I will come right out and say I do not like this at all. We would be rewarding people who are in this country illegally. Even if this is a means of registering people for possible homeland security purposes, I still do not like it.

Bush's Proposal

Edit to Add:

Question to debate as well: Do you think this will be good or bad for our country? (If it passes the house and senate)

Do you have a link to the specifics?

Hmm....



So we need a new program to understand a broken system? But we get to keep the broken system in place? All in the name of promoting "compassion"?

This sounds like one of those not-well-thought-out-election-year proposals. It'll be good for debate, but won't go far, except maybe help bring some of the Hispanic vote over to the Republicans. The worst possible outcome is that the D's try to top it with a different "better" program that also doesn't fix the broken system.

Such a proposal is an insult to all those who have migrated the USA legally. If breaking the law has no consequence, why should the rest of us bother to keep it? This proposal may garner some latino votes, but I think it will alienate (no pun intended) many more who would prefer a government which upholds its laws and protects its borders.

Breaking with the mainstream thus far here. I don't have a problem with this at all. Indeed, it's a concept I've supported for a long time.

I don't have a problem with someone wanting to come here, work hard and attempt to build a better life for themselves and their family - that is after all, the American dream isn't it? I don't mind sharing that, not at all. I view such immigrants as a source of strength for America, not a drain of precious resources or jobs. They aren't.

I do have a real problem with the exploitation of these people though whether it be working in the fields or sweatshops under inhumane conditions for ridiculously low wages, or whether it be by smugglers who take advantage of them, stealing their money, raping their daughters and leaving them to die in the desert. OH, yeah, I have a BIG TIME problem with that. This proposal will I believe help to eliminate those kinds of gross injustices. That's not the American Dream, not by a long shot.

Since I'm here, I'd like to tell you all a personal story about why I support this kind of thing. I don't think I've told it here before, if I have I apologize and blame it on old age. They say the memory is the second thing to go and I've long since forgotten what the first thing is. I was once asked to submit an opinion article to a conservative magazine and I included this story in it. It never made it to print and I never heard from them again. Perhaps you'll see why....

Several years ago I went up to the local grocery store in Simi Valley, California to do a little late night shopping. It was around 10 pm on a Friday night and the store was pretty much empty, just myself and a young Mexican man high-school age and elderly Mexican woman. He was walking with her through the store, pushing the cart, taking things down from the shelves and reading the labels to the woman. He was very respectful of her, she was his grandma, and she couldn't walk very fast, so they slowly cruised the aisles. I was intrigued by them. The man was a very handsome looking young man, a "real hunk" in my daughter's terms and I thought to myself, "This is Friday night, this kid would normally be out with his friends driving some females crazy somewhere." But, instead, he was shopping with Grandma and didn't seem to resent it one little bit. He even translated for her since she didn't speak English and helped her count her money at the checkout line. I wondered how many "real American" kids would have done something like that in similar circumstances, at least without whining and complaining about it. Well, I don't know the immigration status of that young man, nor of his grandma, but as far as I was concerned, they were "real Americans". Those two had some real "Family Values" going on Isn't that what we preach, especially on the conservative side? Where did we get them and how do we maintain them? It dawned on me that night that they get renewed in our society from time to time. They get renewed when a father and mother risk their lives on a flimsy boat so their children will have a better life. They get renewed when a family from a war torn country comes here with only the clothes on their back and works together to make a life for themselves. They get renewed when a young man's family moves here and to show his love for America he volunteers to go fight for us in a war and comes home in a box as happened not that long ago to one of my son's high school classmates. And, they get renewed when a young man helps his grandma do some grocery shopping late on a Friday night......

So, I voted YES in the poll.

Yea! for Bush to have the courage to say what needs to be said.

This is the first time I eagerly anticipated a speech from President Bush and the first time I felt pride, support and near complete agreement with what he had to say.

The whole point is that there is currently no lawful or legal entry for these people to use to enter the country legally. Demanding that people enter the country lawfully by providing them with no legal or lawful entry is just as much of an insult.



I don't entirely understand your point. If it is broken and more than obviously not working and a failure...what are you suppose to do? Would even just the act of admitting their is a problem be a great step in recovery? I think Bush understands the importance of these steps and that admission is the all important first step.

