Part 7 - The ’Compassionate Immigration Reform’ Scam
Don't be fooled by peddlers of ‘Immigration Reform’ Scams
By S.J. Miller

http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=9347


~ Foreword ~
As to the illegal alien issue. Three points come to mind:


1) Since Arizona is now enforcing Proposition 200 and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund is taking it to court, shouldn't that group be required to register as a representative of a foreign government?

2) The Mexican government said they might turn to international courts to block the Proposition 200 Arizona law. Shouldn't we tell them to stay out of how we run our country?

3) We are pressuring Mexico to stop the violence and drug problems along the border and they officially told us to stay out of how they run their country. Shouldn't we tell them to stay out of how we run our country?
Michael J. Fox
Tucson, Arizona

{CLICK HERE for Series Overview}

WHAT'S "COMPASSIONATE IMMIGRATION REFORM?"
Like most immigration hype, it's chock-full of emotional phrases that sound good but mean nothing. As we read in Chapter 2, advocates have always substituted emotional propaganda when facts don't support their pro-immigration stance.

President George Bush has embraced that strategy in forcing his "compassionate immigration reform" down Americans' throats, but that's not acceptable. Americans aren't willing to buy a "pig in a poke" from George Bush, particularly on the immigration issue. The President must be willing to publicly and openly disclose his plan in clear and factual terms.

Unfortunately, the President continues to disguise his true agenda behind "feel-good" propaganda with the intent of manipulating our sympathy, such as those below. The obvious conclusion is that Americans would reject his true agenda. That must be why he refuses to clearly outline what it is.

Americans began objecting to illegal aliens and their costs to taxpayers during the 1980s, long before the immigration fiasco reached its current financial disaster. Their advocates dismissed our objections with "that's just emotion, you have no facts to back up your claims." Now that study after study documents the financial burden, educational and health care disasters, crime and destruction of Americans quality of life, they don't want ot hear about factual studies.

It was still amazing that an advocate would be as blatant as Alfonso Munoz Salazar (a Phoenix immigration attorney) at a Prop 200 debate held in the Phoenix area: “I challenge each of you before using figures to look into the eyes of illegals. Don’t look at this issue from an academic view. Look at it from a human point of view before enacting laws based on an academic study.� (1)

"US immigration policy is inhumane." Just who decided that America (alone of all nations in the world) must develop immigration policies that are "humane" rather than economically beneficial to America and Americans? And exactly who decides what constitutes a "humane" immigration policy? Certainly not those who pay for "humane" immigration policies, that's for sure!

"It's an issue (Immigration reform) that will, if and when we get it done right, show the compassion, the heart, of American people." Who decides that it's "done right?" Again, not the citizen-taxpayers who foot the bill and suffer the negative impact!

"We want our border patrol agents chasing crooks and thieves and drug runners and terrorists, not good-hearted people who are coming here to work, to do jobs that Americans won't do." Oh, please! The Border Patrol is so hamstrung by bureaucratic interference that they're not permitted to chase anyone. And the phrase "jobs Americans won't do" has become one that Americans despise. That the insult comes from their President is galling.

"We must stop the process of people feeling like they've got to walk miles across desert in Arizona and Texas in order just to feed their family." Americans aren't responsible for that decision, nor are they responsible for corrupt governments and their refusal to provide for their nationals.

"Family values don't stop at the Rio Grande." and "the children can't be blamed for what the parents did - don't separate families!"

"Family values" is an attempt to hang the guilt trip on Americans, but remember that the family is divided at their own choice. Americans didn't make the decision, and aren't responsible for the results.

Illegals CHOSE to "separate families" when they arrived in violation of US laws. American families are now in the same situation of one breadwinner working "on the road" while the family remains home afte job loss through layoff, outsourcing, or "downsizing." Why is it humane for Americans but inhumane for other nations' citizens?

"I'm passionate on it because the nature of this country is one that is good-hearted and compassionate." Amazing how passionate people are with other peoples' money! Let those who are so "passionate" cough up the money to pay the costs instead of shifting them to taxpaying Americans, and I suspect we'll see that "passion" disappear fast.

"The United States is the land of opportunity. It embodies the promise that if you work hard, you can make a better life for you and your family. That's a powerful lure. So powerful in fact that immigrants risk their lives to come here." The reason for America's success is a transparent legal structure and a system of laws. Illegal aliens can't flaunt the laws in coming and then ask those laws to protect them.

