 | ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
|
« Bredesen's Sweetheart Deal | Main | Peeking In Again » November 16, 2005Amnesty By Any Other NameBy Donna Locke This proposal comes on the heels of the recently passed Senate proposal to add 350,000 additional foreign workers each year to the U.S. labor force. Several guest-worker bills are in play in Congress, and President Bush has his own plan, vague as it may be. It would take more space than I have here to explain all these proposals, but they all mean one thing: amnesty. "Amnesty," as immigration reductionists use the term, means giving illegal aliens legal status. Legal status, no matter how "temporary," no matter how it's spun, is the road to permanent residency and eventual citizenship. The Tennessean published an op-ed column by me on Jan. 16, 2004, that addressed Bush's plans for a guest-worker amnesty last year. The column was headlined "Bush throws in the towel on enforcing immigration laws." If you can find this piece in the newspaper's archives, you'll be doing better than I. Here's an excerpt: ". . . The Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (the new INS) tells us it doesn't have the manpower and other resources to enforce our immigration laws, including finding hundreds of thousands of suspected terrorists already under deportation orders in this country. So I wonder how our government would perform background checks on and keep track of 8 million to 14 million illegal aliens [new estimates say 20 million to 30 million], as Bush proposes. "The idea insults the American people -- along with the fantasy that illegal aliens, most of whom have been here for years, will sign up and serve as temporary guest-workers, then return to their home countries. Bush's self-contradictory proposal would let these 'temporary' workers move their families here and would allow them all to get green cards and eventual citizenship. "Bush's plan does not remove the magnets to illegal immigration, but instead provides more . . ." Posted in Miscellaneous
Comments
One would think after the Paris riots no guest worker bill could get any traction. If we quit coddling our own underclass, we'd have our own citizens doing the hard work the Mexicans are doing. We also need to take a new look at the family reunification provisions in the immigration code. What's your take on the H1-B stuff? Posted by: Wintermute at November 16, 2005 4:55 PMWintermute, regarding H-1B visas, please read my Nov. 15 post on this blog titled "Take This Job and Sell It." Click on Archives at the top of this page and then click on November. Donna Locke While browsing tonight I turned on CSPAN to catch part of today's House immigration hearing. The OMB was testifying about the economics of immigration. You could tell he was given his marching orders from Bush. His testimony was full of pro immigration(legal and illegal) economic numbers. There was praise all around with one exception. One Congresscritter asked if the OMB had looked at the cost of illegal immigration regarding education, health care and crime. Not a surpising answer, no the OMB conveniently didn't study the negative costs of legal or illegal immigration. Get ready for Bush's amnesty proposal to pass easily. The hearings are being conducted for a whitewash. They could at least save the taxpayers a few million by cancelling the hearings and use that money to bail out bankrupt hospitals. If the Republicans balk at a chance to do what's right for the country then get ready for another Clinton in the presidency. What really blew me away was the overwhelming concern over low wage criminal aliens while ignoring the H1B visas responsible for lowering the median salaries of U.S. tech positions. Excuse me while I reach for the trash can. Posted by: Rick Forman at November 17, 2005 12:03 AMAnd one more thing I observed from the hearings. The Federalist Party(Rep. & Dems) whines that if all of the illegals were exported today the economy would tank because their would be no low wage workers for the small businesses and they would be forced to pay higher wages. So why aren't they just as concerned the economy will tank when Congress raises the minimum wage rate thus forcing business to pay higher wages? Hmm... Posted by: Rick Forman at November 17, 2005 12:17 AMPost a comment
Comments Policy: Your comment is subject to deletion if it is off-topic or includes foul language or personal attack. Readers, please email me if you find comments that include egregious violations of this policy. Comments may not post immediately - do not post twice!
|
|||||||||||
