Jerry Kilgore's criticism of Herndon?s decision to create publicly funded gathering centers for ?day laborers? - overwhelmingly Latinos -- got me wondering: what are the positions of leading Republicans on the issue of immigration, both legal and illegal. The results are an eye opener, I've got to say!Let's start with President Bush. According to the group, Americans for Better Immigration, "a non-profit, non-partisan organization which lobbies Congress for reductions in immigration numbers," Bush supports almost unrestricted immigration into this country. That includes what the group calls a "Basic Reward Amnesty" program, whereby "illegal aliens are rewarded with the very thing they broke the law to get?an American job." Here's what President Bush's "guest worker amnesty plan" would do, according to Numbers USA (a group whose goal is "To reduce the overall numerical levels of annual legal and illegal immigration."):
Mr. Bush would create a massive guestworker program that would:* Give an amnesty in the form of legal work permits to most of the 8-12 million illegal aliens now in the country.
* Allow all businesses to post any job in America on an internet website (presumably at any wage and working condition) and if an American doesn?t grab the job in a short time the business could import a foreign worker.
* All guestworkers and illegal aliens would get a three-year work permit and could immediately and indefinitely renew those permits for three years at a time.
* Guest workers could bring their entire family with them for the duration of the work permit. There would be no upper limit to how many foreign workers are imported into the country at any time.
Bush's motivations behind this program? According to NumbersUSA, "There can be no doubt that Mr. Bush is making this proposal in large part because certain powerful business interests have pushed him to do so since the day he was elected." The group further points out:
One of the most egregious deficits of the President?s proposal is a lack of assurance that the current massive illegal guestworker program will be put to an end. He makes some comments about more aggressively enforcing laws against illegal hiring but not much more.
In addition, the group points out that President Bush has previously supported "De Facto Amnesty for Illegals," as well as "a plan to import an unlimited number of low-skilled workers to work in agriculture." As Bush said in October 2004:
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.
On border security, President Bush "continues to talk tough," but "[t]he President's actions, unfortunately, have not matched his words."
In other words, President Bush, the head of the Republican Party, STRONGLY supports immigration, including illegal immigration, into this country. A story on NPR back in February pointed out:
President Bush waxes emotional when he speaks about revamping the nation's immigration laws and giving illegal aliens the chance to work in the United States. He has talked time and time again about how well-versed he is in border issues as a former governor of Texas.[...]
Mr. Bush wants provisions in federal law that would allow immigrants residing illegally in the United States to gain temporary work status. His rationale: There are some jobs that Americans are unwilling to fill.
So if illegal aliens are in the country anyway and willing to take those jobs, why not allow them to work and send money home to their families?
The president?s plan would give illegal aliens who can prove they have a job temporary status for three years with an option for renewal.
The plan pleases many Hispanics, who see it as a gateway to a better future. But more than a few conservatives have balked, casting the plan as a reward to those who have broken the current law -? a first step on the road to permanent amnesty.
Finally, the 2004 Republican Party platform has this to say about immigration:
Our nation has been enriched by immigrants seeking a better life. In many cases, immigrants of the past fled violence and oppression searching for peace and freedom.
All suffered and sacrificed but hoped for a better future for their children in America. Our nation has been enriched by their determination, energy, and diversity.
It then goes on to talk about strengthening the Border Patrol "to stop illegal crossings." However, this has largely been "all talk, no action." Or as they say in Texas, "all hat, no cattle." The right-wing website, NewsMax.com even quotes Hillary Clinton approvingly as she blasts Bush for "refus[ing] to provide the necessary funding in his Fiscal Year 2006 proposed budget sufficient to hire all of the border patrol agents that had been authorized." Why woudn't Bush do that? Two reasons: 1) his big business buddies don't want a crackdown on illegal immigration; and 2) Karl Rove wants to build a permanent Republican majority, largely through courtship of the rapidly growing Hispanic/Latino vote in this country. The problem for Bush is that this is an issue that deeply divides the Republican Party. Which is just one reason I find Jerry Kilgore's posturing on this issue to be so absurd and hypocritical. Is Kilgore's goal to highlight divisions between himself and President Bush, or what? That sure seems like what he's doing here, because President Bush is strongly pro-immigration, no two ways about it.
To sum up, here's President Bush's immigration policy in a nutshell: "We will keep working to make this nation a welcoming place for Hispanic people, a land of opportunity para todos (for all) who live here in America."
Does that sound like the Scott Howell/Jerry Kilgore approach? Right, I didn't think so.
