posted 01-20-2004 11:24 PM            

Bush Amnesty Plan Threatens U.S. Economy

Tuesday, January 20, 2004
By Matt Hayes
Three weeks ago there was no one among Republican voters who would have said that fixing the problem of illegal immigration to the U.S. meant granting amnesty to an estimated eight million illegal aliens, the majority of whom have entered the U.S. without a visa by walking across our border with Mexico.

But that is precisely what President Bush said last week he intends to do, as he posed for pictures before a Mexican flag in Monterey, Mexico. To his left was Mexican President Vicente Fox (search ), who -- in an even more alarming image -- was framed by the Stars and Stripes as he smiled for the cameras.

Americans should get used to scenes like this, and all they portend. Despite an enormous backlash from core Republican voters, conservative groups and a growing number of Congressional Republicans, the Bush administration seems determined to curry favor with Hispanic voters, and has chosen an immigration amnesty as the means to achieve that.

The President has said repeatedly that what he proposes is not an amnesty, though by the accepted definition it is precisely that, and more. An amnesty is a general pardon granted by a government for a past offense. Crossing a U.S. border without a visa is a misdemeanor under federal law, and reentering the U.S. after a prior order of deportation is a felony. Under Bush’s proposal, these crimes will not be prosecuted, and that means it is an amnesty. But Bush goes on to offer the perpetrators visas and work permits, so it is not entirely accurate to call the Bush proposal an amnesty. It is an amnesty with an awards program.

The blowback has caused its supporters to restyle the amnesty as something more palatable, but without changing any of its features. As RNC spokesperson Christine Iverson said last week to the Washington Times, “Once people have had a chance to educate themselves about the proposal and what it does, support for it will grow.” Iverson went on to say that the proposed amnesty will actually stimulate our economy by linking “willing worker with willing employers.” She attempted to cast the amnesty as an “economic proposal.”

The Bush Amnesty (search ) will certainly have effects on our economy if it ever comes to pass, because what the president actually proposes is to end the unskilled and semi-skilled labor market in America.

First, there is no cap on the number of illegal aliens in the U.S., or aliens outside the U.S., who would be allowed into the country, provided they could find some form of employment. Any employer in any area of business -- no matter how difficult or hazardous the work -- could decide to open a new business, or lower wages in an existing business, to federal minimum wage of $4.40 per hour and wait for citizens and lawful permanent residents to apply. When none do, the employer could then order up the needed workers from anywhere in the world. Under the Bush amnesty, we could see a crew of Saudis cleaning nuclear reactors for $35.20 each per day.

If that happens, what is likely to happen to a competing cleaning contractor that employs citizens and lawful permanent residents? It will go out of business or fire its American employees in favor of dirt-cheap imported foreign labor. Taxpayers will foot the bill for the Unemployment Insurance, AFDC, and Medicaid consumed by the newly out-of-work Americans.

That should make clear just how calculated a political move the Bush proposal is. Then consider that at the moment, approximately nine million Americans are unemployed. The majority of them once occupied unskilled and semi-skilled jobs. Since 1997, when the National Academy of Sciences conclusively linked immigration and the depression of wages of unskilled and semi-skilled American workers, it has been beyond argument that an ever-increasing number of Americans compete directly with legal and illegal immigrants for jobs.

(The NAS showed that immigrants taking the jobs of Americans without a high school diploma lowered prevailing wages by between 40 to 50 percent.)

While a responsible steward of the economy might crack down on unethical U.S. employers that commit the felony of hiring illegal aliens, this president seems to think even greater slack is needed in the unskilled labor market and he is prepared to inject into that market an additional eight million or more people.

Bush sees no conflict in doing this because he believes (as he must) that nine million of us are without jobs because the only jobs open are those that, as he put it three weeks ago, “Americans won’t do.” Aside from being insulting to Americans, who probably have the most egalitarian concept of work of any people in history, this assertion is just false. With extremely rare exception, an American will happily do any job that will support his family. But the employment of illegal immigrants in some sectors of the economy has depressed wages to the point that a U.S. citizen cannot simultaneously work that job, pay his taxes and feed his family.

