Tuesday, May 16, 2006
Bush + immigration
Despite my reputation as "bleeding heart," ardent Democrat and unabashed liberal, I'm still undecided on Mexican immigration. My boyfriend is a construction worker, and illegal workers affect his employment. Plus, I see Bush's endorsement of guest-worker programs, and the like, as another boost for big business, and I'm seriously sick of watching our federal government continuously buttress America's richest. Yet, I know these incredibly poor, brave, family-focused illegal immigrants are often assets to the United States, and I think many U.S. citizens, upon reflection, would admire their drive and sacrifice to provide for their families. Bush's Oval Office address Monday night proposed a complete overhaul of immigration, with, according to CNN, emphasis on several key aspects: secure borders, a temporary worker program, holding employers accountable, inroads to citizenship for illegal immigrants and comprehensive legislation.
The first involves deployment of 6,000 National Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexico border, which, (perhaps with the return of guardsman from Iraq?), Bush would like to increase to 12,000 to 18,000 by the end of 2008. I’m wondering what orders these Border Patrolmen will receive. Detainment? Death in some cases? The Bush Administration is not known for its leniency.
As mentioned, the essence of the guest worker program pains me. Should we allow employers to seek cheap labor? Perhaps this would push forward a pay standard equal to what U.S. citizens receive. I’d appreciate that.
I fully endorse employer accountability; in fact, I’ve been waiting for Bush to address it. Though I’m not for certain, I don’t think stiff penalties are applied to businesses found guilty of hiring illegal immigrants. According to a story by the Charlotte Observer, not a single employer has been fined for hiring illegal immigrants in at least two years. (http://www.alipac.us/article664.html)
This, of course, is a problem. On the flipside, I don’t know if untrained eyes can catch signs of fake documentation. And how hard should business try to verify what they receive?
On the fourth point, I think that immigrants who have lived in the country for more than 5-10 years and have a clean criminal record should be able to earn citizenship. This means completing the same documentation and tests forced on every immigrant seeking naturalization: proficiency in English and a knowledge of U.S. history and government (though a civics lesson may be good for every American, citizen or not).
And the clincher, federal legislation. This will be the toughest nut for Bush to crack, and ironically, he may require more help from his counterparts than his comrades. In December 2005, House Republicans wrote a bill that imposes criminal penalties for people aiding illegal immigrants, builds 700-mile-long fence across the U.S.-Mexican border and makes unlawful presence in the U.S. a felony. It passed easily. Plus, they’ve dubbed any path to citizenship for illegal Mexicans amnesty. Thus, their resolve may as wide as their proposed fence.
The first involves deployment of 6,000 National Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexico border, which, (perhaps with the return of guardsman from Iraq?), Bush would like to increase to 12,000 to 18,000 by the end of 2008. I’m wondering what orders these Border Patrolmen will receive. Detainment? Death in some cases? The Bush Administration is not known for its leniency.
As mentioned, the essence of the guest worker program pains me. Should we allow employers to seek cheap labor? Perhaps this would push forward a pay standard equal to what U.S. citizens receive. I’d appreciate that.
I fully endorse employer accountability; in fact, I’ve been waiting for Bush to address it. Though I’m not for certain, I don’t think stiff penalties are applied to businesses found guilty of hiring illegal immigrants. According to a story by the Charlotte Observer, not a single employer has been fined for hiring illegal immigrants in at least two years. (http://www.alipac.us/article664.html)
This, of course, is a problem. On the flipside, I don’t know if untrained eyes can catch signs of fake documentation. And how hard should business try to verify what they receive?
On the fourth point, I think that immigrants who have lived in the country for more than 5-10 years and have a clean criminal record should be able to earn citizenship. This means completing the same documentation and tests forced on every immigrant seeking naturalization: proficiency in English and a knowledge of U.S. history and government (though a civics lesson may be good for every American, citizen or not).
And the clincher, federal legislation. This will be the toughest nut for Bush to crack, and ironically, he may require more help from his counterparts than his comrades. In December 2005, House Republicans wrote a bill that imposes criminal penalties for people aiding illegal immigrants, builds 700-mile-long fence across the U.S.-Mexican border and makes unlawful presence in the U.S. a felony. It passed easily. Plus, they’ve dubbed any path to citizenship for illegal Mexicans amnesty. Thus, their resolve may as wide as their proposed fence.
# posted by Mia @ 2:36 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
Check it out:
"Very interesting, little known details: Mexico banned foreign investment in its energy industry back in 1938. Since that time, Mexican oil production has been controlled by the ineffective, polluting and corrupt state monopoly, Pemex. If Mexico opened itself to the exploration and development of its oil resources by American entrepreneurs and technology, Mexican oil might someday displace Arab oil from the U.S. market altogether. Of course, before Mexico agrees to anything like this, the United States might need to make some immigration reforms. And this could explain why Bush has betrayed some of his conservative supporters, proposing a new guest worker program favoring Mexican laborers."
From About.com
I wondered why Bush was giving Mexicans a break with the guest worker program. Big business doesn't really need it, they're already using illegals and legitimacy will only cost them more, that's why they don't sponsor their visas.
P.S. But I'm also on the fence (so to speak) about the whole issue.
"Very interesting, little known details: Mexico banned foreign investment in its energy industry back in 1938. Since that time, Mexican oil production has been controlled by the ineffective, polluting and corrupt state monopoly, Pemex. If Mexico opened itself to the exploration and development of its oil resources by American entrepreneurs and technology, Mexican oil might someday displace Arab oil from the U.S. market altogether. Of course, before Mexico agrees to anything like this, the United States might need to make some immigration reforms. And this could explain why Bush has betrayed some of his conservative supporters, proposing a new guest worker program favoring Mexican laborers."
From About.com
I wondered why Bush was giving Mexicans a break with the guest worker program. Big business doesn't really need it, they're already using illegals and legitimacy will only cost them more, that's why they don't sponsor their visas.
P.S. But I'm also on the fence (so to speak) about the whole issue.
I have a lot of the same feelings as you, Mia.
I don't feel as much on the fence as I do remarkably uninformed. I want to know more so I can hop on one side, or abandon the fence all together.
The idealist in me wants to see a rethinking of the whole situation. I feel like that being on the right side of the law is admirable, but I also feel like we've got an economic system that is taking advantage of illegal immigrants.
Breaking the law is one thing, but taking advantage of that, to me, is a whole other.
But again, I'm no expert.
Post a Comment
I don't feel as much on the fence as I do remarkably uninformed. I want to know more so I can hop on one side, or abandon the fence all together.
The idealist in me wants to see a rethinking of the whole situation. I feel like that being on the right side of the law is admirable, but I also feel like we've got an economic system that is taking advantage of illegal immigrants.
Breaking the law is one thing, but taking advantage of that, to me, is a whole other.
But again, I'm no expert.
<< Home