Now that we've looked at President Bush, the next step will be to examine the voting records on immigration of Kilgore allies like Senator George Allen. Hint? When asked to check "which principles you support (if any) regarding immigration," Allen did NOT check the option, "Decrease the number of immigrants allowed into the country" or the one that favored "Prohibit[ing] states from passing laws that deny human services (medical care, education) to illegal immigrants or their children." Also, "Americans for Better Immigration" gave Allen a "C"rating in its latest report card. (John Warner got a "D-" and Tom Davis a "C-")
The bottom line is that immigration is an issue that deeply cleaves the Republican Party. So, when Jerry Kilgore starts playing with this issue at the state and local level, I wonder if he knows that he's playing with fire within his own party. Anyway, it's all fascinating, and there's a lot more great stuff on the Republican Party and Illegal Immigration...to be continued.
[UPDATE You've got to check this cartoon out, as it perfectly summarizes the cynical, wildly hypocritical views of Republicans on illegal immigrants - exploit them as cheap labor and generally treat them like crap except when you need the Hispanic/Latino vote]
Lynn Svensson
Day Labor Research Institute
It's rather sad that he doesn't give the average voter more credit on understanding the issue.
If the illegals are suddenly made legal and are "brought into the system" then they are going to become tremendously MORE EXPENSIVE while only paying a little bit more in taxes. For starters, they will suddenly be eligble for the full buffet of social services like subsidized housing, food stamps, various publicly funded health programs, etc. It is a very long and VERY EXPENSIVE list. Americans take fairly good care of our poor and the illegals will suddenly be elegible for all the benefits.
But even more expensive will be the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). As we flood the market with an UNLIMITED SUPPLY of cheap labor in the form of Guestworkers the wage scale for most low skilled jobs is going to move close to the minimum wage. Workers who earn wages even substantially higher than minimum wage are eligible for the EITC which was designed to encourage poor Americans to work and to address the regressive nature of payroll taxes by giving the working poor a full or partial refund. The net effect of the EITC is that the working poor get an Income Tax Refund check in EXCESS OF THE AMOUNT OF INCOME TAXES THAT WERE WITHHELD FROM THEIR PAYCHECKS.
The net effect of giving amnesty to illegals and "bringing them into the system" is that the American taxpayer will be on the hook to provide even more benefits to this massive new group of working poor and they will be tremendously more expensive.
And of course if we make 20 million illegals into voters it is likely to tip the balance of political power. Poor people have traditionally voted for politicians who have promised them free stuff. There is no reason to believe that these 20 million new voters will be any different and while they would be expensive under our current social welfare regime, they can be expected to vote to make it even worse. It is no accident that the most popular politicans in the Hispanic world where these people come from are all socialists.
Jackbenimble
Alejandro.
Not only does opposition to laborer centers force day laborers to become public nuisances (just ask the folks working in the 7-11 what they think about public urination), it in effect, SUPPORTS "undermin[ing] the rule of law and ?denigrat[ing]? citizens who immigrated to the country legally" (to borrow Mr. Kilgore's words) by maintaining the status quo.
The only legal way to change the existence of infomal day labor markets is to create funded laborer centers. Doing this is not only humane, it also will provide a basis for monitoring and regulating day laborers. Play it for shock and racist value? DUH, Jerry is defying his own logic! I suppose he also has problems with using taxpayer money for deportation...
"Will we reward illegal behavior with hard-earned dollars from law-abiding citizens? I say the answer to this question should be an easy one: No." - Kilgore
"We're here tonight to show the government how we feel about minorities taking over our country. The treat us like criminals while they
reward them with jobs and ... welfare checks." - Skinhead in American History X
Well, if it walks like a chicken and quacks like a chicken, it's Jerry Kilgore.
I beg to differ with Claire as well.
Get serious with the law, or at least offer solutions, not a handout.
~ the blue dog
Dana Rohrabacher is one of the few congresspeople who might arguably be even worse than Jim Moran. I suspect Rohrabacher of being prejudiced. If this group rates him highly then I would avoid its analyses.
It is not just persons who admit to being Republicans who are supporting illegal immigration. Some nominal Democrats in the House became Republicans years ago but don't tell anyone.
The Republicans have sellouts in the Democratic Party who do the Republicans bidding on Debt Slavery, CAFTA and illegal immigration.
I'd also like to point out that Rick Boucher didn't make it into the picture! :)
It's reasurring, in a way, to see that they've been forced into actually saying what they about the troops think by Paul Hackett, and by a mom with more guts than these chickenhawks could ever muster.