According to the National Center for Policy Analysis, 25 percent of U.S. jobs now pay $8 or less per hour, and these are jobs which many illegal aliens fill, thereby decreasing the market pressures that would normally push wages higher. In effect, some American employers have deliberately imported a Third World economy to areas of our country, and Americans with a First World overhead must seek work elsewhere.

When Republicans voted for Bush in 2000, they expected to get a president who would uphold the law, not change it in an ill-advised attempt to garner a few more votes. California’s last governor lost his job in part because core Democrat voters instantly saw his decision to grant illegal aliens driver’s licenses for what it was: blatant ethnic pandering in exchange for votes. In November, Republican voters may be faced with a similar choice.

posted 01-20-2004 11:50 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by KNOW-THIS:
I'm a bigot for speaking poorly of criminals according to you.

---

No, that's not true. You sound like a bigot for your distasteful remark (wetback) and because you attribute a whole host of problems to these people without, so far as I can tell, any justification.

If someone steels a candy bar from 7-11 they're a thief... but if I then blame them for rapes, murders, and high car insurance in the area I think I probably have a beef with the person as opposed to their real effect on the neighborhood, don't you think?

quote:

---

But yet you are basically condoning gang activity. Is it illegal, I guess not. Do you honestly think these gangs are designed to benefit society?

---

I'm not condoning gang activity, but I have no problems with gangs as long as the gangs don't do anything illegal. As long as they don't do anything illegal they might as well be urban "clubs."

quote:

---

As far as proving that most Mexican gang members are illegal aliens. Look it up yourself, you won't trust any of my sources anyway.

---

What are your sources? You're the one making outrageous claims here. Back 'em up with outrageous evidence.

quote:

---

Every article and research I've ever read gravitates towards what I've been saying.

---

I'd like to see some of them. Not even all of them, just some of them. Pick a few points that I disagreed with you on and back up your claims. Any two or three points will do. If you're right, I'll concede. But lacking evidence your comments look bigoted rather than based on fact.

quote:

---

And sure, a work permit would help with the issue aforementioned. But that's if, a BIG IF they come here for that reason.

---

I don't understand... if they come here for WHAT reason?

quote:

---

You don't know me well enough to derive the conclusion that I am a racist. I've told you I am not, but you seem to think you know me better than me.

---

posted 01-20-2004 11:58 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by KNOW-THIS:
Amnesty for illegal aliens is a complete contradiction to this idea.

---

First of all, as Bush said in tonight's State of the Union, he's against amnesty. And this isn't amnesty. I'd go so far as to call it "registering the illegals so we can keep track of them. In return, they might get 6 months to work here legally."

quote:

---

We're supposed to be profiling arabs with the greatest of care, right? But yet turning our heads the other way for illegal aliens? As I've said before, arabs might as well learn to speak spanish and infiltrate from Mexico.

---

Believe me, everyone here in Mexico thinks the same thing. And the Mexican government is on the lookout because, quite frankly, it is easy to infiltrate from Mexico. They'd (terrorists) be crazy to enter the U.S. through an airport or port of entry... they should just smuggle themselves in with the Mexico. And I was a bit aprhensive the last two times they had summits here in Monterrey when Bush attended. I can't help but think Monterrey would have been the perfect target given Mexico's corrupt security force. Luckily nothing happened.

Like I said, I agree that we should take care of our southern border. It's a huge security risk--and not because of the Mexicans!

quote:

---

I don't believe that people who break the law deserve the same kind of respect as the rest of us who follow it. Respect is to be earned. We don't shake the hand of a child molestor do we? We punish them, and justifiably so.

---

I didn't ask for respect, I asked for dignity.

Or if you get pulled over for speeding (breaking the law) do you think it's ok for the police to hurl some racial slurs at you or slap you around for awhile. After all, you did break the law and don't deserve respect.

quote:

---

If they have nothing to hide, why must they SNEAK in the way they do? And when I say "they" I mean illegal intruders of any sort, not just from Mexico.

---

posted 01-21-2004 01:42 AM            

Contains pretty extensive research regarding what I've been saying.

