I must admit to having had similar questions cross my mind. What do you know? I mean surely a lot of his friends in the business community would like to see a more sensible immigration system, no?
I don’t think this is by any means new on Bush’s or the national agenda. Debates in the last election and even further back talked about the issue and its been building for several years on both sides. The minutemen and the war on terror have heightened awareness while undocumented workers have spread out away from the border areas, which people have noticed. There also have obviously been greater efforts by immigrants, legal or otherwise to take political action. Given all this, I fail to see why so many on this forum act like this is a non issue. Furthermore, with Bush’s views being significantly at odds with most conservatives, I don’t see why he would try and frivolously bring this up as a diversionary tactic. Could it possibly just be that it was his honest response to Congressional action on this…imagine that.
One more note on Ironlady’s comment about Bush being apathetic as Governor of Texas. For one, the Governor of Texas doesn’t have that much control over border issues, which are handled federally. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has ruled that undocumented children must get access to public schools (and presumably all other generally available public services like hospitals, etc) so ther’s not a whole lot he could do.
Members of the Hispanic community living illegally in the U.S. who have made solid contributions to the country have earned the right to be fairly considered for citizenship. An afternoon in the wrong part of L.A. will make it fairly clear though that a lot of cholos who don’t belong freely roaming the streets of any city have slipped through the porous border with Mexico though and need to be sent back where they came from pronto.
The issue of what should be done with illegal immigrants and the issue as to whether the southern U.S. border is secure and, if not, should it be made secure and how are really two separate issues.
In an age of terrorism directed at the U.S. homeland, the secure/insecure U.S. border issue is the only one which really concerns me as it should any American and commingling the amnesty/deportation issue with it only serves to delay adddressing what may one day be a life or death issue.
The Governors of the various States get on the a$$ of the Feds on a regular basis to get what their States need. That’s why the States have a Governor! He may not have direct control, but he needed to have done something with regard to the issue “back in the day” to get me to believe it’s anything more than a misdirection today.
So anyone who enters Taiwan illegally and manages to stick around for awhile should be granted citizenship in Taiwan, too? Funny, no one seems to think that will happen, or should happen. Why should the US be any different? There are mechanisms to get into the US legally. Use them and you have rights. Subvert them and you don’t. Very simple.
[quote]The issue of what should be done with illegal immigrants and the issue as to whether the southern U.S. border is secure and, if not, should it be made secure and how are really two separate issues.
In an age of terrorism directed at the U.S. homeland, the secure/insecure U.S. border issue is the only one which really concerns me as it should any American and commingling the amnesty/deportation issue with it only serves to delay adddressing what may one day be a life or death issue.[/quote]
I agree that these are two separate issues, but if the government has put them together…there’s not much we can do about it.
It’s sexier for the Republicans to call for spending $X on doing something visible (like building a great big fence) to “protect the border” and “solve the illegal immigration problem” than it is to put resources into enforcing existing laws. Hmmm…could that be misdirection, I wonder?
I thought I posted something else on this thread…
Why doesn’t Mexico get its own shit straight and leave us alone?
It’s sexier for the Republicans to call for spending $X on doing something visible (like building a great big fence) to “protect the border” and “solve the illegal immigration problem” than it is to put resources into enforcing existing laws. Hmmm…could that be misdirection, I wonder?[/quote]
I don’t see too many Republicans in government that are favoring the “big fence”. Surely not the Bush clan. Yes, there is a strong call for this from many conservatives but not too many in federal government positions.
It seems to me Ironlady is more into misdirection than those being accused. It really is a shame that some people are so focused on bashing Bush and the Republicans that they can’t get their facts in order.