So if anything this will get all those who seem to think it is such an easy simple black and white thing to maybe realize a lot more is involved and that not one or the other group benefits or suffers more and that Free Trade includes labor.

Bush himself broke American laws...I doubt anyone here has been immune from such a thing. I have had a policeman pull me over and tell me what is legal and how I should behave and then allowed me to continue on my way. We are not a society of condemnation. Anyone who has had the pleasure of living outside the US or within another culture can tell you that one of the things that makes America so GREAT is this idea, concept and ability of reinvention. Our current President is a testament to this unique factor of American society.

Susan B Anthony broke the law too...so did Martin Luther King ...the law is not always right.

Thanks for your input on this Aquilla I often feel like the lone voice in this debate And thank you for sharing a positive story with us all. Every group or culture of people who have immigrated to our country have brought with them a unique set of values and ideals that have indeed shaped this country. Sad that so much of a negative focus is placed on what it is immigrants bring with them to America.
I also have concern about the obvious mistreatment these people are rewarded with for their contribution to our lifestyle and livelihoods. This will be a great step in helping to right this wrong. Altho it will not be an ultimate solution. I was unclear if Bush's proposal of work visas tied an employee to the employer or if they were free to quit and pursue employment as they wish within the visa's permitted time? I oppose the tethering of an employee to an employer for obvious fears of abuse.

I voted yes as well. These people are just trying to do what all of our forefathers did, and every time any group has tried to enter the U.S. they've met resistance, discrimination, and hatred. Let's change that. Maybe Bush is doing it for the votes, but either way it's the right thing. And the bottom line is these people don't just benefit from our society, they improve ours as well. It's time we paid them back.

Yes, I am in favor of Bush's new immigration proposal. Having said that, remember that is just what it is a proposal and will now have to pass the checks/balance system (Congress) for approval. When both sides of the aisle get through debating and revising it (what year?), let's hope that it is "put to work" and actually benefits all systems it was implemented for.

From what I have read this simply gives them the right to legally work in th US and travel back and forth LEGALLY. This is NOT a green card as that is entirely for someone seeking citizenship and handled by a different dept. I think it's high time that these people get recognized and quit having to hide in the shadows.

I have also read that it appears companies hiring these people must first prove that no American citizens wanted the job first.

I see this as a win win. We find out who is here, allow these people to work legally in this country without fear, and start collecting long overdue taxes in this black market.

I see this as a realistic approach to a very bad problem. It's bold, and it has common sense that these are mostly not bad people...just people looking for work and a better life.

cusbilla

Bad idea. Very Bad idea

This is like rewarding criminals when they do something bad. Basically, we will be rewarding illegals for coming to the states illegally. I would not be too happy to know that my job was taken by an illegal immigrant and then see that same illegal immigrant get Legal Status.

This is the worst immigration policy to date

Making illegal immigrants legal....WHAT? The whole concept that drives this idea of Bush's is an oxymoron...legal illegals? Why don't we just let burglars out of jail? People who committed a CRIME to enter the country should be DEPORTED...HELLO! You hit the nail on the head GA, this IS the WORST immigration policy in US history [See I'm not a blind Bush follower ]

CP

I'm suspicious of the true motives behind this law. It seems to me that US industry is taking advantage of illegals, and this simply encourages the practice. What I have heard from a co-owner of a local house construction firm is that no Americans want the jobs. I also heard that from the owner of a counter top manufacturing outfit.

I say cow dung!

It's about cheap labor. That's all. I bet there are plenty of unemployed Americans willing to swing a hammer or mold a countertop for pay these days.

If the economy turns out to not produce good jobs for most Americans seeking work, then this simply puts salt into a festering wound.

It is also unethical, as has been pointed out. Unfair to those who immigrate here legally. Against all that America stands for: *HONEST* hard work, eh?

But it'll make a good section subject for the next book

I don't even think it will get him the hispanic vote. The Hispanics that can vote (the LEGAL ones) are going to be upset that they had to go through the process to earn their citizenship, while 10 million current ILLEGALS are having it handed to them! This is unbelieveable. We need to secure our borders and fix the problem of illegal immigration by stopping it not encouraging it. I praise GW for his handling of foreign matters but this is an outrage. Why should anyone go through the process to come here legally when the government is granting illegals amnesty?

