millions of people with only minimal background checks. And you certainly cannot have amnesty and unlimited guest workers, and preserve a solid middle class," asserted Stein.
Send me your email address and I'll get back to you the SECOND that worries me.
And that is fine, as long as it doesn't include an amnesty or any sort of reward for the lawbreakers.
You are familiar with how this works, aren't you? He says something and then other representatives say something and then they put a bill forth after they ALL discuss it.
Yes, and I believe that the public has something to say about it to. We help mold their opinions based upon the way we react to the proposal. Our representatives are representing US not the cheap labor special interests or the hispanic-pandering RNC.
Then would it be too much to ask that we wait to see what he actually DOES, rather than what the MSM says he's going to do?
What he DOES will be largely based upon the way Americans react to his trial balloons.
LOL! No it didn't. Read it.
It doesn't seem to bother them one whit that that is against the Constitution of the United States, does it? All the while they are demanding that Bush enforce the laws. DUH, huh?
Me too. However, your position would be somewhat different if you were down here on the front lines of this battle.
We shouldn't enforce any laws that Bush doesn't like..
This program will offer legal status, as temporary workers, to the millions of undocumented men and women now employed in the United States... Undocumented workers now here will be required to pay a one-time fee to register for the temporary worker program....All participants will be issued a temporary worker card that will allow them to travel back and forth between their home and the United States without fear of being denied re-entry into our country... Some temporary workers will make the decision to pursue American citizenship. Those who make this choice will be allowed to apply in the normal way.... The citizenship line, however, is too long, and our current limits on legal immigration are too low. My administration will work with the Congress to increase the annual number of green cards that can lead to citizenship.
Well, if you're saying that offering registration and a time period to become legal is "rewarding lawbreakers," what's your solution now? Round them up and send them back first?
SCHIEFFER: Let's go to a new question, Mr. President. I got more e-mail this week on this question than any other question. And it is about immigration.
I'm told that at least 8,000 people cross our borders illegally every day. Some people believe this is a security issue, as you know. Some believe it's an economic issue. Some see it as a human-rights issue.
How do you see it? And what we need to do about it?
BUSH: I see it as a serious problem. I see it as a security issue, I see it as an economic issue, and I see it as a human-rights issue.
We're increasing the border security of the United States. We've got 1,000 more Border Patrol agents on the southern border.
We're using new equipment. We're using unmanned vehicles to spot people coming across.
And we'll continue to do so over the next four years. It's a subject I'm very familiar with. After all, I was a border governor for a while.
Many people are coming to this country for economic reasons. They're coming here to work. If you can make 50 cents in the heart of Mexico, for example, or make $5 here in America, $5.15, you're going to come here if you're worth your salt, if you want to put food on the table for your families. And that's what's happening.
And so in order to take pressure off the borders, in order to make the borders more secure, I believe there ought to be a temporary worker card that allows a willing worker and a willing employer to mate up, so long as there's not an American willing to do that job, to join up in order to be able to fulfill the employers' needs.
That has the benefit of making sure our employers aren't breaking the law as they try to fill their workforce needs. It makes sure that the people coming across the border are humanely treated, that they're not kept in the shadows of our society, that they're able to go back and forth to see their families. See, the card, it'll have a period of time attached to it.
It also means it takes pressure off the border. If somebody is coming here to work with a card, it means they're not going to have to sneak across the border. It means our border patrol will be more likely to be able to focus on doing their job.
Now, it's very important for our citizens to also know that I don't believe we ought to have amnesty. I don't think we ought to reward illegal behavior. There are plenty of people standing in line to become a citizen. And we ought not to crowd these people ahead of them in line.
BUSH: If they want to become a citizen, they can stand in line, too.
And here is where my opponent and I differ. In September 2003, he supported amnesty for illegal aliens.
What makes you think Bush doesn't want that law enforced? And why are you just blaming him? What are YOUR representatives doing about it? What is YOUR local law enforcement doing about it?
Don't try to pretend this is all Bush's fault; many came before him.
Well if you're not going to round them up and deport them,
then what're you going to do with the information you get by registering them?
Send them campaign literature?
Sheeeeeesh, you know doggone well that they're still gonna vote for the 'Rats, anyway.
Round them up, ship them back and never allow them to reenter the country.
Colorado isn't that far away, Spiff. We have a long tradition of illegals working here.
It's not that I'm against the way you say things should be. I'm just more realistic.
I will do what I can to keep my legislators in line but a guest worker program seems better to me than the current situation. There is no way we are going to round anyone up and send them home.
LOL!
Send them drivers licenses?
You're going to know exactly where they are; just like we use to a long time ago. Then, when the grace period is over and if they're still here, they'll have to go back, too. No excuses.
Why are you lending any credibility to the hyperbole that we'd have to bring ALL troops home to guard the borders? We won't. I could introduce you to military types who know just how many troops it would take and what their roles would be.
And it is NOT against the Constitution. See Article IV, Section 4. It is actually the duty of the government to guard our borders. It makes NO distinction between guarding the borders with law enforcement or military. In fact, the wording is "repel invasion" which connotes using the military. No, it isn't a massed, armed invasion (before you counter with that) but the Constitution makes no such distinction. It is a mass invasion, organized, and yes some of the smugglers are armed and have used their weapons against citizens and Border Patrol Agents. Go look up the definition of the word invasion if you're unsure about this.
Bush has exacerbated the problem with his nonfeasance.
It would be interesting to find how much of the current illegal immigrant problem was due to Bill's terror of even touching the matter. His amnesty program, btw, did not affect only Mexicans, but was extended to all foreigners living here illegally - I read once that the largest single group benefitted were Irish illegals, who lived mainly in New York and New Jersey. Yet Irish illegals were not the big problem.
In the meantime, fear of discussing a guest worker program - because the unions don't like it - combined with his usual aversion to taking a stand on anything controversial except abortion, which he loved, meant that no permanent solution to this problem was ever sought.
So I think Bush does deserve a lot of credit for at least attempting to deal with it. Certainly there will be many changes in his plan before it becomes law, and people should try to contribute, but maybe they should wait and get reliable information on it first. It's not even going to come up until next year.
Third, we should not give unfair rewards to illegal immigrants in the citizenship process or disadvantage those who came here lawfully, or hope to do so.Some temporary workers will make the decision to pursue American citizenship. Those who make this choice will be allowed to apply in the normal way. They will not be given unfair advantage over people who have followed legal procedures from the start. I oppose amnesty, placing undocumented workers on the automatic path to citizenship. Granting amnesty encourages the violation of our laws, and perpetuates illegal immigration. America is a welcoming country, but citizenship must not be the automatic reward for violating the laws of America.
I don't understand your statement. Illegal aliens are entitled under the law, as set forth in Plyler, to receive a public education -- K-12. If you are saying that the statement is inaccurate because not only U.S. citizens are entitled to a free public education, you are slicing the distinction thinly. The difference is, of course, that the Feds and the states can offer/require access to public education to whomever they want. (Most states provide for education in their state Constitutions, and then regulate through statutes.)
It is far different to say that we have a policy, made legislatively, that permits lawful residents and guests to use Public Education than it is to say that those here illegally, are afforded the same right by judicial decree.
In the end, my point was -- not different from your own -- which is that illegal aliens are entitled to due process of law. That's it. That is the "equal protection" they should be afforded by virtue of being "subject to our jurisdiction." When the Court converts the right to due process, into the right to receive benefits reserved to those here lawfully, the Court has overstepped its bounds. IMHO
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.