I would venture that this situation is more complex than some would choose to acknowledge. For example, business owners benefit from cheap labor with no unions and no benefits (e.g., illegal Mexican labor). Guess who sides with the profits of business owners? Who’s traditionally anti-union and pro-business? The U.S. economy, agricultural profits, and agriexports similarly benefit. Do you think the Republicans are against such things? Just an undigested thought to inject in the discussion. Cheers! DB
So enlighten me…what precisely has Bush done to enforce existing laws, instead of calling for this and that plan, project or amnesty?
So enlighten me…what precisely has Bush done to enforce existing laws, instead of calling for this and that plan, project or amnesty?[/quote]
From what I’ve seen, Bush has done nothing different from any previous administration as far as enforcing existing immigration laws. This has been a problem for many, many years. It is not a Republican/Democrat issue as some would like us to believe.
My comment was based on your statement
My statement was
It still seems to me you wish to take statements out of context and twist things to fit with your anti-Bush sentiments.
I would think that placing 6000 National guard on the border to help the border patrol is a big step in “enforcing existing laws”. Maybe these aren’t the laws that you wish to see enforced?
Some news from todays reports that highlight the hypocrisy of Mexico in this sordid affair:
[quote]Mexico Works to Bar Non-Natives From Jobs
By MARK STEVENSON, Associated Press Writer Sun May 21, 4:25 PM ET
MEXICO CITY - If Arnold Schwarzenegger had migrated to Mexico instead of the United States, he couldn’t be a governor. If Argentina native Sergio Villanueva, firefighter hero of the Sept. 11 attacks, had moved to Tecate instead of New York, he wouldn’t have been allowed on the force.
Even as Mexico presses the United States to grant unrestricted citizenship to millions of undocumented Mexican migrants, its officials at times calling U.S. policies “xenophobic,” Mexico places daunting limitations on anyone born outside its territory.
In the United States, only two posts
No, but the word around here in the States is that the Guardsmen wouldn’t even be placed on the front lines in terms of patrolling the border, but rather in “communications support” capacities…not exactly going to plug up many holes in a porous border that way, I would think.
It seems to me that this debate, like so many others, is getting caught up on what individual posters generally think about Bush and Republicans, which personally I don’t find particularly productive. Ironlady, if I might ask, what would you like to see done about the border security issue and the rights of immigrants issue? Leave it the same? Increase enforcement – if so by what measures? Greater rights for undocumented migrants? fewer? I find this to be a very interesting policy issue and I’d love to hear more comments on the issues themselves, rather than the political postures of the various players.
It’s a tough question.
I would like to see the US enforce its existing immigration laws as rigorously, for example, as the laws in Taiwan were enforced. That being said, there were far fewer furriners to keep track of in Taiwan, and it was (on the whole) easier for them to tell who we were than it is in the US (discounting people who appear Chinese but hold foreign passports, of course).
I’ve seen posts in other fora here about the fines charged to schools for hiring illegal teachers. Those laws aren’t uniformly enforced even in Taiwan, but it’s at least a first step, and in the States, where good “guanxi” won’t get you nearly as far (unless you’re in the really big bucks layer of society, I guess) I think that eliminating opportunities for illegal work by targeting employers who hire illegals would have some effect. At least it’s an attempt to make the existing legislation work before going farther. If they’re going to change anything, and if the government really wants to reduce illegal immigration, it might be useful to make it more painful to be caught as an illegal – i.e., swifter, surer deportations – and to make it more painful to be caught hiring illegals – i.e., larger, more certain fines or penalties.
I think my views on immigration might have been a lot more liberal had I not lived for so many years in Taiwan where it was driven home to me frequently that I had no rights except those granted to me by the pleasure of the government and, by extension, my employer.
I would just comment here, too, that IMHO the Republicans and the Democrats (and any third parties you care to name) are about equally dishonest/corrupt/underhanded. I’ve seen the inside workings of the “Democratic” party on the city and county levels and let’s just say the name seems to be a gigantic misnomer. I’m sure other parties are no different (judging from reports of those involved with them).