"They just come to work hard and make a better life." or "...put food on the table." And why does the President think Americans work? Perhaps to buy our second string of polo ponies?

"They come to work and get their piece of the American dream." Part of the American dream is a society ordered by laws. Let them begin by obeying American laws, ALL of them.

He expressed it differently as governor of Texas: "Hell, if they'll walk across Big Bend we want 'em." (2) That comment makes it clear that George W. Bush doesn't care why they come.

DURING CAMPAIGN DEBATE?
The refusal of the GOP and George Bush to address immigration or include a position in the party platform is now legendary. So it's not surprising that his few comments during the Third Debate were so vague and deceptive. We definitely didn't learn anything further here. (3)

MODERATOR: I'm told that at least 8,000 people cross our borders illegally every day. Some people believe this is a security issue, as you know. Some believe it's an economic issue. Some see it as a human-rights issue. How do you see it? And what we need to do about it?

BUSH: "I see it as a serious problem. I see it as a security issue, I see it as an economic issue, and I see it as a human-rights issue.

We're increasing the border security of the United States. We've got 1,000 more Border Patrol agents on the southern border. We're using new equipment. We're using unmanned vehicles to spot people coming across.

And we'll continue to do so over the next four years. It's a subject I'm very familiar with. After all, I was a border governor for a while.

Many people are coming to this country for economic reasons. They're coming here to work. If you can make 50 cents in the heart of Mexico, for example, or make $5 here in America, $5.15, you're going to come here if you're worth your salt, if you want to put food on the table for your families. And that's what's happening.

And so in order to take pressure off the borders, in order to make the borders more secure, I believe there ought to be a temporary worker card that allows a willing worker and a willing employer to mate up, so long as there's not an American willing to do that job, to join up in order to be able to fulfill the employers' needs.

That has the benefit of making sure our employers aren't breaking the law as they try to fill their workforce needs. It makes sure that the people coming across the border are humanely treated, that they're not kept in the shadows of our society, that they're able to go back and forth to see their families. See, the card, it'll have a period of time attached to it.

It also means it takes pressure off the border. If somebody is coming here to work with a card, it means they're not going to have to sneak across the border. It means our border patrol will be more likely to be able to focus on doing their job.

Now, it's very important for our citizens to also know that I don't believe we ought to have amnesty. I don't think we ought to reward illegal behavior. There are plenty of people standing in line to become a citizen. And we ought not to crowd these people ahead of them in line.

If they want to become a citizen, they can stand in line, too.

And here is where my opponent and I differ. In September 2003, he supported amnesty for illegal aliens."

Notice how carefully he evades the issue of not requiring illegals to apply for this visa after returning to their home countries. Does he fear his audience might look up the Merriam-Webster's definition of "amnesty" (as we did in Chapter 3, Amnesty - Don't Use the ‘A’-word!)?

FROM A REPORT TO COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS?
Containing similar emotional and vague buzz-words that we've heard in politicians' speeches, a report to the Council on Foreign Relations is helpful in determining exactly what President Bush offers with "compassionate immigration reform." (As always, the term "immigration reform" is a red flag in itself.) Entitled Keeping the Promise: Immigration Proposals from the Heartland (4), it's likely the closest we're likely to get of the Bush agenda.

What is the Council on Foreign Relations?
Its members are very influential in US government policy. Many Congressmembers and Senators are CFR members, as are staffers and cabinet members in both the Bush and Clinton Administrations. Most members of the 9/11 Commission were also CFR members, and Vice-President Cheney is a former Director.

More meaningful is what Council on Foreign Relations is NOT. It's NOT a US government agency. Its members AREN'T elected by Americans, nor are they accountable to American voters. Nor are their meetings open to public attendance. Had this report not been given a passing mention in a Chapter 12 footnote of the 9/11 Commission Report (PDF version), I doubt any citizen would ever have known of its existence.

The introductory pages abound with the typical "From the days of the Mayflower, immigrants have been important in building America..." and the like. The first clue to the content was the names of Task Force co-chairs authoring the report: Jim Edgar, Doris Meissner and Alejandro Silva.

