Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Hap on May 16, 2006, 08:21:40 AM
-
Last night, Moday, May 15th, President Bush addressed the nation. Here's a link to his address. It was too long to paste, but it is not a long read.
http://www.gop.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=6322
What say you?
hap
http://www.washingtonpost.com/
http://www.nytimes.com/
http://www.chicagotribune.com/
-
very good ...
"Third, we need to hold employers to account for the workers they hire. It is against the law to hire someone who is in this country illegally. Yet businesses often cannot verify the legal status of their employees because of the widespread problem of document fraud. Therefore, comprehensive immigration reform must include a better system for verifying documents and work eligibility. A key part of that system should be a new identification card for every legal foreign worker. This card should use biometric technology, such as digital fingerprints, to make it tamper-proof. A tamper-proof card would help us enforce the law, and leave employers with no excuse for violating it. And by making it harder for illegal immigrants to find work in our country, we would discourage people from crossing the border illegally in the first place."
This is pretty much the republican stance that has been put together over the last few weeks/months...
I would go after the employers more agresssively but at least he realizes that so long as the lure is here.....
I also think that such a strong and reasonable message forces the democrats to babble... they have no solutions as usual and it will show. The best they will be able to do is modify the order or numbers to Bush's plan...
This is one of the reasons why Bush was such a good choice for pres... no matter if you like him or not... in your heart you know that he is on board with what he is saying and... that no matter what the polls say... he is gonna do it.
lazs
-
lazs, i'm for cards or whatever that cheat-proof for 90% of us. i wouldn't beef if i were told to obtain one.
i was dissapointed with the democratic response though with some i agree.
http://www.democrats.org/a/2006/05/governor_dean_r_1.php
politically, i'm sorta a hybrid, a conglomeration of republican, democrat, independent. i find public life interesting. as i see it, the life of the polis (politics) is mainly about culture, and at the heart of culture is morality, and at the heart of morality is religion.
have you read "where the right went wrong" by pat buchanan? i can't think of a single person (despite their politics or lack thereof) whose posts on politics i've read over time here who would not find buchanan's short book facinating and have trouble putting it down. folks may not agree with everything. i don't know that i do. but it's so substantive that it begs to be re-read too.
just a thought if you like to read.
hap
-
I thought it was pretty good. Not perfect, but good.
What was really disappointing was the "democrat response". Like it was some state of the union address... They're totally politicizing it. The crackhead dem that came on to "respond" to the president's proposals pretty much accused the president of wanting to jail anyone who aids any illegal immigrant, including hospital personnel. What a load of BS. The dems totally stepped over the line there in my opinion. It's worse scaremongering than when they accuse other politicians of trying to steal medication from old people. It was totally uncalled for.
The president didn't take a SINGLE political shot during his speech, didn't accuse anyone of anything, didn't do anything at all but make his proposal. And in the response we've come to expect from the completely useless congress, the dems couldn't come up with anying but lies and scaremongering attacks.
WTG bush, shame on you dems.
-
the dems have clearly lost touch with reality, it was painfully evident from the responses to dubya's speech. on a postive note for the dems aging canadian rock icon neil young has released a new song called (IIRC) "looking for a leader" or words to that effect, which should affirm to the dems that they are indeed on the right path. thank you mr young for your new tune and I will remind you of the advise ronnie van zant gave you 30 odd years ago concerning your opinion regarding our United States.
-
The part I found most interesting, and unfortunately the least "spelled out", was point #5 . . .
Fifth, we must honor the great American tradition of the melting pot, which has made us one nation out of many peoples. The success of our country depends upon helping newcomers assimilate into our society, and embrace our common identity as Americans. Americans are bound together by our shared ideals, an appreciation of our history, respect for the flag we fly, and an ability to speak and write the English language. English is also the key to unlocking the opportunity of America. English allows newcomers to go from picking crops to opening a grocery, from cleaning offices to running offices, from a life of low-paying jobs to a diploma, a career, and a home of their own. When immigrants assimilate and advance in our society, they realize their dreams, they renew our spirit, and they add to the unity of America.
Does this mean he is in favor of making English the official language of the country? Or am I reading too much into it?
-
uh .. if English isn't already the offical language, what is? ebonics?
the speech was fine - as usual the content was better than the delivery but actions speak louder than words
-
The US has no official language. So, several states have been able to make laws requiring all state documents be available in Spanish, for example.
-
See Rule #5, #2
-
What follows is a response to the President's address last night. The article appeared in the Chicago Tribune and does not appear to have been written by a liberal which is good to know if you're a conservative afraid of being infected.
O'Sullivan brings up points that i did not consider.
Did these ploys sneak into Bush's speech?
May 16, 2006
BY JOHN O'SULLIVAN
For my next trick, ladies and gentlemen, I will perform a death-defying stunt -- no, not climbing a 300-foot ladder, diving through seven rings of fire and landing perfectly safely in a glass of water. That's easy once you know how to do it.
Instead, I shall advise you on how to interpret President Bush's speech on immigration that you heard last night but that was delivered several hours after this column was written. Very simply: Ask yourselves the following questions:
Did the president use the phrase ''comprehensive immigration reform'' several times? That's revealing because this phrase is an example of smuggling. He hopes that by wrapping a ''temporary guest-worker program'' and the ''not an amnesty'' provision to legalize the 12 million illegals already here -- both of which are unpopular -- inside a tough-sounding popular promise to secure the border with the National Guard, he will persuade most Americans to accept the first two proposals.
Did the president spend a large part of his speech on promising to secure the border by sending the National Guard there? Heigh-ho. This is the umpteenth time that Bush has promised to toughen up border security with a new initiative. He does so whenever there is public disquiet about illegal immigration.
Yet this kind of mini-initiative is fundamentally irrelevant. As this column has repeatedly pointed out, porous borders are the result of uncontrolled immigration as much as its cause. You cannot control the borders, however many patrols you hire or fences you build, if you grant an effective pardon to anyone who gets 100 miles inland.