Personally I feel all of the elected component of the Federal government should earn the average national wage and “enjoy” average national health benefits, instead of their substantial salaries, unbelievable health benefits and “one-term-then-retire-at-full-pay” perks. That might go farther toward them husbanding our tax dollars better than any change of ruling party in either direction.
I agree with you 100% on your last post.
Although I think it’s useful in certain ways to compare the immigration policies and enforcement records of different countries, I do think one must remember that different countries have different needs and capacities. And any immigration policy should reflect and keep up with a country’s unique and changing set of needs and capacities.
I usually stay out of this forum as it leads to getting sucked into long, time consuming debates, but I’ll through my opinion into the ring:
The costs involved in healthcare and social services/education are the key issues of why immigration has to be contained. (as other have mentioned). Just one example is hospital/emergency room costs for an illegal women to birth. Who ends up paying for this? Later, the child as a us citizen, is then entitled to free education even if the parents just crossed the border and never paid any taxes.
Other issues involved, kind of on the fringe but worth mentioning> Many illegal’s pool their money to purchase housing. 5-6 families live in one unit. multiple this factor by 1000x and it has some effect on keep ing the housing bubble going. (even with a.r.m. or interest only morgages). the current state of the economy needs to keep this bubble going else hard landing and everyone suffers.
Another factor is perhaps what the illegals represent is cannon fodder for any new military action. bush and co. may be looking at a new stream of bodies to fill the military jobs that no one is dumb enough to take. As stated from many sources its not if - its when the next terrorist disaster will happen. It could lead us to Iran and the miltary still needs a ground force even if the “peacemakers” are dropped.
I was just back in the states, this was a huge issue on all the networks. My closing comments are similar to others: We as Americans living in other countries have to play by the rules. I don’t expect anything less from people that want to live/work in usa.
Well, I would say that the whole immigration problem is in fact a global problem. Not only US or Taiwan based. Europe has many problems with immigrants (and people from ex-colonies) which are bound to never end if 2 things don’t happen:
first, the natives (or callit whatever) have to understand that immigrants are necessary. Go to any school in a developed country and you will see that many of the kids are sons of non-native. While this might sound strange, it is good that it can be like this. If there is a shrinking in the number of people having kids in the developeed countries, then there will be future problems. First, kindergartens will close because of lack of kids. Schools will follow. And what to do with all the people that worked there? Kids means employment, no matter how you look at it. Just look at how many services there are for them in a developped country. Then you have the problem of longer life expectation, and that can mean that people can actually receive money from the retirement for a longer time than what they have actually worked - just pass the 100 barrier and you can start making calculations. Someone has to pay all these people who are receiving money - so either there are 10-1 to balance the social security accounts, or social security will have to be increased to values that can be unnacceptable, or retirement funds reduce to an also unacceptable value. Unless you can fuel the SS service with more and more contributors, the ones receiving from it will quickly be in a bigger number.
second, governments have to inforce laws on how to prevent people from being illegal. No matter where you are, if you allready hold a job then you should pay the respective taxes. What can be done is introduce mechanisms so people who will not receive SS and retirement funds (let us say, people who go to another country for a short peroid of time) can still contribute to them, as a social expense (not the full value, but a small one).This would fuel up the economy by having more tax payers and more people contributing to the SS. You can make contracts with people allowing them to be for a certain period of time, without having full fledged rights. They will pay fully for their stay, and be refunded in the day they live for the extra ammount they payd. This will create a rotation of people working, fueling the economy. Also, and because you are efectivelly allowing people to hold jobs, you are also fighting the illegal immigration that deprives of millions and millions in funds to the tax office and SS. In the end, you are also improving the economy of neighbour countries because all this people will be sending money to their families. The good of it is that these economies will become more and more dependent of external funds, the people will be consuming more and more import goods (because after a period of time you start only using that countries products) and will create more wealth (which will make import goods more affordable, so more people will buy them).
but I might be too stupid and completelly wrong…