Article

2004-01-07 Home Front

Bush Calls for Overhaul of U.S. Immigration System

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by CrazyFool 2004-01-07 7:05:07 PM|| || Front Page|| [13 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 I am at odds with this proposal because on one hand we have done nothing to stop Illegals from coming here and once they get here they take jobs that no one else wants. But what will happen once they get legal status? Will even more illegals stream accross the borders? Can we realistically stop them from coming? And if they kick them all out who will cook and clean for the hollywoood elitists?

Posted by Cyber Sarge (VRWC CA Chapter) 2004-1-7 7:19:53 PM|| 2004-1-7 7:19:53 PM|| Front Page Top

#2 Yep - this does nothing to address STOPPING illegal immigration. However, if La Raza is PO'd over this, I can't help but think that this is a good first step. This is part of the puzzle but not the whole solution....and California is still left holding the bag with no Fed funding to back up our border efforts here.

Posted by Rex Mundi 2004-1-7 7:29:59 PM|| 2004-1-7 7:29:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 I'm not sure this is necessarily all that people think it is. If you read the speech itself, it sounds like he's using this proposal to (1) make illegal immigrants much more expensive to employ, (2) toughen up penalties on employers, (3) tighten up borders and (4) increase governmental scrutiny of people who enter this country. He's calling it a way of welcoming more immigrants into this country - but the fact is that tightening up the borders and monitoring the movements of foreigners is going to do exactly the opposite.

As with the amnesty in the mid-80's, illegals are going to gain legal status. But I suspect that this is the price Bush will have to pay in order to make any substantive moves to tighten up immigration controls. Illegals who stand to get green cards aren't stupid - they'll benefit from immigration restrictions, too - and they'll remember both issues at the polls when they get naturalized years from now. The message will be that the Republican Party can be their political home - tough on crime, encouraging of productive, law-abiding immigrants (apart from their coming over illegally).

Around the turn of the 19th century, about 18 million Americans out of a population of 76 million were foreign born. That's about 23%. Today's percentage is about 14-15%. I think these people are ultimately assimilable, given the lack of racism today, compared to the prejudice that was very apparent during the 1900's against Poles, Italians, Jews, etc. The immigrants of that era weren't regarded as benign either. The eugenics movement sprang from the idea that Southern and Eastern Europeans were somehow inferior and unassimilable into American society. And in truth, there were some serious problems with anarchists who decided to transfer their struggle against European governments to the US, where they conducted bombing campaigns, including one on Wall Street that killed dozens. A goodly number of the members of the American Communist Party were the offspring of these immigrants. But today, all have assimilated into the American mainstream. And if legalization is the price we have to pay for effective (not to say draconian) border controls, so be it.

As with the 1980's amnesty, this amnesty will apply only to people who have been in the country for some number of years (I believe it was over 10 years back then). This means that not all illegals will qualify. In any case, it's time that both immigration and immigration controls became a non-partisan issue. New immigrants do (or should) understand the connection between immigration controls and their standard of living. They are known to complain of lax border controls simply because wage competition gets too intense.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-1-7 7:40:34 PM|| 2004-1-7 7:40:34 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 I think that this is one shoe falling. The other shoe falling (i.e. real efforts to stop ILLEGAL immigration) will probably be after his meeting with Fox.

At least I hope so.

Dimocrat reactions on CNN

Posted by CrazyFool 2004-1-7 7:48:58 PM|| 2004-1-7 7:48:58 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 Yes, sounds like a good idea IF the INS gets off its ass and enforces the laws a long, long time on the books! But what's with the attitude of blaming the illegal immigrants? If greedy farmers/landscapers, etc didn't ignore immigration laws like they have the past 30 years--there would be no illegal immigrants--because they couldn't work here! DUH! I'm just glad I don't live in the Southwest--the government's inaction--under both Dems and GOP has forever altered that part of our country

Posted by NotMike Moore 2004-1-7 9:11:46 PM|| 2004-1-7 9:11:46 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 NMM: If greedy farmers/landscapers, etc didn't ignore immigration laws like they have the past 30 years--there would be no illegal immigrants--because they couldn't work here!

It's got nothing to do with greed. It's basic economics at work. If your competitor hires illegal foreign help, you had better be prepared to do the same - the alternative is to lose your farm because you can't match his prices.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-1-7 9:23:21 PM|| 2004-1-7 9:23:21 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 I think these people are ultimately assimilable, given the lack of racism today, compared to the prejudice that was very apparent during the 1900's against Poles, Italians, Jews, etc.

Only if efforts are made to that end. But, witnessing all this constant gushing over "diversity", seeing billboards in major CA cities in Spanish, bilingual education, providing a choice of ATM language in Spanish, "sensitivity training" (of a cultural sort), etc, isn't any indication that things are headed that way.

If your competitor hires illegal foreign help, you had better be prepared to do the same - the alternative is to lose your farm because you can't match his prices.

Or the government agency tasked with enforcing the law actually does so, leveling the playing field. After all, illegal foreign help is, well, illegal, isn't it?

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2004-1-7 11:29:40 PM|| 2004-1-7 11:29:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 Or the government agency tasked with enforcing the law actually does so, leveling the playing field. After all, illegal foreign help is, well, illegal, isn't it?

The beauty of GWB's proposal? Economics will take care of it - benefits for illegals (raising the cost of hiring them) and sanctions on employers for breaking benefits laws (punishing employers) will take a huge bite out of employer demand for this labor. Instead of la migra jumping some some poor (in the liberal mind) ~~illegal alien~~ immigrant, the focus will be on law-breaking employers. From a PR standpoint, it's pure genius. Note that the Feds are getting all over Walmart's case - I don't think that was a coincidence - these are criminal, not civil proceedings.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-1-7 11:38:01 PM|| 2004-1-7 11:38:01 PM|| Front Page Top

04:31 Scott
04:19 chinditz
04:17 chinditz
23:53 Bomb-a-rama
23:38 Zhang Fei
23:29 Bomb-a-rama
23:17 tu3031
23:11 CrazyFool
22:49 tu3031
22:49 NotMike Moore
22:47 Ron in Colorado
22:44 TS
22:44 Fred
22:33 4thInfVet
22:32 Attaboid
22:29 Fred
22:28 tu3031
22:25 tu3031
22:21 Zhang Fei
22:19 Vis
22:18 tu3031
22:14 Old Patriot
22:11 tu3031
22:11 Raj