First of all I would like to say that I have the utmost respect for the Mexican people and enjoy my visits to Mexico very much. I am saddened by the exodus of Mexicans from Mexico because I see Mexico as a resourceful nation filled with people who need to renew their pride in independence. Being dependent on the United States for jobs is a disgrace to Mexican self-esteem.

In considering the proposed immigration deal, the Mexican people should also be aware of how president George W. Bush hopes to manipulate Mexican workers to suit the desires of the rich in this country. Bush's deal is not an honest one, and it will hurt solidarity among workers by helping the rich to manipulate workers.

To understand Bush's role in the anti-worker conspiracy, we first need to take a step back and learn about Alan Greenspan's version. The rich in America want to lord it over the common worker. But growth in the economy brings the worker into great demand as companies enlarge. This gives the worker more bargaining power and so the worker can ignore the lordiness of the rich. The worker can demand benefits and respect. But this angers the rich because when the common worker prospers with job security, he or she enjoys picnics with the family, camping, and good health care. In a nutshell, the common worker has a more enjoyable life than the greedy rich person, and that makes the rich person miserable. So, even when it is not in the interests of sound business practice, the rich in this country want to keep the common worker groveling for a job.

For this reason, whenever the economy has started to grow, Alan Greenspan has put the brakes on the growth economy to drive up unemployment. Greenspan does this by raising interest rates so that companies will find it harder to borrow the money they need for growth. Putting the brakes on a growth economy to knock the American worker out of demand is called a "contrarian" business philosophy. It is called contrarian because it is contrary to what you or I would expect business leaders to do.

Contrarian business leaders like Alan Greenspan are so worried that growth will bring the American worker into demand, that they panic at the slightest sign of growth. The last time around what happened was that Greenspan and his cronies misread growth into the economy. So when they put the brakes on the economy by raising interest rates, it caused massive unemployment. Greenspan was taking a lot of flack for this. But then just before the election, George W. Bush came into the picture and was photographed patting Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan on the back. Bush had a new plan.

This is where Bush comes into the picture. Both Greenspan and Bush received their master's in business administration (MBA's) from Harvard. Harvard supports a lot of contrarian philosophies because that is where many rich people go. But Bush came up with a new strategy that was different than Greenspan's. You see, corporations like growth and they want interest rates to stay low. But the rich want to keep the American worker out of demand. They always want a pool of workers who need work so bad that they will fold their hats in their hands and beg for work. That way the rich can lord it over them.

So Bush came up with a new plan. He pats Greenspan on the back and says, "Here's the deal. We will keep interest rates low to please corporate America. And, instead, to knock the American worker out of demand, I will flood the country with Mexican workers. This way we will please corporate America by keeping interest rates low, we will please the rich by keeping the American worker out of demand, and as an added bonus I will get the Latino vote."

Notice that at the beginning of his term, Bush mentioned his proposal to flood the country with Mexican workers. But Greenspan and his cronies had misread the economy so bad that unemployment skyrocketed so high that Bush had to shut up about it. But here we are now, and the stock market has made a big rally. Thinking that this means strong growth is on the horizon, this means either Greenspan will have to raise interest rates to knock the worker out of demand, or Bush will have to flood the country with Mexican workers. So, to avoid having Greenspan raise interest rates, Bush is quickly reiterating his proposal.

I believe this is a plan for migrant workers, that means tomatoe and cherry pickers and the like? I'd need a definition of 'temporary workers', however if I understand it correctly I think the plan is a good one.

To me legal status would mean they can expect an adequate wage, be able to report bad conditions, and employers would have to compete instead of paying ridiculously low wages because these people can do nothing about it. After which employers that hire illegals should be prosecuted and pay big fines. Migrant workers would pay US taxes I suppose, unless we have tax agreements with that country, Mexico for the most part I presume. I know Spain has a tax agreement with the US, which means if I pay my US taxes I pay a lower income tax in Spain as a US citizen while living in Spain. How they will work it out with Mexico I dont know.

I worked photographing strawberry workers and the strawberry business in Calif a long time ago and the living conditions, treatment and wages were abominable. Cesar Chavez would turn over in his grave. US citizens do not want these jobs, so who is going to do it? Certainely not 'legalized' immigrants, who can get better jobs.

