The Washington Times reports President Bush said yesterday that he would not accept any bill from Congress that does not include a guest-worker program and provisions to grant citizenship to at least some of the 12 million illegal aliens already in the country:
"Part of my job is to lead, and I did last night," Mr. Bush said. "I said I want a comprehensive bill because I understand there needs to be a comprehensive bill in order to make -- in order for us to achieve the objective."
The President is joining the Senate in trying to roll over Republican House members, who with the assistance of 36 Democrats passed the Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act. That legislation is a hodgepodge of measures designed to regain control of the border and slow the flow of illegal immigrants across the border:
Makes illegal presence in the United States a crime, it is currently a civil offense.
Requires employers to verify the legal status of their workers. The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), made it unlawful for employers to knowingly hire or employ aliens not eligible to work and required employers to check the identity and work eligibility documents of all new employees. Under IRCA, if the documents provided by an employee reasonably appear on their face to be genuine, an employer has met its document review obligation. The easy availability of counterfeit documents has turned IRCA into a sham.
Ends the "catch and release" policy for non-Mexican illegal aliens.
Authorizes the building of a fence along the U.S.-Mexico border in parts of California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas.
Imposes tougher penalties for smuggling and re-entry.
Directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to take all actions necessary and appropriate to achieve and maintain operational control over the entire land and maritime border.
In this morning's issue of MSNBC's "First Read," reports on the rift between the President and those supporting enforcement first:
A GOP aide said the Guard proposal is like "the shiny piece of metal on the spinner lure," and that the President has "no credibility" on this issue with conservatives.
[. . .]
Back in October, Viq reminds us, 81 House conservatives wrote to Bush and insisted that any guest-worker program come after passage of a border enforcement bill. In the wake of the massive protests that have occurred in the interim, positions have only hardened on that score. The only way that a bill providing a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants can pass the House would appear to be without conservative support -- and with the help of Democrats, something that GOP leadership is loathe to do. Viq reminds us that Speaker Dennis Hastert has said in the past that as a matter of policy, the only way any bill passes the House is with "a majority of the majority."
Viq points out that there is precedent for rolling the conservative ranks and passing a bill with the help of Democrats -- in No Child Left Behind and, to a lesser degree, the Medicare prescription-drug benefit. But both happened back when Bush was doing much better in the polls and could effectively twist arms among Republicans. And Democrats, Viq points out, will be reluctant to hand Bush and Republicans any kind of victory six months before election day.
Viq is right about the reluctance of the Democrats. Remember who scuttled April's immigration reform compromise, and why.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 23
Yet, when the GOP--who controls all the levers of Government--fail to pass legislation CY likes---who does he blame? The Dems.
This akin to weighing 400 lbs. and blaming your obesity on that doughnut you ate last night.
The fact is the immigration issue is a red herring; it's not a serious problem. It's an issue that has largely been created by racist nativists in the rightwing.
And Bush is in a no-win position here because many of his die-hard constituents want that access to cheap and plentiful labor.
Today's GOP is split into two factions: you have the racists who get bent out of shape when they hear the stockboy in the Safeway speaking in Spanish because they fear the stocker might be talking about them. And you have the GOP business owner who likes the idea of plentiful and disposable workforce that is cheap and doesn't require benefits and won't complain about unsafe working conditions.
I have to disagree with you regarding the "red herring" comment. This is a serious issue that threatens our social infrastructure as well as our national security.
I do agree with you that it is not the Dems fault. It's not the Repub's fault. Everyone is to blame equally.
That same misguided argument has been made against every group of immigrants to the US--the Chinese, the Irish, etc.
As for national security, need I remind you each and every one of the 9/11 hijackers entered this country legally? The fact is, a group wishing to harm this nation isn't going to take the risk of smuggling an undocumented terrorist(s) into this country--it's a recipe for failure. IOW, you're not going to add more risk of exposure to what is already a highly risky venture.