Besides, a guest-worker program that admits as many people as employers are willing to hire (at sweatshop wages Americans won't accept) makes extra border security pointless. If everyone can come in legally, there won't be any illegals crossing the desert or swimming the river.
Did the president deny that he and the Senate are proposing an amnesty because the 12 million illegals ''will have to go to the end of the line''?
The trick here is the identity of the line. You thought it meant the line to enter and live in the good old USA, didn't you? That's exactly what the president and his speechwriters wanted you to think. In fact, it means the line to become a citizen. Under the Senate-White House ''compromise,'' the illegals will immediately be granted the right to reside here permanently while legal applicants still wait outside.
It's the line to enter that really matters, however, since a U.S. permanent resident has all the rights and duties of a U.S. citizen except the right to vote and the duty to serve on a jury. Illegals will have to wait a dozen or so years inside America before they obtain those last two. And they will probably be casting votes when those ''ahead of them in the line'' are still sitting in consular waiting rooms in Warsaw and Manila. Still, all together now, ''IT'S NOT AN AMNESTY.''
When the president stressed that the guest-worker program would be temporary, did he mention ''anchor babies''? No? Well, just guessing, but that omission may be because ''anchor babies,'' as the phrase implies, make ''temporary'' guest-workers permanent.
Here's how: Under the U.S. Constitution, if a temporary guest-worker or spouse gives birth during their stay, they become parents of a U.S. citizen and enjoy a right of residence and, in due course, citizenship. The baby anchors them in the United States and nullifies the president's pledge that temporary guest-workers will have to return when their job assignment ends. Unless Bush proposed a constitutional amendment to remove that right of citizenship (and my guess is that he proposed no such change), then the guest-worker program is simply another route to permanent U.S. residency and citizenship.
Did the president quote many statistics about the number of people likely to be admitted under the ''compromise'' legislation? Or the likely cost of granting amnesty? No? Well, that's hardly surprising. When Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions produced a chart suggesting that something like 30 million people would be admitted under provisions of the compromise bill, his brave and effective speech halted it dead in its tracks in the Senate before Easter.
But the latest estimates suggest that Sessions was being overly cautious. Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation has just added up all the provisions of the bill -- for instance, it doubles the number of legal immigrants -- and discovered they would admit 103 million new people over the next 20 years. It's estimated that 19 million people would otherwise enter America over the same period.
The same author last week added up the fiscal costs of the Hagel-Martinez compromise bill. He concluded that the long-term cost of government benefits could be $30 billion per year or more: ''In the long run, the Hagel/Martinez bill, if enacted, would be the largest expansion of the welfare state in 35 years.'' It was very sensible of the president not to bore the listeners with such details.
Finally, did the president cite polls arguing that the American people were on the side of such generous reforms? If so, he's been reading the New York Times or Time magazine again. Both media outlets, which favor open borders, have been asking questions designed to push people into supporting amnesty and guest-worker programs. So the Center for Immigration Studies designed a scrupulously fair opinion poll that laid out all the real-world options in neutral language. It found that the ''enforcement only'' bill favored by House Republicans was preferred over the Senate ''compromise'' bill by roughly 2-1.
All in all, Mr. Bush seems bent on committing political suicide. Will the American people join him?
-
I am a bit confused by Part 4. It seems that POTUS is saying that the longer you were were in this country, and the longer you worked in this country, the better your chances are of staying in this country.
Here is what confuses me. That sounds suspiciously like the longer you violated the law, and the more skillful you were at violating the law, the better your chances are of becoming a real, live, US person.
What am I missing here?
Of course the Demmy response sounds even more confusing. They are going to protect the American worker, while granting blanket amnesty to all illegals.
What am I missing there?
-
LOL Skuzzy, you deserve GWB or you don't ?
-
rotax, the o'sullivan essay i posted above your post had not dissimilar observations. find the "front of the line" portion.
hap
-
The guy has a great speach writer(s).
The problem ain't fixed. The illegals get to stay. 25 years ago, another flowery speach filled with promise lulled us.. and we were systematicly screwed.
we're being screwed again.
and this time, the corporate sell out in the oval office is gonna set up a 'guest worker' program for corporations that will allow them to legally import low wage workers that are nothing less than legally indentured serfs. "Screw up; Jose, ask for a raise; attempt to leave this job for a better one, take one too many days off... we'll yank yer visa and send yer bellybutton back to honduras."
Corporate Human Resource Nirvana. And you can bet the top and bottom dollar that health care and services will not be provided by the employer... and that the wage will be low enough to make sure it qualifies the 'guest worker' for the subsistence support dole and free health care outta my pocket.. while the majority of americans still remain uncovered.
I flat refuse to accept that. And it's couched in the concept that we NEED a 'guest worker' program. we don't. we've got MILLIONS of hopeful LEGAL immigrants already[/b] in the conga line to come here and work... without surrendering their human rights to a better job if they find one, better pay if they can get it.
America is the Land of The Free.. this BS guest worker program will effectively import a new 'lowest' class.. a class without the rights of fair pay for honest work. A class that will rely on the rest of us to pay for the corporate privledge of owning them.
Lastly.. anybody see them putting 5,000 extra INS agents to work on processing paper? Anybody see any provisions for funding to identify, document and process the paper on the 12 million (more likely 20 million) here already? The logistics are nearly impossible.. and they have been circumspectly ignored.
Screw that flowery speach. I'm sick of 'em. Promises.. but business as usual.
-
One of Bush's better speeches...
After the past few weeks of immigration and immigration reform being the topic du jour, I gotta wonder.
Why now?
Has the immigration problem really changed in the past five to ten years? I can't see that it has. This is simply the White House doing its level best to control the news cycle. They're doing a good job of it too.
Right or wrong (and I agree with a lot that Bush said), I wonder about the timing of it. What other news is being pushed from the front pages? I'll bet that's the real story... and the Dems are far too inept to control it.
-
hang is probly correct in that we are being sold a handfull of magic beans again but...