“These gangs are largely Border Brothers gangs. In Spanish, the Border Brothers are called “Hermanos de la Frontera.” Border Brothers are usually illegal immigrants from the same region in Mexico or those who have illegally entered the United States at the same time.”

posted 01-21-2004 01:45 AM            

But I'm just imagining things right?

posted 01-21-2004 09:43 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by KNOW-THIS:
Contains pretty extensive research regarding what I've been saying. “These gangs are largely Border Brothers gangs. In Spanish, the Border Brothers are called “Hermanos de la Frontera.” Border Brothers are usually illegal immigrants from the same region in Mexico or those who have illegally entered the United States at the same time.”

---

Interesting read... However, I would point out that he says "These ganges are largely Border Brothers gangs" without quantifying how many, and of those "are usually illegal immigrants" doesn't quantify the percentage of those groups that are illegal immigrants. And while he apparently in the NYPD, he doesn't cite any sources or specific numbers. Even just some numbers from his job experience would have been welcome.

posted 01-21-2004 11:07 AM            

"indicates that in Los Angeles less than 2% of Hispanics are involved in gangs (compared to 3%-4%)"
-And that coincides with what I was saying ofcourse.

posted 01-21-2004 11:26 AM            

“Some of the most violent criminals at large today are illegal aliens”

“Fifty years ago, immigration policy might have driven immigration numbers, but today the numbers drive policy. The nonstop increase of immigration is reshaping the language and the law to dissolve any distinction between legal and illegal aliens and, ultimately, the very idea of national borders.”

“ In Los Angeles, 95 percent of all outstanding warrants for homicide (which total 1,200 to 1,500) target illegal aliens. Up to two-thirds of all fugitive felony warrants (17,000) are for illegal aliens.”

“ A confidential California Department of Justice study reported in 1995 that 60 percent of the 20,000-strong 18th Street Gang in southern California is illegal; police officers say the proportion is actually much greater.”

“The leadership of the Columbia Lil' Cycos gang, which uses murder and racketeering to control the drug market around L.A.'s MacArthur Park, was about 60 percent illegal in 2002, says former assistant U.S. attorney”

posted 01-21-2004 12:13 PM            

Even though the mexicans all but run me out of my drywall company, i dont hold it agaisnt them, their just trying to do what human instinct suggest, and that is to do what it takes to stay alive, lets not bitch about the statistics, instead lets support the border patrol, lets petition the GOV to seal our borders, hell if we can give millions to isreal for their fence cannot we spend millions on the most important fence on our behalf?

Thats the real question, why have we all of a sudden forgot we can build fences?

food for thought, +80% of the worlds motherboards for electronics are made in either taiwan or china, isnt that a scary thought?

China announced their space program plans which states they plan to have 10 planet orbiters in the near future, wow with a simple little unnoticable chip on every motherboard, one push of a button could possibly disable our entire infrastructure, no facts in this, merely speculation but again thats alittle scary, the fact that we have a open borders is the problem, the politicians seem to not be concerned with it at all, so in other words from my point of view the illegal alien issue other then bush's absurd proposal, is not the issues we should be concerend with when their is a simple fix that could be accomplished in the next 10 years by building the right kinda fence!

posted 01-21-2004 02:08 PM            

Still the fact that a few illegals assume the evil role and they quickly stand out in our society, but in the same breath, we as americans commit far worse crimes, and its never mentioned at all....

Im all for the if you cant at least speak english get out of my country...i dont wanna make a phone call and the first thing you hear is an automated voice saying Press 1 for english.

If we can stop them at the immagration desk, if we can pull greyhounds over at leisure and arrest the illegals then we can surely make a fence that would cost us a fortune but save us a fortune in the long run.

As long as corporations and their money control things, the illegal flow of aliens is an issue that resides on the back burner.

posted 01-21-2004 03:29 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by KNOW-THIS:
So what percentage would be sufficient before you would admit the potential for a problem, %50, %90? If even one percent come here to form violent, drug dealing gangs than that's more than enough to convinve me that there is a problem(And there is alot more than that).