In Europe they have periods of total amnesty, programs to legalize those who have been in the country for a certain period usually 2 years, if they can prove it and already have employment contracts. Its just good business for a country since illegal immigration is hard to control and having so many illegals is not positive. Illegal immigrant workers drive wages down amongst each other firstly, and could feasibly cut the employment market for students and young people who need to take available jobs without previous experience, although these days I believe even the most impoverished of our youth consider this beneath them.

Unless I am missing something and apart from an obvious attempt to pull the latino vote, I see nothing wrong with this plan. Hail a new day, my first ever approval of a Bush idea.

Edited to add on Freechildrens idea.
I know where you are going here. By theory, during the Clinton admin., when the economy was booming and workers harder to find, corporate America had to pony up to workers demands, child and health care, benefits and higher wages. It takes a lot of money out of corporate profits. When you flip the base economy back to oil and defense and have severe job losses, its better for companies, as workers expect less, and are willing to take what they can get. I agree that this can sometimes be a scheme in the works, contrarian philosophy as it were, but this was only brought to my attention recently by a client in the oil industry, so I dont have a thorough grip on it yet. However, I dont believe this is what is being talked about here. These are not corporate workers but mostly people doing jobs that american workers would not take.

To add I also truly respect Mexican people and find it harsh that they and their government look too much towards the US to solve their problems, while the Mexican govt is so thoroughly corupt as to do nothing to 'fix' Mexico, a land of great resources and possibilities. Mexicans have an interesting saying about their country which is.."Mexico is too far from God and too close to the United States".

DEFINETLY in favor. About time. Needs to be stronger and declare severe penalties for American companies which continue to use Illegals.
One
it will definetly improve our border situation. Although stonger enforcement. Stop the tragic deaths of those poor souls desperate for a better life.
Two
should help stop the exploitation of desperate people by American companies.

As for those chirping about the loss of American jobs or I'd hate to lose my job to some illegal. WHAT??
Who really wants to go out and pick fruit all day. Sew jeans for pennies on the dollar.
You want to protect American jobs stop corporations from sending them overseas.Otherwise it'll be your but trying to sneak in either India or China.
"Those filthy Americans, why don't they go back where they come from. Why won't they learn to speak Mandarin."

Stop allowing corporations to raid the retirement plans of their employees and then when their foolish and stupid plans fail don't let them go hide out in Florida or Texas putting Million and a half dollar additions on their homes while their former employees contemplate the bleak reality of now having to work until the day they die.

Please,,, like the jobs that illegals take up are ones Americans would take.
Illegals get them because no one else would do them for what they pay.

How to judge this
both sides are furious because neither side likes it.
Liberals are P.O'd because they want free citizenship for eveyone on the globe and Conservatives because they want them all herded into the ocean.
I have to say Bush must be doing something right when you hear evrybody whining at the same time BUT still whining about their usual Ravings.

This is a bold move by the President. If this new immigration proposal were chosen at this time only for the sake of improving his chances for re-election in 2004, I don't think he or his campaign team would have chosen this particular proposal because it has always been and remains to be very controversial. I read Bush and Fox had discussed similar issues before the 911 tragedy which were put on the back burner subsequently.

Estimates say there approximately 8 million illegals already in the U.S. Living near the border, I can attest to the fact that no matter how often they upgrade or increase our Border Patrol, hundreds of illegals still manage to slip through each month. So, although the U. S. borders are beefed up with more fences, more security, stricter penalties for illegally crossing the border....the number of illegals entering the U. S. keeps escalating. To round up and deport close to 8 million illegals and prevent them from re-entering again at a later date is next to impossible.

So what this proposal sounds like it is trying to do is work with the problems we are currently faced with:

Motivate any of the 8 million illegals already here to apply for the right to work legally for a period of three years which under certain terms could be extended or renewable. A registration fee and proof of employment is required. This policy would also apply to anyone thinking of crossing the border-only they wouldn't have to pay the registration fee, but would have to prove they have a job to come to.

The employers must verify that Americans didn't want the jobs being applied for by the temporary legal immigrants (TLI). (How many unemployed Americans want to pick up trash along interstate highways, pick fruit and vegetable crops, paint, clean toilets, etc.? Not too many I imagine-they would rather collect unemployment, welfare, sell drugs, or sit out on the corners with signs begging for money before they would work for a few bucks an hour.) The employers must offer the (TLI) the same protections that are given American workers. And the TLI workers would have approximately the same basic payroll deductions as American workers. (TAXES )

Dependents of the TLI workers (if they can support them) would be permitted to travel back and forth between their homeland and the U. S. (No more years and years of separation from family)

At the end of the final or extended temporary term, the TLI must return to their homeland. Incentives would include access to retirement benefits and tax savings accounts.