At least one party is talking about it... at this point.... anything we do will help.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Timofei
LOL Skuzzy, you deserve GWB or you don't ?
Not for me to say, and would be very much off-topic as well. No point to your post at all. At least, no positive contribution to the topic at hand.
-
I with him right up to the guest worker program.
that crap has got to be killed.
we can have immigration 'reform', new id/document accountability for employers, a secure border.. but no 'guest worker' program.
get the corporate pork off the table.
-
The overall problem is, he is just redirecting attention away from something else. I do not believe a word of what he said. He is just buying time. There is another agenda at work here, and we will not be privvy to it unless someone gets busted.
Remember, he has no respect for the people of this country. He is THE 'DECIDER'. Mark my word, there is something else afoot.
-
i'll out with what i think is up. it's a like they're checking off to do lists for the next election. things they've done to prove they did something when from the beginning the outcome of the thing done they view as relatively unimportant.
hap
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
I with him right up to the guest worker program.
that crap has got to be killed.
we can have immigration 'reform', new id/document accountability for employers, a secure border.. but no 'guest worker' program.
get the corporate pork off the table.
while I have to agree with other posters that something does indeed smell, especially given the timing we have seen considerable enforcement activity in this region lately. we were working a jobsite in the florida city area last month on a short trip to home depot to pick up some sundried supplies i was detained and questioned by ins and homeland security. apparently that home depot was a congregating place for illegals to find day labor. according to the detaining officer they are cracking down nation wide as well, sadly the illegals were tipped off and few were caught so they were harrassing the citizenry for the purpose of score padding i suppose. with regard to the guest worker program, the idea is sound they will be providing services no one wants to provide in our country today.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
The overall problem is, he is just redirecting attention away from something else. I do not believe a word of what he said. He is just buying time. There is another agenda at work here, and we will not be privvy to it unless someone gets busted.
Remember, he has no respect for the people of this country. He is THE 'DECIDER'. Mark my word, there is something else afoot.
Perhaps Iran/Iraq and foriegn policy et al? Perhaps the CIA/NSA domestic spying policy and the moves to position the governments peek-a-boo window so it's securely and permanantly focused on what we buy, who we talk to and what our habits are so they can mine our data for the corporate puppet masters?
-
Yea the democratic "response" was an all out embarassment to sit thru.
Once again, the democrats side on the sidelines and make pot shots versus offering any meaningful ideas or solutions.
-
florida has had a guest worker program for years to harvest the sugar cane.
they are brought in from the islands and housed on the sugar cane farms, when the harvest is over they are paid off and taken back to the islands.
-
Like it matters a whit to you guys what the Democrat "answers" would be if they offered any (and for all I know they have a comprehensive 12 point plan, you all would denounce it as merely criticizing the Republicans).
-
Originally posted by Urchin
Like it matters a whit to you guys what the Democrat "answers" would be if they offered any (and for all I know they have a comprehensive 12 point plan, you all would denounce it as merely criticizing the Republicans).
Why not offer one up verus claiming to have something you do not?
C'mon...I double dog dare ya!
:)
-
Who said I was a democrat?
-
If you don't follow one herd, you must be part of the other herd.
-
Originally posted by Urchin
Like it matters a whit to you guys what the Democrat "answers" would be if they offered any (and for all I know they have a comprehensive 12 point plan, you all would denounce it as merely criticizing the Republicans).
actually i'm quite intererested because today's republican party is like a bunch of gals elbowing each other out of the way to get to the bargin bin of $$ until it peters out. (i'm exaggerating to make a point)
hap
-
While I too want most of what the president said he wants so far it's nothing more than talk. When we see active enforcement of our current laws or get a reform bill through the house, senate, and president then we'll see what happens. More laws without teeth will only diminish our remaining laws and piss everyone off even more than they are now.
-
Originally posted by NattyIced
If you don't follow one herd, you must be part of the other herd.
That's not necessarily true.
-
With Bush's numbers in the 20's and the republicans jumping ship right and left... I believe this issue will be the one that the dems will use to blow another election.
-
Originally posted by Hap
What follows is a response to the President's address last night. The article appeared in the Chicago Tribune and does not appear to have been written by a liberal which is good to know if you're a conservative afraid of being infected.
O'Sullivan brings up points that i did not consider.
Did these ploys sneak into Bush's speech?
May 16, 2006
BY JOHN O'SULLIVAN
For my next trick, ladies and gentlemen, I will perform a death-defying stunt -- no, not climbing a 300-foot ladder, diving through seven rings of fire and landing perfectly safely in a glass of water. That's easy once you know how to do it.
Instead, I shall advise you on how to interpret President Bush's speech on immigration that you heard last night but that was delivered several hours after this column was written. Very simply: Ask yourselves the following questions:
Did the president use the phrase ''comprehensive immigration reform'' several times? That's revealing because this phrase is an example of smuggling. He hopes that by wrapping a ''temporary guest-worker program'' and the ''not an amnesty'' provision to legalize the 12 million illegals already here -- both of which are unpopular -- inside a tough-sounding popular promise to secure the border with the National Guard, he will persuade most Americans to accept the first two proposals.
Did the president spend a large part of his speech on promising to secure the border by sending the National Guard there? Heigh-ho. This is the umpteenth time that Bush has promised to toughen up border security with a new initiative. He does so whenever there is public disquiet about illegal immigration.
Yet this kind of mini-initiative is fundamentally irrelevant. As this column has repeatedly pointed out, porous borders are the result of uncontrolled immigration as much as its cause. You cannot control the borders, however many patrols you hire or fences you build, if you grant an effective pardon to anyone who gets 100 miles inland.
Besides, a guest-worker program that admits as many people as employers are willing to hire (at sweatshop wages Americans won't accept) makes extra border security pointless. If everyone can come in legally, there won't be any illegals crossing the desert or swimming the river.
Did the president deny that he and the Senate are proposing an amnesty because the 12 million illegals ''will have to go to the end of the line''?
