Thread: Bush Doles out More B.S. on the Border

http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/arc ... s_out.html

Bush Doles out More B.S. on the Border

Maybe President Bush genuinely wants to solve the United States' immigration woes, or maybe he's grasping for another hot-button (hate) issue to drum up conservative support. Today, he proposed immigration reforms in Yuma, Arizona, which were a far cry more punitive than those he advocated last year. A 3-year work visa would cost an immigrant $3,500—a sum beyond the imaginings of most rural Mexicans looking for grunt work in the United States. To get a green card, workers would have to return to their home countries, apply for reentry, and pay a $10,000 fine. The proposal brought 10,000 Latinos to the streets of Los Angeles.

Just two weeks ago, I blogged about a Los Angeles Times article that suggested that last year's immigration legislation (sans the fence that, thankfully, has not materialized) has brought illegal border crossings down. The article took the number of illegals caught to be representative of the total number. Bush today made the same point: Fewer caught crossers is good news. But, as Think Progress points out, a year and a half ago, Bush pointed to increased apprehensions as a positive indicator of Border Patrol's performance. As with drugs, the government can manipulate "apprehension" statistics however it wants. (In my previous blog post, I cited Charles Bowden's assertion in "Exodus" that "On the line, all numbers are fictions. The exportation of human beings by Mexico now reaches, officially, a half million souls a year. Or double that. Or triple that.")

If illegal immigration is indeed waning on its own, why are we talking about it now? Wouldn't the war on terror—which we're losing—be a better policy to rehash? But here I seem to have answered my own question: Yes, it would. Bush tactic: Distract; dissemble; drum up hate for some other group. If illegal immigration isn't waning—which seems far more likely—doesn't that beg the question, again, of why we're not addressing its causes like the European Union does?


Posted by Cameron Scott on 04/09/07 at 4:22 PM

Is Bush's plan for illegal immigrants 'practical,' or amnesty?
President Bush's proposal calls for immigrants to return to their home countries and pay $10,000 to obtain a three-year work visa to reenter the US legally. By Gail Russell Chaddock | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
Page 1 of 3
WASHINGTON - With a call Monday for a "practical answer" to dealing with illegal immigrants already in the US, President Bush did what Congress's Democratic leadership had urged him to do: go first.
By stepping out front on immigration reform, the president signaled his readiness to take on an issue many here see as toxic, roiling lawmakers of the same party, neighbors on the same street, and the business community.
Whether Mr. Bush can deliver enough votes to push through the broad reform law he wants is what Democrats are asking, knowing he has been battered by the Iraq war and has lost influence even within his own party. Democrats say he needs at least 25 Republicans in the Senate and 70 in the House for it to have a shot at passing – and for them to bring a bill to the floor.
Bush's proposal – the product of weeks of negotiation with GOP senators – would require immigrants in the United States illegally to return to their home countries and pay what Bush called a "meaningful penalty" to qualify to work legally in the US or apply for citizenship. It also would create a temporary guestworker program.
Bush laid out his argument in support of that plan Monday, during a stop at a newly fortified border crossing in Yuma, Ariz. His aim: to win over those lawmakers who see eventual citizenship for illegal immigrants as a quasi-amnesty, a reward for breaking the law.
"It is impractical to take the position that, 'Oh, we'll just find the 11 million or 12 million people and send them home.' That's just an impractical position. It's not going to work," Bush said.

Sticking point: those already in US
How to resolve the status of undocumented immigrants already living in America is but one of several sticking points for lawmakers on Capitol Hill – and much of the American public. The guestworker program, too, is expected to be controversial.
Opposition to anything like amnesty for those who entered or stayed in the United States illegally crosses party lines. Nearly half of the House Republican caucus, 96 of 201 lawmakers, are members of the Immigration Reform Caucus, which opposes new guestworker plans or a path to citizenship for those here illegally. Last year, when a Republican-led Congress approved an immigration reform bill that focused on border security and enforcement, only 17 Republicans opposed it.
"For too long, Americans have been force-fed candidates who ignore or mock their valid concerns about the security of our borders, the enforcement of our immigration laws, and the survival of our national heritage," says Rep. Tom Tancredo (R) of Colorado, who founded the Immigration Reform Caucus and recently launched a presidential bid on a platform of opposition to illegal immigration.
For many Republicans, as well as moderate freshmen Democrats who replaced GOP lawmakers in the 2006 election, a path to citizenship – even with fines and a requirement to return to one's native country before attaining legal status, looks too much like the amnesty policy of the 1980s. Both the House and Senate passed immigration-reform bills in the last Congress but failed to come to terms on a comprehensive plan. What emerged was a bill to build a fence on the border with Mexico, hire more border patrol agents, and add sensors and cameras to help pinpoint illegal crossers.
Since 2001, the Bush administration has increased the number of border agents from about 9,000 to 13,000.
"The number of people apprehended for illegally crossing our southern border is down by nearly 30 percent this year," Bush said in Yuma. "We're making progress."
Previous efforts to stem illegal immigration failed, he said, because they didn't do enough to secure the borders or give employers "sensible ways" to verify the legal status of the workers they hire.
Democrats are cautious
This year, Democrats control both bodies – thanks mainly to wins by conservative freshmen, many of whom ran campaigns opposed to amnesty for illegal immigrants. That's why they want to be certain Bush can deliver the votes before they'll agree to move the legislation.
While the president didn't give details of his plan, one draft proposal calls for illegal immigrants to pay a $10,000 fine to qualify for a three-year work visa. A leak of this plan prompted a protest rally by undocumented workers and their supporters in Los Angeles last weekend.
Commenting on Bush's speech, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called on the president to "work collaboratively and on a bipartisan basis to pass comprehensive immigration reform" and urged him to take up the Security Through Regularized Immigration and a Vibrant Economy Act (Strive Act) introduced by Reps. Luis Gutierrez (D) of Illinois and Jeff Flake (R) of Arizona.Unlike leaked versions of the Senate GOP plan, the Strive Act would require undocumented workers to leave the US to regularize their status, but not necessarily that they go to their countries of origin. The House plan also sets a lower fine: $500 for those who want to continue to work in the US under a guestworker program and $1,500 to get on a path to citizenship. Both plans would open a path to citizenship to those in the US before June 1, 2006.
"The president didn't side particularly with one proposal or another. He didn't talk about $10,000 fines, which is good," says Tamar Jacoby, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a think tank. "These are going to be hard negotiations, and both sides are going to have to give. He did a good job of generating momentum."While Senate negotiations on a bipartisan bill bogged down in recent weeks, Senate leaders say they will take up some version of immigration reform in the two weeks before the Memorial Day recess, even if it means going back to the bipartisan bill that the Senate passed in the last Congress.If the Senate does produce a bill, Speaker Pelosi could find that she can craft a bipartisan House bill with only 30 or 40 GOP votes, says Ms. Jacoby, who is advising Democrats on the immigration issue.

What men & women in suits can be trusted? I haven't seen much evidence that many can be trusted to do any thing right. Tancredo seems honest. Pelosi talks about honesty. They all seem to be filling their pockets with other people's money as the Titanic is sinking.

I start worrying when Bush arrives at the border with the sleeves rolled up on his blue work shirt. I wonder what B.S. he is up to next. I'm sure the RNC must jump him from time to time. Rove must be in a full time "what can I cover up next?" mode.

Does anyone else here wonder what the White House and Congress will some day confront without a middle class? Doesn't take much sociology to figure that out.

GO ALIPAC.........WE'RE GOING TO WIN THIS!!!!!!!!!!!

Love reading this forum!