All of the above does not apply if the TLI breaks any laws or does not adhere to the regulations set forth. Instead, they will be deported.

Sorry to maybe repeat what has already been stated, but the above is basically what Congress will be presented with to debate and revise into a policy that won't satisfy everybody, but hopefully will be an improvement over our current situation.

I have heard estimates which range from 3 million to 6 million manufacturing jobs that have been permanently lost in the United States since GWB was appointed to the Presidency. Now he is proposing that we extend some legal status to low income illegal aliens so that they can continue to undercut any pretext left of job security for working Americans.

I have heard similar proposals from some of the Democratic hopefuls in the debates, so perhaps this is just a pre-emptive move on Dumbya's part to be able to say "That's my idea the Democrats are trying to claim!"

Perhaps I should listen to the cynics in the local newspaper who pointed out that GWB only garnered 30% of the votes from the Latino community in 2000, now the largest minority group in America, and he feels that this would cause them to vote for him... However, if I were part of a minority group, here legally, and I had worked my way through the process of immigration and naturalization only to lose my job to a Mexican factory operating under NAFTA; would a proposal to allow illegal immigrants to compete legally for American jobs at minimum wage or less really cause me to vote for the person claiming responsibility? Perhaps the Pres intends to include a clause to allow illegal aliens to vote in National elections.

It strikes me as bad policy for everyone but the people who hire illegal aliens as nannies, gardeners, and live-in housekeepers and chauffeurs. We might expect then, that the Senator's wives would emerge as a strong lobby to push this through; but it is an election year, and who wants to be called on to explain their reasons for supporting a bad law...

I know that George is being told by the pollsters that he can't possibly snatch defeat from the jaws of victory this year, but this speech amounted to little more than a sound bite that bites. It would appear to be neither good policy nor good politics, and if he has any brains at all, he'll be crediting Howard Dean with this idea long before November.

Ok, Im in trouble with my usual counterparts, which has me in a dizzy. Arent we talking about migrant workers who are 'temporary workers'? Is there something Im not aware of?
Wouldnt legalizing them put them into min wage status, above what they are earning\? These questions are not put forth as an affront nor sarcasm. Basically, Im worried, because the people I respect here are against this so there is something Im not understanding.

Where is the jump from tomatoe picking to taking jobs away from americans? The US is not factory oriented anymore, those jobs have gone overseas. The people who hire nannys, gardners, housekeepers and chauffeurs will have to pay them adequate wages finally, instead of taking advantage of them.
Then theres talk about NAFTA. Factory jobs are gone in the US and we might as well face it. With our standard of living we cant compete in the latin or asian job market. We can never go back.

Theres something Im not getting, please explain to me my liberal friends, I want to understand this, no kidding. Why is this bad? And to whom, exactly, and I mean exactly? Because few americans want these jobs and it was so easy to hire others before illegally, for less than min wage which was really bad for THEM.

Yeah that is the constant theme is debates like this Artemise...most often those who oppose immigration reform have no solid attainable reasons why...except words like bad, worst, insulting.



How is this a reward? This is a proposal to add in a work visa program..the people currently living and working in America will be asked to comply with this new law and if they do not they will remain illegal.
Should Susan B Anthony of been rewarded with the right to vote? Because if I follow your logic she should have never been able to vote because she broke the law and voted when she had an illegal status as a constituent.



How is that so? By allowing them to have legal status and be recognized and have a legal voice in our system their labor will no longer be able to be compensated so cheaply. Employers will have to pay them min. wage which they quite often don't. Slave rings...yes slavery still exists in the US..will no longer have the power to coerce these people. This will cause a raise in wages and the standard of living for millions in our country..just by simply admitting they are here and not only do we need them but we will now openly welcome them.



How is this amnesty? And how are we handing citizenship to anyone let alone 10 million. Perhaps you should read over the link provided to better understand the exact details of what the proposal Bush is proposing.

Freechildren...

How is a labor shortage good for anyone let alone the workers? Yes it puts workers in demand and that might be cool for awhile but eventually inflation would occur. One thing Mr. Greenspan is always diligent about is keeping inflation in control. Anyone who proposes a labor shortage as a good thing for our economy immediately loses my attention.