The trick here is the identity of the line. You thought it meant the line to enter and live in the good old USA, didn't you? That's exactly what the president and his speechwriters wanted you to think. In fact, it means the line to become a citizen. Under the Senate-White House ''compromise,'' the illegals will immediately be granted the right to reside here permanently while legal applicants still wait outside.
It's the line to enter that really matters, however, since a U.S. permanent resident has all the rights and duties of a U.S. citizen except the right to vote and the duty to serve on a jury. Illegals will have to wait a dozen or so years inside America before they obtain those last two. And they will probably be casting votes when those ''ahead of them in the line'' are still sitting in consular waiting rooms in Warsaw and Manila. Still, all together now, ''IT'S NOT AN AMNESTY.''
When the president stressed that the guest-worker program would be temporary, did he mention ''anchor babies''? No? Well, just guessing, but that omission may be because ''anchor babies,'' as the phrase implies, make ''temporary'' guest-workers permanent.
Here's how: Under the U.S. Constitution, if a temporary guest-worker or spouse gives birth during their stay, they become parents of a U.S. citizen and enjoy a right of residence and, in due course, citizenship. The baby anchors them in the United States and nullifies the president's pledge that temporary guest-workers will have to return when their job assignment ends. Unless Bush proposed a constitutional amendment to remove that right of citizenship (and my guess is that he proposed no such change), then the guest-worker program is simply another route to permanent U.S. residency and citizenship.
Did the president quote many statistics about the number of people likely to be admitted under the ''compromise'' legislation? Or the likely cost of granting amnesty? No? Well, that's hardly surprising. When Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions produced a chart suggesting that something like 30 million people would be admitted under provisions of the compromise bill, his brave and effective speech halted it dead in its tracks in the Senate before Easter.
But the latest estimates suggest that Sessions was being overly cautious. Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation has just added up all the provisions of the bill -- for instance, it doubles the number of legal immigrants -- and discovered they would admit 103 million new people over the next 20 years. It's estimated that 19 million people would otherwise enter America over the same period.
The same author last week added up the fiscal costs of the Hagel-Martinez compromise bill. He concluded that the long-term cost of government benefits could be $30 billion per year or more: ''In the long run, the Hagel/Martinez bill, if enacted, would be the largest expansion of the welfare state in 35 years.'' It was very sensible of the president not to bore the listeners with such details.
Finally, did the president cite polls arguing that the American people were on the side of such generous reforms? If so, he's been reading the New York Times or Time magazine again. Both media outlets, which favor open borders, have been asking questions designed to push people into supporting amnesty and guest-worker programs. So the Center for Immigration Studies designed a scrupulously fair opinion poll that laid out all the real-world options in neutral language. It found that the ''enforcement only'' bill favored by House Republicans was preferred over the Senate ''compromise'' bill by roughly 2-1.
All in all, Mr. Bush seems bent on committing political suicide. Will the American people join him?
Good Post Hap !!!
Bob/CHECKERS
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
That's not necessarily true.
It isn't at all. It only is to the lunatic fringe on the "conservative" and "liberal" "sides."
-
John O'Sullivan is wrong in his article concerning “anchor babies.” Yes, the Constitution does grant those babies US citizenship. Show me where the Constitution grants the illegal parent(s) of those babies citizenship, or permanent resident status.
At the very least, the parent(s) would have to submit INS Forms...
I-485
G-325A
I-864
I-693
and this is only the beginning. If the parent(s) entered this country illegally, and have stayed for more than one year, they are barred from re-entering this country for ten years. If they have worked in this country, while in an out of status condition, they are barred from re-entering this country for ten years. If they have ever falsely claimed US citizenship, they are barred from this country for life.
Once again, a load of happy horse chit, from someone who should know better.
-
Originally posted by NattyIced
It isn't at all. It only is to the lunatic fringe on the "conservative" and "liberal" "sides."
a voice a reason :O quick diogenes, get the latern. good post.
hap
-
rotax, pop him an email and let us know the reply.
hap
-
(http://wilsonhellie.typepad.com/for_the_record/pictures/koolaid7-thumb.jpg)
-
I dont understand, they say crime doesnt pay but these illegals broke the law and they want to let them stay. Any other country in the world would have deported them all. I love america but things like this really disappoint me, i feel like america lets me down and its been happening alot. They need to deport them and secure the borders(the mexican american border aswell as the canadian american border).
-
skuzzy... as you may have figured out... I am no fan of big government but....
I don't think that it (the illegals situation solution)is quite as sinister as you make out... I think that the "day without a leafblower" was a catalyst for a lot of Americans.... they were forced to see the problem...
The media...smelling blood and a way to boost sagging ratings... hit us with "immigrant" stories 24/7 every channel and outlet.
I think that is what spurred the real reason for the speach. I understand and have said so here that the government will use the "crisis" to expand i'ts power but..
I am glad that at least it is being talked about.
I agree with MT that for the democrats it is a huge albatross that they won't be able to get from around their neck... but a much deserved albatross... the democrats own worst enemy is...
having people know what they stand for.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
the democrats own worst enemy is having people know what they stand for.
lazs
you're right. i wish the democratic party would do better on the matters the republican party boots. that would be handy.
hap
-
Well said lazs.
The democrats speak of high ideals when their support is really all about redistribution of wealth. It was inevitable that these would eventually come into conflict resulting in self-destruction. I guess they had to at least pretend to believe their own propaganda.
-
Until I can have the job I have worked for my entire life back, without having to worry about the "illegal" underbidding me by 60-75% I will report EVERY illegal I find period. Keep hiring your leaf blowing amigo's, and your nospeaky engrish illegals my fellow citizens, but keep watching over your shoulder for me and my camera.
It is unreasonable to accept as fact that I must work for minimum wage as a sole proprietor and still LOSE bids to illegals.
FYI I am/was a house painter ................ now I'm out of work and trying to find a new career.