---

I'm sure there is more than 1%. In fact, if only 1% of them participated in those activities then we should invite them up since I'm quite positive that more than 1% of U.S. citizens engage in criminal behavior. If it were only 1%, they'd be angels and we'd want all we can get. They'd be a positive influence on us!

quote:

---

And I'm sure it's difficult to gather the precise number that you're looking for, and that goes back to the dangers I've mentioned before of having undocumented gangsters running free to wreak havoc. It also mentions that these gangs are becoming increasingly violent in their actions and in numbers. And as far as I'm concerned, you are disagreeing and discrediting my sources without further proof or sources of your own. That speaks volumes in my book. I mean, what credentials do you have regarding the sunbject?

---

Only first-hand experience that none of the illegals that I've known in my life (and 10 years ago I knew quite a few) engaged in any crimes except maybe speeding (who doesn't).

quote:

---

"indicates that in Los Angeles less than 2% of Hispanics are involved in gangs (compared to 3%-4%)" -And that coincides with what I was saying ofcourse. I'm sure the number of arabs that are suicidal terrorists may not be a great number, but it only took a few to topple the wtc.

---

Well if that's your argument we might as well lock everyone up--U.S. citizens too--since it only takes one to become a serial killer to kill lots of people.

quote:

---

That is why we have been taking to necessary preventitive measures. Here we have an obvious problem in the west coast where gang activity is prevalent and people want to do nothing? As long as it's not on your street corner right?

---

Did I ever say I don't want to do anything? No. I agree with you that we need to elimiante illegal entry into the country. I just disagree with all the evils that you attribute to them.

posted 01-21-2004 03:37 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by HatchetML:
Besides-Bush only wants to give them a free pass so he can get those million votes, it seems as if this president that was the Gov of Texas has completely forgot about the Alamo, IMO if he enacts the 3 year free pass, he should be tried for treason. RIGHT[/B]

---

How do you expect Bush to get any votes out of this? The illegals that may get permission to work here for awhile aren't getting citizenship. And I think there are more people that are pissed about this than there are potential votes up for grabs even if all the illegals somehow voted... so where is the electoral gain here??

posted 01-21-2004 06:28 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by KNOW-THIS:
You don't want to admit that Mexican riff-raff contributes to crime, drugs, violence and other illegal activity here.

---

Fine, I admit that Mexican riff-raff contributes to crime, drugs, violence and other illegal activities.

Will you admit that the rest of them--many of them illegals--are no threat and are hardworking and honest individuals whose only crime is, in fact, an immigration violation? And that a lot of them pay taxes for which they can get no refund on nor will they be eligible to draw benefits?

quote:

---

We border with Canada as well, why not put in a request to harbor their criminals too?

---

Harbor their criminals? Mexico is actually sending us their criminals nor are we protecting Mexican criminals (i.e., Mexicans who committed crimes in Mexico). I guess I'm confused by that comment.

quote:

---

These are crimes that CAN BE PREVENTED by doing a better job of keeping them out.

---

Whatever. I'm still not convinced that a significant number of illegal aliens commit significant crimes (other than immigration violation) in excess of the American average. You've been focusing on gangs. Fine. I'll give you a point that perhaps many latino gangs are made up of illegals. But we're just focusing on gangs. If you look at all the illegals, how many of them commit any serious crime? And is that percentage significantly different than the average for Americans?

quote:

---

After all, THEY HAVE NO RIGHT TO BE HERE WITHOUT PERMISSION in the first place. That is why it is so different than comparing it to crimes of US citizens.

---

The fact that they are here illegally is sufficient reason to kick them out. But I haven't seen evidence (and correct me if I'm wrong) that illegal aliens are more likely to commit crimes than Americans of similar race and income level.

quote:

---

If we can’t handle our own problems, why should it be our responsibility to police all of the population that the corrupt Mexican government doesn’t care about.

---

Now you're just babbling. The illegals that are in the U.S. aren't there because the Mexican government doesn't care about them. Unless you are suggesting that Mexico should become communist, conduct in wealth redistribution, and give handouts to people so they'll be happy and won't have any motivation to head north.

But, luckily, Mexico is a capitalistic country. I don't know what kind of "care" you want the government to give them, and you certainly can't expect THEM (the Mexican government) to prohibit their citizens from going north any more than it would be acceptable for the U.S. to prevent its citizens from crossing the border to the south.

quote:

---

The United States has become a dumping ground for all of the world’s problems.