Desert Resident thank you for your very informative post And yes this is a very bold move on Bush's part.


Not only do the numbers keep increasing but America and Americans keep calling to them. I lived in a country that was tiny...had easily controlled/enforced border. Had extremely strict immigration laws and yet they still estimated that hundreds of thousands of illegals lived and worked there..which was just shocking to me. Reason was tho because they had a very low unemployment rate, a healthy strong economy and the need for low skilled workers. All those factors send out cries for immigrants to come and I have yet to see a successful border patrol that would make these enticers less enticing.
People need to just accept and realize that more border patrol, stricter harder penalties and further moves to criminalization is NOT working and it will NOT work.

I feel this was more of a political move to please Mexico as much as it was to please the Latino voters. The US has asked Mexico to agree on a Social Security agreement with us which will save American corps and Americans working in Mexico gobs of money. It will be interesting to see what else Fox will give us in return. I am really positive about our future relationship with Mexico. I hope that we will continue to further our trade with our number one trade partner and that we will continue to make it more open and free. Labor is something that countries can exchange too. Now when I read labels of goods I am buying and I see made in Mexico..I think oh cool made in the Americas! I think we will start to see ourselves as all being of the Americas...Mexicans are "Americans" already.

I think Bush will have a good surprise in this elections. I don't belive hispanics will vote him because of this. It seems to be a clever plan to identify illegal immigrants, to know where they hide themselves, let them work for 3 years and then send them back to their countries.

Any comments?

What is quite funny is the massive ignorance of economics when it is stated that illegal immigrants only accept jobs Americans do not want. The reason is because illegal immigrants drive the wages down to a level that no American wishes to work for.

Actually that is so untrue. The reason the wages are so low is that these people are undocumented and the government can't see whats going on thus some businesses are getting away with basically indentured servitude. If anything this plan is a step..only a step in the right direction. Hopefully one of these days we will also have the common sense to stop the idiotic war on drugs as well and start regulating it but I digress.

I would offer what do you suggest as an alternative? Removing 8-10 million people from the workforce would all but cripple the economy..if even you could find them all and afford to relocate them. Documenting them allows the government to actaully see whats going on and what companies are hiring these people. It also allows these people to go home freely without fear and vise-versa. I am very close to the hispanic world and I have to tell you these people are hard workers and generally do take jobs that most people don't want to do. Generally in the world you get paid for what you know how to do and your experience. I have had at least 4 major changes in my carrer and every one of them I have had to go to school. I see the way everything is and I hope to retire at age 55 and be a consultant. Thats just the way it is in life.

cusbilla

My father just this last summer ran a restaurant in Ocean City MD. This is a resort town and only is in business for 3 months. The biggest issue my dad had was getting employees and this was for good money!
Most of his employees were students from Ukraine and a few European cities who came over on work visas...very few Americans. Yet there is never enough of these kids to go around so these businesses suffer. ..year after year there is a scramble to secure your workforce for the summer. Why is there never enough because the gov does not allow enough. Exact same issue on the immigrants from mexico the gov. currently does not allow enough legitimate channels for these people to enter even tho the work and the businesses are asking for them.

A lot of it is not only money but type of work...chat up someone who has worked in a chicken processing plant and ask them how they enjoyed their job. It is the length and availability of the work..like my father's situation...you only have a job for 3 mos. and it is often demands of the work..migrant farmers are always relocating and not many Americans are accepting of that lifestyle.

The whole idea of massive deportation is just so unrealistic! And cruel! Imagine millions of scenes much like the one we saw in Elian's bedroom..sorry but that is not America.

Yes, bucket, I too am looking forward to what President Fox and President Bush propose from their renewed negotiations. There is much to give and receive between Mexico and U. S.

Now...let's hope that the differences on both sides of the aisle can be negotiated into a bill that the President will sign and here is the hang up...that it won't take a few years to resolve.

Hugo, you're right about this, and it's only going to get worse under this proposal. Here's why:

Part of the proposal is that employers will have to post a list of jobs on a website, along with the rate of pay, as an offer to American workers first. Only after the job has been listed for a particular period of time, with no Americans taking it, can they offer the job to workers in Mexico, to come over and work under this new program.