-
painters used to make decent money, they used to get more then minimum wage. A job like me that never painted in his life will get 6 mexicans to paint a house get paid and throw them some scraps. And ack-ack says im makeing excuses about being unemployed:lol . If u been painting ur entire life by now you would have had ur own small painting business, but now with out the money u cant make that investment, u have to worry about feeding ur family.
-
Your right on the money bkbandit. I had my own business, i payed taxe, i am atm a home owner ( soon to change due to unemployment), father of two great citizen children, i cant provide insurance medical,auto,life etc...., forget a new truck (still driving my 1992 AMERICAN made chevy).
I do/did not work at minimum wage, I am saying I would make LESS than minimum wage if I bid low enough to get the job in the first place.
Stop Illegal immigrants or be ready to provide welfare/health/education/housing to many, many citizens.
Cthen
-
Originally posted by Cthen
Until I can have the job I have worked for my entire life back, without having to worry about the "illegal" underbidding me by 60-75% I will report EVERY illegal I find period. Keep hiring your leaf blowing amigo's, and your nospeaky engrish illegals my fellow citizens, but keep watching over your shoulder for me and my camera.
It is unreasonable to accept as fact that I must work for minimum wage as a sole proprietor and still LOSE bids to illegals.
FYI I am/was a house painter ................ now I'm out of work and trying to find a new career.
move to florida and work every day for very good money.
-
How would he have money to move if he cant pay for his car insurance or even medical insurance for his childern.
Ur not the only one i this situation. The people that are protesting along side these illegals need to noe about things like this. He'll work ur job for 65% less and have 20 kids in this country, all his kids go to school and have health care and he doesnt pay a dime. But we have an american that cant flip the bill for his american born childern. The world has gone mad.
I swear i want to protest those illegals and anyone who supports them,they dont belong here, its as simple as that. The fact that are officals are siting on there hands is crazy, there illegal.... there is no debate. They jumped the border illegally and were going to let them stay???????? But then we have a bunch of people that are on waiting lists to come here legaly. What about them the people that want to do it the right way, there going to get the screw job because of some border jumper.
-
Originally posted by storch
move to florida and work every day for very good money.
Have a buddy who has been a painting contractor in florida for 25 years.
He says that it cost him $12.00 per hour to hire a painter right now. if the guy speaks english and has a car, $25.00 an hour, however he says the hurracane work is starting to slack so wages should start to drop soon.
shamus
-
In 1986, they made 3 million illegals citizens, and promised to fix the rest.(border) Now it's 2006, and they are putting up a trial balloon of making 12 million MORE illegals citizens. The Heritage Foundation ran some numbers on the Senate bill of last week, and concluded that some 193 MILLION MORE (mostly Mexicans) would be allowed to become citizens of this country over the next 30-odd years. This would change the the culture and face of the USA forever, to a suburb of Mexico. 12 million is chicken-feed compared to what will happen if the border isn't clamped now.
-
Originally posted by bkbandit
I swear i want to protest those illegals and anyone who supports them,they dont belong here, its as simple as that. The fact that are officals are siting on there hands is crazy, there illegal.... there is no debate. They jumped the border illegally and were going to let them stay???????? But then we have a bunch of people that are on waiting lists to come here legaly. What about them the people that want to do it the right way, there going to get the screw job because of some border jumper.
Note to bkbandit...
AG Alberto Gonzales says that he is unsure if his grandparents were documented and here legaly. You can bet the farm the he knows that they didn't come here legaly. There will be no serious move to secure our southern border until corporate money is excluded from politics. So get used to it because that ain't going to happen anytime soon.
-
Originally posted by bj229r
In 1986, they made 3 million illegals citizens, and promised to fix the rest.(border) Now it's 2006, and they are putting up a trial balloon of making 12 million MORE illegals citizens. The Heritage Foundation ran some numbers on the Senate bill of last week, and concluded that some 193 MILLION MORE (mostly Mexicans) would be allowed to become citizens of this country over the next 30-odd years. This would change the the culture and face of the USA forever, to a suburb of Mexico. 12 million is chicken-feed compared to what will happen if the border isn't clamped now.
I'm sorry, but that is just silly. The entire population of Mexico is about 106 million today. So -- ALL of them will move here?
"You can make statistics say anything you want -- 4 out of 5 people know that." -- Homer Simpson.
If they keep making stupid statements like that, they are going to lose their arguement.
-
The Heritage Foundation ran some numbers on the Senate bill of last week
The Heritage Foundation is slightly less credible than OJ Simpson.
-
First off Ho J is the man.
But seroiurly lets put the shoe on the other foot. Lets say americans where jumpin the border into mexico, What would happen.
-
SPRING BREAK!!!!111!!ONE1!!UNO!1!111
-
Originally posted by AlGorithm
The Heritage Foundation is slightly less credible than OJ Simpson.
They are a conservative thinktank...if being conservative makes them such, oh well--anyhow, I was wrong, it wasn't 193, it was 103: (instead of calling them names, refute their argument)
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Immigration/wm1076.cfm
Legal Immigrants over the Next Twenty Years
by Robert Rector
WebMemo #1076
May 15, 2006 |
icon_print
|
If enacted, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (CIRA, S.2611) would be the most dramatic change in immigration law in 80 years, allowing an estimated 103 million persons to legally immigrate to the U.S. over the next 20 years—fully one-third of the current population of the United States.
Much attention has been given to the fact that the bill grants amnesty to some 10 million illegal immigrants. Little or no attention has been given to the fact that the bill would quintuple the rate of legal immigration into the United States, raising, over time, the inflow of legal immigrants from around one million per year to over five million per year. The impact of this increase in legal immigration dwarfs the magnitude of the amnesty provisions.
In contrast to the 103 million immigrants permitted under CIRA, current law allows 19 million legal immigrants over the next twenty years. Relative to current law, then, CIRA would add an extra 84 million legal immigrants to the nation’s population.
The figure of 103 million legal immigrants is a reasonable estimate of the actual immigration inflow under the bill and not the maximum number that would be legally permitted to enter. The maximum number that could legally enter would be almost 200 million over twenty years—over 180 million more legal immigrants than current law permits.