Doris Meissner was INS Commissioner during the Clinton Administration, and makes the current people look like stars. In June 1995, INS officials in Miami released criminal aliens and illegal aliens in order to clear detention space and present a more orderly facility to a visiting Congressional task force. In March 1996, INS Commissioner Meissner misled Congress by testifying that immigration numbers were dropping, when in fact they were not; this resulted in legislators dropping a bill to reform legal immigration. Although INS was called on the carpet later in congressional hearings, the damage was done.

Commissioner Meissner authored the ludicrous idiocy that "customer service" by INS staff meant pandering to prospective immigrants (people who weren't even INS customers) instead of the American people who are their real customers! No wonder INS procedures were so inept, bungling and breached national security - they were "serving" the wrong customer! INS even had 9/11 leader Mohamed Atta in custody before the September 11 attacks - but let him go, even though federal law said he should have been deported due to an invalid visa. (5)

I've never heard of Jim Edgar and Alejandro Silva, but I do know they hold their personal credibility and integrity in such low regard as to put their names on an public internet-posted document with a zero like Doris Meissner. So I know a great deal about the report and its authors before even reaching the Table of Contents.

Amid all the usual pro-immigration hyperbole are a few key items. Some have a familiar ring while others haven't yet been introduced. Plain font represents the report text; italicized and type are my comments.

Page 4 (Page 8 in Adobe Acrobat):
Lasting immigration reform requires an integrated and comprehensive response…The [CFR] Task Force recommends the following [emphasis added]:


An earned legalization approach that enables the existing undocumented population to gain legal status in the United States over time, including pathways to citizenship for those who apply and qualify.

"earned legalization" is a phrase used by Vice President Cheney; "path to citizenship" came from both the Kerry-for-President camp and the LaRaza convention.


A properly structured temporary worker program to fill future labor market needs and safeguard against abuses and poor administration.

Who decides what's "properly structured?"


A greater focus on strengthening the U.S. economy through facilitation of travel and trade, including consideration of U.S. VISIT’s impact on cross-border communities and businesses


Removal of unnecessary obstacles faced by businesses and workers that limit growth, including

(1) barriers to adjustment to permanent status for qualifying temporary workers,
(2) delays in visa issuance for students and workers, and
(3) caps on business visas.

Again, who decides what obstacles are "unnecessary?" I think we can safely replace "all" for "unnecessary." This sounds more like the global version of "Hell, if they'll cross Big Bend, we want 'em." (2)


Vigorous enforcement by federal and state governments of workplace protection and labor laws for native-born and immigrant employees alike.

Does any American really believe this promise after our experience with the 1986 promise of "crackdown on violating employers" that has yet to be delivered?




Development of innovative job training programs to ensure that existing U.S. employees and recent immigrants are trained for high-growth job sectors.

And we know who will benefit from such programs with their embedded preference for "diversity.

Page 8 (Page 10 in Adobe Acrobat):


The president’s statement of January 7, 2004, proposing a new temporary worker program and recent Congressional initiatives should be a springboard for a wide-ranging and urgent debate leading to comprehensive immigration reform.

Why do I suspect that validation of President Bush's "y'all come" speech was the entire purpose of this "task force report?"

American voters have made it clear that they've had enough of politicians' "conspiracy of silence" on immigration (both legal and illegal). They now demand that immigration policy decisions be the result of public debate, not academic models by the Ford Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, Carnegie Institute and similar ivory-tower elitists. We're under no illusions how and why such groups produce their "cookie-cutter" studies lauding the benefits of immigration and "multiculturalism" generated by donations from groups like the National Chamber of Commerce, LaRaza and similar pro-mass immigration lobbies.

FROM COMMENTS BY CONGRESSMAN DAVE DREIER?
During a January 13, 2005 meeting with several constituent members of the FIREDREIER committee to discuss his bill for harsher punishment of employers hiring illegals, Congressman Dreier mentioned his support for the President's "guest-worker plan." Three different members of the group recall his subsequent references to it as a "bracero" plan. But the plan outlined by President Bush and the CFR document is totally different from the bracero program.

It would be easy to dismiss Dreier's "bracero" references as misunderstanding until I noted the same analogy to the President's "guest worker plan" in a letter from my Arizona congressman. Two similar "misstatements" from two separate Republican congressmen become less of a coincidence.

One member pointed out the similarities in the President's plan and the CFR mentioned above, asking the congressman if the CFR report were the blueprint. His report of the congressman's denial and abruptly changing the subject leads me to believe they hit pay dirt.