And let's be honest; the vast majority of illegals come to this country for one purpose only: to work and try to make a better life for themselves and their families. In doing so, they pump far more money into the economy than they take out. Additionally, their low wages subsidize the low cost of things we take for granted such as low produce prices and low service industry costs.
This is a wholly fabricated issue because if rightwingers truly wanted to end illegal immigration they could do it easily. Merely crack down on those employers---IOW, draconian fines, prison sentences, etc---who demand and recruit illegals. It's not hard to do--I guarantee you or I could find illegal immigrant labor within 20 minutes if we wanted.
if you kill demand, supply will dry up.
Instead, the GOP has responded in typical fashion with symbolism and empty talk.
Second, you are right that the government should crack down on the employers who hire illegal aliens.
Third, this never ending flood of illegal immigration is a very important issue. It has severe impacts on our education and health care systems. In his 2004 article, "The Hispanic Challenge," Samuel P. Huntington warned the persistent inflow of Hispanic immigrants threatens to divide the United States into two peoples, two cultures, and two languages. Unlike past immigrant groups, Mexicans and other Latinos have not assimilated into mainstream U.S. culture, forming instead their own enclaves.
We need a comprehensive plan. That means, no benefits for those who are here illegally. No mass deportation either. Limited benefits. Employer sanctions, if applicable and feasible. Tighten the borders. Create a sound entry/exit tracking system. And use the programs already in place, such as the H-2A and H-2B visas, along with the H-4 visas, to allow those who wish to come here to work to do so without having to be exploited, robbed, beaten up, raped, and whatever else these individuals go through to get here. This is not just for us, this is also meant to protect the migrant as well. The current plan does nothing to protect anyone but the ultimate benefactors-the wealthy. I have the sites for the info I've provided, not sure if ur interested.
Soooo...I suppose you'll cite Ms Clift as being correct on all issues, CY?
Again, if you haven't heard, the GOP controls the WH, the House, the Senate, the USSC, and a large part of the media. And you blame the Dems for legislation not passing?
WRT Huntington, his The Hispanic Challenge is filled with misrepresentations and falsehoods. For instance, Huntington says Hispanics aren't learning English--that claim has been laid to rest by extensive studies which found that 95 percent of the second -generation children speak English well and that 40 percent speak no Spanish. Surprisingly, this is a higher rate than the children of second-generation limmigrants from non-Hispanic countries.
Further, Huntington mischaracterizes bi-lingual educational programs as "cultural maintenance programs" aimed at enabling students to function without learning English. In fact, 99 percent of bilingual education programs are transitional. A good metric is to see how many Hispanic kids are classed Limited English Proficiency (LEP). The figure was 30% at its peak and is under 8% today. This means the bi=lingual p[rograms are transitioning kids to English very successfully.
There are a number of other problems with Huntington on this subject--he engages in a little subtle racism when he suggests Hispabic culture is too immersed in the "manana syndrome" and suggests Hispanics just aren't really good workers or parental role models.
but the argument that illegals pump far much more money into the economy is a hard one for me to swallow.
Swallow away.
Rand Corp:
Even Snopes gets into it
I'm not sure I follow your logic. Legal immigrants pay taxes. Do illegal immigrants pay taxes? In addition, California is a perfect example of how illegal immigration wil eventually put a strain on social services. California happens to be probably state with the most densly populated illegal immigrant population. And they are in a financial bind.
There is a big difference between legal and illegal immigrants. Is a distincton being made in your cite?
Also, the second generation of immigrant populations always does better than the first generation. That's not being denied. The concern, once again, is illegal immigration, not legal immigration.
I'm also unsure as to how driving wages down is beneficial to U.S. workers. If you look at the consumer price index, prices continue to go up in many secots of society-housing, insurance, gas, utilities, etc. So how can maintaining a low wage be beneficial? Granted, maybe it keeps the cost of produce down, but that may be the only benefit. If you look closely, we are getting to a point economically where the level of inflation is slowly outgrowing the rate of wage increases. In other words, it is getting more and more difficult to get by on what we currently earn.