Immigration Status
To understand the provisions of CIRA, largely based on a compromise by Senators Chuck Hagel (R–Nebraska) and Mel Martinez (R–Florida), it is useful to distinguish between the three legal statuses that a legal immigrant might hold:
1. Temporary Status: Persons in this category enter the U.S. temporarily and are required to leave after a period of time.
2. Near-Permanent, Convertible Status: Persons in this category enter the U.S. and are given the opportunity to “adjust” or convert to legal permanent residence after a few years.
3. Legal Permanent Residence (LPR): Persons in this category have the right to remain in the United States for their entire lives. After five years, they have the right to naturalize and become citizens. As naturalized citizens, they have the constitutional rights to vote and to receive any government benefits given to native-born citizens.
A key feature of CIRA is that most immigrants identified as “temporary” are, in fact, given convertible status with a virtually unrestricted opportunity to become legal permanent residents and then citizens.
Another important feature of both CIRA and existing immigration law is that immigrants in convertible or LPR status have the right to bring spouses and minor children into the country. Spouses and dependent children will be granted permanent residence along with the primary immigrant and may also become citizens. In addition, after naturalizing, an immigrant has the right to bring his parents into the U.S. as permanent residents with the opportunity for citizenship. There are no numeric limits on the number of spouses, dependent children, and parents of naturalized citizens that may be brought into the country. Additionally, the siblings and adult children (along with their families) of naturalized citizens and the adult children (and their families) of legal permanent residents are given preference in future admission but are subject to numeric caps.
Key Provisions of CIRA
Four key provisions of CIRA would result in an explosive increase in legal immigration.
Amnesty for Current Illegal Immigrants: CIRA offers amnesty and citizenship to 85 percent of the nation’s current 11.9 million illegal immigrants. Under the plan, illegal immigrants who have been in the U.S. for five years or more (60 percent of illegals) would be granted immediate amnesty. Illegal immigrants who have been in the country between two and five years (25 percent of illegals) could travel to one of 16 “ports of entry,” where they would receive amnesty and lawful work permits.[1] In total, the bill would grant amnesty to 85 percent of the current illegal immigrant population, or some 10 million individuals.
After receiving amnesty, illegal immigrants would spend six years in a provisional status before attaining LPR status. After five years in LPR status, they would have the opportunity to become naturalized citizens and vote in U.S. elections. As well, the spouses and dependent children of current illegal immigrants would have the right to enter the U.S. and become citizens.[2] There would be no numeric limit on the number of illegal immigrants, spouses, and dependents receiving LPR status; under the amnesty provision, such individuals would not be counted against any other cap or limit in immigration law.[3]
The New “Temporary Guest Worker” Program: CIRA creates an entirely new “temporary guest worker” (H-2C) program. There is nothing temporary about this program; nearly all “guest workers” would have the right to become permanent residents and then citizens.
Foreign workers could enter the U.S. as guest workers if they have a job offer from a U.S. employer. In practical terms, U.S. companies would recruit foreign workers to enter the guest worker program and immigrate to the U.S. Most likely, intermediate employment firms would specialize in recruiting foreign labor for U.S. employers.
Guest workers would be allowed to remain in the U.S. for six years.[4] However, in the fourth year, the guest worker could ask for LPR status and would receive it if he has learned English or is enrolled in an English class.[5] There are no numeric limits on the number of guest workers who could receive LPR status. Upon receiving LPR status, the guest worker could remain in the country permanently. He could become a U.S. citizen and vote in U.S. elections after just five more years.
The spouses and minor children of guest workers would also be permitted to immigrate to the U.S.[6] When guest workers petition for LPR status, their spouses and children would receive it as well. Five years after obtaining LPR status, these spouses could become naturalized citizens. The bill sets no limit on the number of spouses and children who could immigrate under the guest worker program. After workers and their spouses have obtained citizenship, they would be able to bring in their parents as legal permanent residents.
The bill does provide numeric limits on the number of guest workers who can enter the country each year, but the number starts high and then grows exponentially. In the first year, 325,000 H-2C visas would be given out, but if employer demand for guest workers is high, that number could be boosted by an extra 65,000 in the next year. If employer demand for H-2C workers continues to be high, the number of H-2C visas could be raised by up to 20 percent in each subsequent year.
The 20 percent exponential escalator provision allows the number of H-2C immigrants to climb steeply in future years. If the H-2C cap were increased by 20 percent each year, within twenty years the annual inflow of workers would reach 12 million. At this 20 percent growth rate, a total of 70 million guest workers would enter the U.S. over the next two decades and none would be required to leave. While it is unlikely that so many workers would enter, the program does have the potential to bring ten of millions of immigrants to the U.S.
The “guest worker” program, then, is an open door program, based on the demands of U.S. business, that would allow an almost unlimited number of workers and dependents to enter the U.S. from anywhere in world and become citizens. It is essentially an “open border” provision.
Additional Permanent Visas for Siblings, Adult Children, and their Families: The permanent entry of non-immediate relatives—such as brothers, sisters, and adult children—is currently subject to a cap of 480,000 per year minus the number of immediate relatives (the parents, spouses, and minor children of U.S. citizens) admitted in the prior year. CIRA eliminates the deduction for immediate relatives from the cap.[7] This effectively increases the number of non-immediate relatives who could attain LPR status by 254,000 per year.
Additional Permanent Employment Visas: The U.S. currently issues around 140,000 employment-based visas each year. Under CIRA, the U.S. would issue 450,000 employment-based green cards per year between 2007 and 2016.[8] After 2016, the number would fall to 290,000 per year.[9] Under current law, LPR visas going to the spouses and children of workers with employment-based visas are counted against the cap. Under CIRA, these spouses and children would be removed from the cap and given legal permanent residence without numeric limits.[10] Historically, 1.2 dependent relatives have entered the U.S. for each worker under employment-based immigration programs.[11] This means that some 990,000 persons per year would be granted LPR status until 2016 and, after that, 638,000 per year.