In a September 3, 2004 letter (two months prior to the election), my Arizona congressman wrote me of the need to "create a workable program, like the ones that existed when I was growing up in Arizona, which will allow Mexican citizens to enter the US lawfully, secure employment for a period of time in the US economy and then return home." I'm sure his legal background told him to avoid using the term "bracero," but the birth date on his website biography confirmed that he remembered the same guest-worker program as I: the "bracero" program.

BUSH'S SALES PITCH
When I read that DHS Secretary nominee Michael Chertoff claims that the Bush "guest-worker plan" will improve homeland security (6), my first thought was "what's news about that?" We've heard that from the three who introduced 2003 bills for the White House "guest worker plan:" John McCain, Jim Kolbe and Jeff Flake. Of course it's not new; the Arizona Republic printed it because the story supported their globalist agenda and urges for illegal alien amnesty. (Hence its local name Arizona Repugnant.)

Let’s see if I get this right. DHS has 300,000 alien criminals they have no idea how to find, and allow 5,000 every night into the US with little or no hindrance. So putting a proven bunch of bunglers in charge of another 20 million "guest workers" will improve national security? I hope this guy isn't a salesman for a living.

People who buy this sales pitch will soon see proof of an old computer technology occupational joke: "To err is human, but to really screw things up takes the Department of Homeland Security."

WHAT AREN'T THEY TALKING ABOUT? THE SOCIAL SECURITY BOMBSHELL!
Two plans by the Bush Administration have the potential for Social Security disaster. Both the "guest-worker/amnesty" plan and Social Security Totalization treaty with Mexico will add millions of illegal aliens to Social Security rolls. The State of the Union speech mentioned nothing whatsoever about the coming disaster from Bush agenda programs. Either program can be implemented for disastrous results to future Social Security payments.

When the "guest worker plan" legalizes up to 20 million illegal aliens, they'll then receive credit for their "illegal work" while using someone else's SSN, provided they can prove their work. Is there any doubt that illegal aliens can obtain documents to "prove" whatever they choose, whether they actually paid FICA taxes or not? And is there any doubt that "fraudulent claims" by illegal aliens will be accepted without question for politically-correct reasons?

The Social Security Totalization Treaty with Mexico will add to US Social Security rolls any Mexican national who performs work in the US for only 6 quarters (1-1/2 years), legally or illegally. The ease of obtaining a Mexican matricula consular ID by nearly anyone (Mexican or not) should signal millions of global claimants added and mailed around the world. The treaty was concluded in July 2004 by Social Security Administrator Barnhart and forwarded to the State Department. After State Department approval, the treaty will go to the President for signature. That the President wants this treaty is undeniable; both Social Security and the State Department get their marching orders from the White House.

We have to wonder if Social Security's coming bankruptcy isn't due to other causes besides "baby-boomers." The two upcoming Presidential "wants" seem to be every bit as serious. Keep on reading, there's another waiting in the wings.

PAST US EXPERIENCE WITH "GUEST WORKER PLANS"
Bracero plan (1942-1963). The "bracero" guest-worker plan was effective in providing needed labor for the US and needed Mexican revenue with most "braceros" eventually returning to Mexico. Families weren't allowed to come, only the worker, with employers and program administrators were responsible for the braceros and any medical needs. But in recent years, the guest-worker plan has become a financial time bomb.

10% of braceros' wages were withheld as savings/pensions, with the money returned to Mexico for braceros to claim upon retirement. But when they (or their survivors) tried to claim their money from Mexico, the money was gone and queries were answered with "Quien sabe, senor?" (translated: "Who knows, sir?") The US government forwarded the money and Wells Fargo provided receipts for the wire transfer to Mexican banks. From there, the money disappeared.

The Mexicans filed a class action suit in federal court, naming four defendants: Mexico, Mexican banks, Wells Fargo Bank, and the US government. In dismissing the suit against 3 of the 4 defendants, guess which party the court (in its infinite stupidity and/or activism) left on the hook: the US Government (otherwise known as American taxpayers)! The court's decision allowed the bracero families to resume their suit in the future.

Court proceedings have stopped, but in the meantime the Mexican plaintiffs stormed the ranch of Presidente Vicente Fox in 2004, and now speak of storming the Bush Ranch at Crawford in the attempt to get their money. US federal courts set up American taxpayers to pay this loss, and there's always the possibility of a quiet, secretive out-of-court settlement. (7) (

Why do I suspect the braceros' payment will be taken from Americans' Social Security funds? No wonder we're hearing tales from the White House of Social Security being bankrupt within 5 years! With all the potential claims against Social Security funds by illegal aliens and former guest workers from Mexican workers, that would be no surprise at all!