---

Kind of like throughout all our history? Most of the immigrants to this country--even from before it was founded--were not exactly what their original countries would consider "desireable."

quote:

---

Evil exists within all of humanity. We have more than enough of our share of evildoers here. Let Mexico deal with their own evils.

---

Are you under some diluded belief that the Mexican government is sending their citizens to the U.S. illegally? If so, that's silly. The illegal aliens go north because Mexico is a free country, the Mexican government (rightly) does not prohibit their citizens from crossing the border, and the U.S. doesn't defend its border.

But your words seem to suggest you think that Mexico is intentionally dumping its "bad apples" in the U.S., and that's downright silly.

quote:

---

That is unless we are allowed to empty our prisons upon Mexiacn soil. Than they can be your neighbors over there, south of the border. Maybe that would put things in perspective.

---

posted 01-21-2004 06:51 PM            

Mexicans Have Plans
for the American Southwest
They vow to take it over

Our southern neighbor is not shy about expressing its intention to conquer the American Southwest, which Mexico regards as territory lost in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hildalgo in 1846. Mexican children are taught in school that the United States stole that land, which they call “Aztlan.” Absurd rantings of political extremists? Consider…

• In 1997, then-President Zedillo proclaimed that “I have proudly affirmed that the Mexican nation extends beyond the territory enclosed by its borders.”

• Mexican American Legal Defense Fund founder Mario Obledo stated, “California is going to be a Hispanic state. Anyone who doesn't like it should leave. Every constitutional office in California is going to be held by Hispanics in the next 20 years.” People who don't like such demographic changes “should go back to Europe.” (Incidentally, Mr. Obledo was also the California Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare under Gov. Jerry Brown.)

• Mexico's President Fox has been unrelenting in his brazen demands on the United States, starting with open borders even before he was elected. He has called for the border to be “a joining line.” His visits to the U.S. have been filled with endless requirements for Mexican citizens illegally in this country — free healthcare, taxpayer-subsidized in-state tuition for illegals at state colleges and universities, guestworker programs and amnesty for all.

Incidentally, we shouldn't be surprised at such shenanigans. The world is full of revanchist fantasies, namely that some vague territorial claim from centuries before should form modern national boundaries. The Chinese invaded Tibet in 1949, with the excuse that an eighth-century marriage had made Tibet a part of China. (Is there a Chinese word for lebensraum?) Chinese flowing into Siberia argue that the Amur region is actually part of China. The Balkans have been a recent example of the power of warmed-over nationalism, when Milosovic whipped Serbs into a murderous frenzy by summoning the ghosts of the Battle of Kosovo (600 years ago) as he urged them to “take back” what had been stolen from them. In the case of the former Yugoslavia, revanchism was the excuse for genocide.

Encouraged by their leaders in both countries, the 20 million Mexicans in America are similarly emboldened to insist that the United States surrender to their demands, particularly amnesty which will speed the acquisition of political power. And when California becomes majority Mexican around 2028, will those people call for political unification with their cultural homeland? Their leaders are planning for such a scenario.

It's hard to fathom how America's elected Congressional leaders, those who swore to uphold the Constitution and to protect the nation, are prepared to give it away for some perceived short-term political gain, if that. The front man for globalist corporations who currently occupies the White House is allowing Mexico City to dictate America's immigration policy, while few in his party object. Does anyone think that Vicente Fox cares about what happens to America? He sees the United States as a full refrigerator and he is hungry, very hungry.

Why do American public officials value so little what thousands have fought and died to protect? A foreign power has stated its plans to conquer this nation by demographic warfare, but in Washington, apparently no one cares. One wonders what Secretary of State Colin Powell thinks about surrending American sovereignty to a foreign power. He was a general in the U.S. Army and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, after all. Doesn't it bother him to be following the wishes of a foreign leader? Why does the most powerful nation in the world cower before the third-world country to the south?

— by Brenda Walker

posted 01-21-2004 07:02 PM            

edit...besides...you can go to mexico pick yourself out a wife, marry her and she gets free pass into teh country for then she can vote pay and file for taxes.

Basically the same thing bush wants, but you fail to see this man was the GOV of texas, do you not know what the ALamo was all about and this man was the Gov of the largest state in the union?