Estimating Future Immigration Under CIRA
Most provisions of CIRA are straightforward; in many categories, the number of future immigrants allowed is either directly stated or can be easily calculated from the law’s provisions. In some areas, however, the law’s impact is uncertain. To estimate future legal immigration under the bill, three assumptions have been used in this paper: (part 2 follows)
-
* Spouses and children of workers: Dependent spouses and children represent a major component of current immigration. In the current employment-based visa program, 1.2 dependents enter for each incoming worker.[12] This paper assumes this ratio will continue in the employment-based program and will also apply to those entering under the new guest worker program. This is a conservative assumption: guest workers are likely to have lower education levels and thus to have larger families. Finally, many current illegal immigrants who would receive amnesty under the bill already have families in the U.S.; therefore the ratio of incoming spouses and children to amnesty recipients is assumed to be only 0.6, or half the ratio of the employment-based program.
* Parents of naturalized citizens: Parents of naturalized citizens currently make up eight percent of all new legal immigrants. This paper assumes that half of all adult immigrants will naturalize after five years of LPR status and that 30 percent of the parents of these naturalized citizens will immigrate in the three years after their children’s naturalization.
* Growth in the guest worker program: The number of immigrants in the guest worker program will be driven by employer demand. The bill allows the number of H-2C visas to increase by 20 percent per year; this level of growth would result in an extraordinary 60 million guest workers in the U.S. over the next twenty years. This paper assumes that the number of immigrants in the guest worker program would increase at a more moderate rate of 10 percent per year. Alternative estimates for 20 percent growth and zero growth in the program are also presented.[13]
A Flood of Legal Immigrants
Under CIRA, immigrants could enter the country or attain lawful status within the country through eight channels. In each channel, immigrants would be granted permanent residence and the right to become citizens. The first channel represents immigrants who would have entered under current law; the second channel represents illegal immigrants who are currently in the country and would be given legal permanent residence under the bill. The other six channels represent new inflows of legal immigrants that would occur as a result of the bill. The total number of new legal immigrants over a twenty year period would be as follows: (See Charts 1 and 2.)
1. Visas under current law: Roughly 950,000 persons receive permanent residence visas under current law each year. Over 20 years, the inflow of immigrants through this channel would be 19 million. This represents the status quo under existing law.
2. Amnesty: The bill would grant amnesty to roughly 10 million illegal immigrants. These individuals are currently living in the U.S.; amnesty would allow them to remain legally and to become U.S. citizens.
3. Expanded family chain migration: The number of family-sponsored visas for secondary family members, such as adult brothers and sisters, is currently limited to 480,000 per year minus the number of visas given to immediate family members (spouses, minor children, and parents of U.S. citizens). The bill changes the law so that the total quota on secondary family members would be 480,000 without deductions for immediate family members. The net increase in the number of immigrants under this provision would be around 254,000 per year, or 5.1 million over 20 years.[14]
4. Employment-based green cards: The bill would increase the number of employment-based visas from 140,000 to 450,000 per year. For the first time, it would also exempt the spouses and children of workers from the cap. Total annual immigration under this provision is likely to be 450,000 workers plus 540,000 family members annually. The net increase above current law over 20 years would be around 13.5 million persons.[15]
5. The guest worker (H-2C) program: CIRA would allow 325,000 persons to participate in the guest worker program in the first year. This number could rise by 65,000 in the next year and then by 20 percent per year. Assuming 10 percent annual growth in the annual number of guest workers entering the country (well below the bill’s maximum), the total inflow of workers under this program would be 20 million over 20 years.
6. Spouses and children of guest workers: Guest workers could bring their spouses and children to the U.S. as permanent residents; the added number of entrants would be 24 million over 20 years.
7. Spouses and children of illegal immigrants given amnesty: Illegal immigrants who received amnesty could bring their spouses and children into the U.S. as legal permanent residents with the opportunity for full citizenship. The number of spouses and children who would enter the U.S. as a result of amnesty would be at least six million.
8. Parents of naturalized citizens. The bill would substantially increase the number of naturalized citizens. Naturalized citizens would have an unlimited right to bring their parents into the U.S. as legal permanent residents. Over twenty years, the number of parents who would enter the U.S. as permanent legal residents as a result of CIRA would be around five million.
Overall, the bill would allow some 103 million persons to legally immigrate over the next twenty years. This is roughly one-third of the current population of the United States. All of these new entrants would be permanent residents and would have the right to become citizens. This would be a 84 million person net increase over current law.
Legal Flow Compared to Illegal Immigration
All of the immigration discussed to this point would be legal immigration. If illegal immigration continued after enactment of S.2611, the inflow of immigrants would be even greater. Although illegal immigration is considered a major problem, the proposed legal immigration under CIRA would dwarf it numerically. The net inflow of illegal immigrants into the U.S. population is around 700,000 per year.[16] Legal immigration under CIRA would exceed five million per year, seven times the rate of the current illegal immigration flow. Annual legal and illegal immigration together now equals about 1.7 million; future legal immigration alone under CIRA would be three times this amount.
Range of Estimates
The figure of 103 million new legal immigrants is based on the assumption that immigration under the guest worker program would grow at 10 percent per year. If guest-worker immigration grows at the maximum rate permitted by the bill, 20 percent per year, the total number of new immigrants coming to the U.S. over the next twenty years would be 193 million. On the other hand, if immigration under the H-2C program did not increase at all for two decades but remained fixed at the initial level of 325,000 per year, total legal immigration under CIRA would be 72 million over twenty years, or more than three times the level that would occur under current law. (See Chart 3.)
The tables in the Appendix show annual inflows of total legal immigrants in each of the eight channels mentioned above over the next twenty years. The tables show the estimated yearly rate of immigration under three scenarios for the H-2C program: zero growth, ten percent growth, and twenty percent growth.