This is not a racist issue. At leat not in my opinion. I think the media and alot of other groups paint this as a "Mexican/Latino" issue. It, in no way, is. Immigrants come to this country, legally and illegally, fro every corner of the globe. A wall or fence is not the answer. True comprehensive reform to control those entering and exiting the country is. That's my stance.
PS: I noticed you had no comment on the National Security issue. Did the point make sense? It has happened before as a result of our current policies, and it could happen again.
I do concur that the vast majority of illegal immigrants have one purpose-to make a better future for themselves and their families. And I agree that the government calls this an "issue" and claims it will resolve this "great problem", and basically uses it as a sm,oke screen to avoid other issues and give the appearance that they're doing something...but I still believe that for the current U.S population, if this issue is not addressed, our national security AND financial future will suffer greatly. Just my 2 cents..
And, yes, this is largely a racist issue in that many are using the same hackneyed arguments used against the Irish, Chinese, and other groups.
WRT national security, I didn't address it because it's a non-issue.
Sales tax? Ok, I can but that to an extent.
How can National Security not be an issue? Did you not read the Congressional testimony regarding the Brooklyn subway bomber who crossed the Canadian border THREE times without inspection and was caught in Brooklyn after making it the fourth time? Am I missing something? Or is this incident just something that should be ignored? I understand this is something that doesn't occur often, at least that we know of. But if it does, and they kill your neighbor, your friend, your family member, or God forbid, you, would it be an issue then? If one has entered, can't others do the same? I just can't believe you think this cannot happen. It already has!
Also, illegals who file 1040s...give me some solid statistics on this. I'm sure some do, but I'm sure many do not. Of those that do, how many fall above the mimimum income requirements to actually pay taxes as opposed to receiving an EIC?
I guess I can see your point in part of this being a racist issue. I understand your point about the same arguments being raised during the periods of Irish, Chinese, Eastern and Southern European immigration. However, besides the media hype, and the government's concentration on the Southern Border as opposed to the greater issue, the whole of immigraiton encompasses the world. At least this is my view. If I look at it from the media and governement perspective, I can surely see your point. But haven't many Latinos also taken it upon themselves to speak for the entire immigrant populaiton? I know many Asian, African, and European immigrants who are a bit taken aback by all of this. I myself, the son of Italian immigrants, am abit taken aback. Latinos don't speak for all immigrants, just as the U.S.G doesn't really speak for all Americans.
I certainly enjoy our debates. Your responses are very thought provoking and intelligent. Just wanted to say thanks for educatiing me on some issues. Much oblidged!
If you feel illegal immigrants are good for our economy then instead of letting in 12 million how about we let in 24 million? Maybe 50 million? When is enough, enough?
That's a common misconception. Employers who do this run a large risk of being discovered and they put themselves and their businesses at risk. Instead, what most employers do is knowingly hire illegals and ask for SSNs; the illegal will then provide a phony SSN. This covers the employer in the event his hiring practices are questioned.
Illegal Immigrants are Paying a Lot More Taxes Than You Think
Also, illegals who file 1040s...give me some solid statistics on this.
Illegals and 1040s
Remember, by and large, illegal immigrants are taking jobs at the lower end of the spectrum and would not necessarily be subject to federal taxes.
How can National Security not be an issue?
I'll refer to my earlier comment. A terrorist mission would have to be well-planned. Why would a terrorist group introduce more risk into what is already fraught with great risk? Remember these folks were caught because they were illegals.
MB: Surely you understand what a logical fallacy is, right? This particular one is called 'reductio ad absurdum.'
IOW, if eating 1500 calories a day is healthful--then eating 15000 calories a day must be extra healthful.
But let's address your logical fallacy.
The reason why there may be 12M illegal immigrants in this country is because the economy supports and demands it. Supply is a function of demand. When demand diminishes, so will supply.