For all that this "guest-worker plan" provided the labor needed and seemed good at the time, it's become a latent timebomb.

Fast-forward to 2004, with President Bush's hoped "guest-worker plan" when 14 million Americans can't find full-time jobs. Adding idiocy to stupidity, he proposes another guest-worker savings plan (9), this time involving potentially every nation sending guest-workers to the US! Such proposals really make me wonder if George Bush has fallen off the wagon.

Current plans (H1-B, H2-A and H2-B).
When President Bush (and his followers) claim we need a guest worker plan, he implies that we don't already have them. Wrong, we do. And their track record isn't good; they're fraud-ridden and rife with abuse. With the federal government's notorious refusal to enforce immigration laws, there's no reason to expect improved enforcement of future "guest-worker plans."
H1-B visas are given to "high-tech" workers for "jobs Americans won't do." Employers exhaust the quota for these visas within 60 days when millions of American IT people are seeking jobs.

H2-A visas are for unskilled agricultural workers. So why are we told that "illegals pick your crops and harvest your food when agricultural guest-worker visas are available?

H2-B visas are for unskilled non-agricultural work, such as hotels, restaurants and other potential entry-level jobs for Americans.

So why do employers insist on a new "guest-worker plan?" Perhaps because these plans require too much employer responsibility for the guest-workers they bring. They want cheap, not accountability.

DO AMERICANS REALLY WANT THIS?
If George Bush really believes "we need a guest worker plan," then let him deliver one. His current plan that he insists is "not an amnesty" IS an amnesty/immigration plan COMBINED that he wants to disguise and peddle to unsuspecting Americans. Mr. President, Americans are no longer "unsuspecting" of your motives on the immigration issue.

Do we really believe that this "guest-worker plan" is about George W. Bush wanting third-world people to have a piece of the American Dream? Not when he seems to do everything possible to take the American Dream away from Americans.

If these 20 million+ "guest workers" are so desperately needed for unfilled jobs, why are so many illegals looking for work on street corners and many not getting "picked up" that day? Returning to the "day labor" pickup centers reminiscent of the Great Depression doesn't improve America.

With the increasing mechanization of agriculture, fewer cheap-labor illegals were needed during the past harvest season. Even California's grape growers, the final holdouts against mechanization, used machine harvesters, claiming the need to "compete in the global economy." And why shouldn't we deport the illegals that the grape industry no longer needs?

Americans needn't apologize for Insisting that immigrants contribute to the US economy rather than feed at the public trough. "Multicultural diversity" doesn't substitute for an economic contribution. Indeed, that's what the US required from its "nation of immigrants" that illegal-alien advocates whine about.

That all changed in 1965 when Senator Ted Kennedy's "landmark immigration reform" was passed. The good Senator (who wouldn't know a hard day's work if it socked him in the jaw) felt the previous "economic contribution" requirement of immigrants was unfair, and replaced it with "family ties."

That a prospective immigrant could support themselves was irrelevant, but those with relatives already in the US (albeit on the public dole) were preferable. So we have Senator Kennedy to thank for the first "new and humane immigration reform." So began the "chain migration" that has overwhelmed the US in the four decades since.

~ Resources ~


(1) PAN Advisors Do Debate Battle with Liberal Opponents, Arizona Conservative, February 21 2004.

(2) Boy Genius: Karl Rove, the Brains Behind the Remarkable Political Triumph of George W. Bush, Lou Dubose, Jan Reid & Carl Cannon, Perseus Books, page 73

(3) Transcript, Third Presidential Debate, October 13 2004, Washington Post

(4) Keeping the Promise: Immigration Proposals from the Heartland

(5) Goodbye INS, and advise for its replacement, FAIR Research Update, January 2003.

(6) Nominee links guest workers, security, Arizona Republic, February 3 2005.

(7) Activist threatens siege of Bush Ranch, El Universal, January 25, 2005.

( Alan Wall, Memo From Mexico, Vicente Fox & the Braceros: Hypocrisy & Fraud, VDARE.com, March 23 2004.

(9) Immigration plan envisions 'incentives' to illegal aliens, Washington Times, August 10 2004.