Dwarfing the Great Migration
Between 1870 and 1920, the U.S. experienced a massive flow of immigration known as the “great migration”. During this period, foreign born persons hovered between 13 and 15 percent of the population.[17]In 1924, Congress passed major legislation greatly reducing future immigration. By 1970, foreign born persons had fallen to 5 percent of the population.
In the last three decades, immigration has increased sharply. The foreign born now comprise around 12 percent of the population, approaching the levels of the early 1900’s. However, if CIRA were enacted, and 100 million new immigrants entered the country over the next twenty years, foreign born persons would rise to over one quarter of the U.S. population.[18] There is no precedent for that level of immigration at any time in U.S. history.
Conclusion
If enacted, CIRA would be the most dramatic change in immigration law in 80 years. In its overall impact on the nation, the bill would rival other historic milestones, such as the creation of Social Security or Medicare.
The bill would give amnesty to 10 million illegal immigrants and quintuple the rate of legal immigration into the U.S. Under the bill, the annual inflow of immigrants with the option of becoming legal permanent residents would rise from the current level of one million per year to more than five million per year. Within a few years, the annual inflow of new immigrants would exceed one percent of the current U.S. population. This would be the highest immigration rate in U.S. history.
Within 20 years, some 103 million new immigrants would enter the U.S. This number is about one-third of the current U.S. population. All of these immigrants would be permanent residents with the right to become citizens and vote in U.S. elections. CIRA would transform the United States socially, economically, and politically. Within two decades, the character of the nation would differ dramatically from what exists today.
Robert Rector is Senior Research Fellow in Domestic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
Appendix and Tables
[1] S.2611, Section 601.
[2] S.2611 under Section 601, section 245B(a)(2).
[3] S.2611, under Section 601, section 245B (a)(3).
[4] S.2611, Section 403 (f)(1).
[5] S.2611 Section 408 (n)(1)(B).
(part 3 follows)
-
(continued)
[6] See S.6211, Section 403 (m)(1). Some might argue that the number of guest workers who would be permitted to attain LPR status would be subject to the overall caps on employment-based permanent visas elsewhere in law. But Section 408(h) of the bill, which deals with the right of guest workers to convert to LPR status, clearly states that “employment-based immigrant visas shall be made available to an alien having nonimmigrant status described in section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(c) [the H-2C program] upon the filing of a petition for such a visa.” In other word, LPR status shall be granted to any guest worker upon his filing of petition; there is no mention of any numeric cap or other mechanism limits the number of such status adjustments. If the bill’s authors intend to limit the opportunity of guest workers to obtain legal permanent residence with a numeric cap, then the bill should explicitly state that fact.
[7] S.2611 Section 501 (a)
[8] S.2611 Section 501(b)
[9] S.2611, Section 501(b)
[10] S.2611, Section 501(b)
[11] Ruth Ellen Wasem, “U.S. Immigration Policy on Permanent Admissions,” CRS Report for Congress, Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, May 12, 2006, p. 18.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Several factors have not been included in the estimates. The paper ignores future levels of illegal immigration. The paper assumes that there are some 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S.; this widely used figure rests on the assumption that nearly all illegal immigrants are counted in annual Census surveys. In fact, the number of illegal immigrants in the U.S. may be much larger; this would mean that the number of immigrants eligible for amnesty would also be higher. The paper also assumes that there will be no successful fraud in applications for amnesty; in fact, the standards for proving prior residence and employment in the U.S. are very flimsy. Fraud may be prevalent, further boosting amnesty numbers. Finally, there is no attempt to estimate return to native countries or reverse migration by new immigrants. In effect, the paper assumes that returns will be matched by a corresponding increase in new entrants under the H-2C program.
[14] This number is the net increase in immigration due to the legislation and does not include the secondary family members who would have immigrated under current law.
[15] This number is the net increase in employment-based immigration and does not include persons who would have immigrated under current law.
[16] Jeffrey Passel Unauthorized Migrants: Numbers and Characteristics, Pew Hispanic Center, Washington, D.C, June 14, 2005, p.6.
[17]National Research Council, The New Americans: Economic, Demographic and Fiscal Effects of Immigration, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 1997, p. 35
[18] Currently there are around 35.7 million foreign-born persons in the U.S. (Passel, op.cit., p.3). With a new influx of 103 million immigrants, the total foreign-born population would reach around 124 million (adjusting for deaths in the interim.) Given the massive projected immigration, the population of the U.S. would have swollen to around 449 million by 2027. This would be up from a base projection of around 355 million. (U.S. Census Bureau, 2004, “U.S. Interim Projections by Age, Sex, Race and Hispanic Origin,” at http.://www.census.gov/ipc/www/usinterimproj/. The foreign born would comprise around 27 percent of the total population.
-
update:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/05/21/MNGFQIVNAF1.DTL
Give and take across the border
1 in 7 Mexican workers migrates -- most send money home
Carolyn Lochhead, Chronicle Washington Bureau
Washington -- The current migration of Mexicans and Central Americans to the United States is one of the largest diasporas in modern history, experts say. Roughly 10 percent of Mexico's population of about 107 million is now living in the United States, estimates show. About 15 percent of Mexico's labor force is working in the United States. One in every 7 Mexican workers migrates to the United States.
Three-quarters of the estimated 12 million illegal migrants in the United States come from Mexico and Central America. Mexicans make up 56 percent of the unauthorized U.S. migrant population, according to the Pew Hispanic Center. Another 22 percent come from elsewhere in Latin America, mainly Central America and the Andean countries. These same countries send many of the half-million new illegal immigrants who arrive each year.
Migration is profoundly altering Mexico and Central America. Entire rural communities are nearly bereft of working-age men. The town of Tendeparacua, in the Mexican state of Michoacan, had 6,000 residents in 1985, and now has 600, according to news reports. In five Mexican states, the money migrants send home exceeds locally generated income, one study found.
Last year, Mexico received a record $20 billion in remittances from migrant workers. That is equal to Mexico's 2004 income from oil exports and dwarfing tourism revenue.