Illegals and 1040s-7.4 million out of an estimated 12 million. We all know it's probably more than 12 million. In addition, as you stated, many of the illegals occupy low wage positions. So, how much of the taxes they pay are actually returned to them? In other words, how much of their payroll taxes are actually kept by the government?
How can national security not be an issue?
Yes, a terrorist mission may be well planned. Just as the Brooklyn subway plan was well planned. And yes, these individuals were caughted and were able to be taken off of the streets immediately as a result of their immigraiton status. But they they were not caught BECAUSE they were illegal. The INS was not looking for them. The FBI opened and investigation as a result of anonymous tips...In addition...What is more risky-entering into Canada or Mexico, where visitors are much less scrutinized, and then walking across an admittedly poorly guarded border? Or taking the risk that, as a result of heightened security and the use of biometric identifiers, attempting to use a stolen passport or your own passport to obtain a visa and then enter the U.S. directly? I don't know, sounds to me that either can be done. I mean, come on. These individuals are well trained in military tactics. They can easily sneak across, as more that 12 million people already have, and disappear into the crowd. IT HAS BEEN DONE BEFORE. IT'S HAPPENING NOW. IT IS A MAJOR PROBLEM.
National security: Again, I'm unconvinced. Put yourself in the position of terrorist mastermind. Your task is to infiltrate your people into the US, covertly, and have them execute some nefarious plan. Your plan hinges upon your people not attracting the scrutiny of law enforcement. Having undocumented people increases your risk. It invites exposure. It makes it exponentially more difficult to procure items you might need as part of your plan such as a car or air travel or lodging, etc. Further, being undocumented guarantees the plan goes kaput should a chance encounter with police occur.
www.house.gov/garymiller/IllegalsCost2005.html
www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/14/politics/main549153.shtml
http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_immigrationissuecentersf134
Granted, a cite can be found to support either side of this issue. However, even by the IRS's acconts, there is no way of really tracking how many illegal immigrants are actually filing 1040s. How can this be tracked? And how can either side realy come to a solid conclusion regarding any hard and fast numbers? Impossible. What I do know is that, as per one of your cites, many hospitals and health care facilities along the border and in high immigrant areas are closing as a result of being under funded. Is this a result of misappropriation of tax dollars? Possibly. So, how do we resolve this issue?
National Security. Your argument doesn't resinate with me. I can enumerate countless examples of undocumented immigrants having encounters with the police, and nothing happens to them. (I can cite a personal example where an undocumented immigrant caused $5000 worth of damage to my vehicle, took off from the scene, later flipped his truck because he was drunk, and not only was he not charged with DUI, but he will probably get away with the hit and run because he claims his friend, who he only knows as "Jose", was driving at the time of the hit and run. He doesn't know Jose's last name or where he lives, jsut that they were drunk and that he has no legal status here, just as this individual has no legal status. Was ICE called? Yes. Did they do anything? No.) So, the plan would not necessarily go "kaput" in the event a terrorist has a chance encounter with law enforcement.
Attracting scrutiny of law enforcement: Immigration officials at our borders are overly aware of the terrorist threat. They scrutinize, to a fault, each and every individual arriving to the U.S. from what DHS deems "special interest countries". So, the scrutiny, in my view, is more accute if entering via a port of entry. In addition,if detection was such an issue and terrorist are so concerned with their legal status here in order to avoid detection, why did some of the 9/11 hijackers allow their immigraiton status to expire?
http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/10/11/inv.ins.hijackers/
Just a few news stories regarding how terrorists and extremist utililze every manner of entry into the U.S., including entry without inspection. Still not convinced?
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47914
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47589
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47401
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=61439
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/trail/etc/fake.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,52628,00.html
http://www.manews.org/0204muslimsuse.html
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=4441
http://kvoa.com/Global/story.asp?S=2172749&nav=HMO6Prr3
Or Congressional Reports?
http://hsc-democrats.house.gov/NR/rdonlyres/16F81E76-6C5F-42CD-AEF2-BAC92BC06747/0/border.pdf#search='terrorist%20apprehended%20crossing%20border'