Again, shame on you.
And yes, I do think it matters when Rush states that it is unpatriotic to be proud of military service. Once he said that anyone should feel shame over serving in the line of fire, dismissing it as a "resume padding" activity, Limbaugh insulted the service of all service members and veterans from all wars, living and dead.
Then we look at who is firing off the insults--and the tawdry truth is that Mr. Limbaugh is hardly a model citizen himself. So, no, it's not a hypothetical 'straw' model, but extremely ugly epithets delivered by a very mean spirited pathetic person who couldn't possibly walk in the boots of any of our hard serving service members, including Paul Hackett.
Semper Fi.
I, Publius:
Certainly, nobody ever got killed working on reconstruction projects - certainly not. And their bodies weren't ever burnt and hung from a bridge....never happened.
Several of my family members/friends are also serving there, in various roles. Some more or less dangerous than others. But I worry about all of them. And I'll tell you this:
Traitors like you really need to be sent to Gitmo.
Get up to speed on current events.
What's disrespectful of our forces in Iraq is someone like Hackett likening himself to the heroes who actually DO put their lives on the line. Several of my family members and close friends have served and are serving there now, both in combat and non-combat situations. If you don't understand that Hackett was in a decidedly non-combat role, then you really need to get a clue. He's a con man, trying play up his role as a hero... and THAT is what is disgraceful.
And please, stop drop the straw man comparisons of Rush to anyone who served in the military. Rush isn't comparing himself to them, nor suggesting that he deserves any adoration as such. But that doesn't disqualify him from calling Hackett what he is.
Finally, I have to comment on your statement that "One is more likely to die on I-95 than in Baghdad?s green zone." That is so disrespectful of our military forces and the 1816 American service members who have given up the ultimate sacrifice for our country in Iraq. Shame on you.
Sounds like a real class act. Rush was 100% spot-on in his assessment of Hackett. This clown struts around his would-be constituents in SW Ohio, claiming that he "put his life on the line" for a cause he doesn't believe in. I wonder if he also tells them that he sat in a comfortable office in a PR job during his entire 7-month stint. One is more likely to die on I-95 than in Baghdad's green zone.
This guy is a self-promoting schmuck, and I can't wait to see him get his arse handed to him on a platter this November.
I do not wish to comment on anything else in this blog other than the credibility and nature of the Grade Cards that ABI provides.
One response suggested that ABI is right-wing. In fact, ABI has no ideology and is supported by liberals, moderates and conservatives -- Republicans, Democrats and Independents.
Our Grade Cards are about as objective as you can get in that they rate how much the actions of each Member of Congress would either increase or reduce total legal and illegal immigration.
The Grade Cards are subjective in that we give high grades for actions to reduce and low grades for actions to increase.
But they are objective in that a person who favors massive population growth and foreign labor importation would know that Members with an F grade are their champions, and Members with an A grade are their opponents.
Those who favor LESS congestion, sprawl and foreign labor competition can use the grades in the opposite way by knowing that Members with an F are working against them and Members with A are working for them. Those with a C grade are voting about half the time for more immigration and about half the time for less immigration.
Each action is graded by how much it would reduce or increase illegal or legal immigration.
Issues of race, religion, nationality, culture are never part of the ABI grading. The grades reflect only the numerical effects of congressional actions.
We analyze the numerical effect of each action, enter it into the computer and then let the computers spit out the grades without bias.
To the person who asks whether Rep. Boucher is "anti-immigrant" because he has a B-minus grade: The grade in no way judges whether a person is anti-immigrant. The B-minus means that Rep. Boucher leans strongly toward reducing overall immigration but often acts in the opposite direction.
ABI does not grade any anti-immigrant actions -- those would be actions that have nothing to do with the numerical level of future immigration but with the treatment of immigrants (not illegal aliens) who already are in our midst.
ABI's attitude about immigration is that it should not be used to drive down wages of American workers, to bust unions, to force population growth to the detriment of the environment and quality of life just so land speculators, developers and mortgage institutions can make more money.
Thanks for noticing the ABI grades.
-- Roy Beck
I. Publius:
Hmm, sort of like Commander Stuffed-Shorts strutting around in a flight suit on the deck of an aircraft carrier after "flying" the fighter jet that landed on the carrier? After "serving" in a "decidedly non-combat role" defending the dangerous airspace over the U.S./Mexico border? During wartime? When he could have been flying sorties over the jungles of Southeast Asia?
Hell, at least Hackett was in theatre.
GOP motto: Support the troops (if they're on our side)