Sounds ok so far, until you realize that there is one great big loophole in this. Let's say as an employer, I have a job available for which I currently pay someone $12.00 an hour for. It's pretty much the going rate, and nobody in this country would do the job for much less, anywhere in the country.

All I have to do now, is advertise that job on this website for $6.00 an hour. Nobody here is going to take a $6.00 an hour pay cut, based on their training and experience, so the job sits on the site for the required number of days.

Now I am free to bring in people from Mexico, who will obviously take the job for that amount, because it's better than the $3.00 an hour, or less, that he is making at home in Mexico, doing the same job.

In my opinion, this is just another plan to keep employees down, and to drive down wages, while boosting corporate profits in labor savings.

I found this news article on National Review.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/krik...00401070923.asp







So actually by keep allowing illegal aliens into our country they are not doing a job that no American wants ( yes they wont do it for the price an illegal alien would do it ), but actual it is stifling innovation that could make no need for illegal aliens as the examples have shown.

I also think this is a horrible proposal!!! I agree with many here, why should we be rewarding and encouraging illegals and potental terrorists to come to this nation? Why is it that these jobs aren't being taken by jobless Americans who complain about there being no jobs, yet illegals come here in droves to work? Why is it that so many Americans are on welfare and unemployment and take advantage of the system and yet OBVIOUSLY there is money to be made out there in the fields!? I just don't get it at all...

The problem Billy Jean is the wage that is offered no American can live on that wage, especially when they worked for a higher wage and the unemployment check they get realizes that.

I think their economic analysis is short-sighted.

Ok, so the price of raw food items would go up. Let's say 10%. That translates into a 20% increase in price for packaged foods (gotta turn those tomatoes into ketchup, right?). That 20% increase in packaged goods + 10% increase in raw foods turns up as a (averaging) 30% increase at restaurants. At each step in the chain, the buyer doubles the price in order to ensure a profit.

So, what does a 30% increase in price do to restaurants? Hurts them bad. Price is a big factor in where people go out to eat most often and how often they will go out to eat. So it hurts restaurants in the short- and intermediate-term.

In the long-term, people adjust to the new reality and things settle back down. But in the meantime, restaurants close or lay off workers...

Which is sooooo not what you want to have happen in an election year.

I understand that the average American can't live on what they pay, but illegals come and live in the US on that wage, have numerous people living in a home to pay the bills and get by and save money to send home to relatives. It is doable. Heck, what about these homeless people that panhandle? They make a decent living doing that. It's what you choose to live in, I say. If a person wants a job bad enough, and wants to improve his condition, he'll take the low paying field job, it's a start and it's better and more respectable than begging. If the government gave incentives for citizens that were uneducated and untrained to work in the fields instead of waring with the rest of the world and trying to go to Mars, we might not have this problem. But then again, this has been going on long before Bush...

Thanks to all those giving us lectures on basic economics. And I do enjoy reading what you have to say...but do you have anyone else saying it? Because I don't feel this is a true result and I have been interested and following this issue for sometime now and the general consensus is that immigration does not effect the wages of the native population. It is a claim often made but one that has no real economic evidence.

I will offer up some info here

Also any proof that employers will be allowed to dump their positions on the American employment market?

Here is another economic factor to consider..if US employers can not fill the positions they have with the wage they desire they usually won't fill it. Production decreases...and creation of jobs decreases. That is a pretty basic economic idea too.

I agree with amf that article from NRO was not very effective in persuading me. I actually don't think food prices would be all the heavily effected to produce honestly because we have such a subsidized farming economy..I do think it would be passed off to the consumer tho at restaurants and such. think we would see a massive increase of imported produce...which is not a cool idea in my mind..remember the recent hep breakout. So I think the effects would be seen elsewhere..rather than so direct. I think our entertainment and hospitality ind would be greatly effected and our transport ind all who rely on the farming ind. I don't think the hospitality ind. could handle another hit like that currently.

I Also really don't get the argument that is stagnates our innovation. The use of the manufacturing ind... especially the clothing ind... to prove this point it just outright ridiculous because the reality of that in our global economy (were are not closed!) is that if the corps can't get the price they want on their manufacturing wages they head over to China, or Taiwan or Vietnam or the many others who are all anxiously and ecstatically awaiting their arrival.

And I doubt anyone is gonna let some robot watch their baby. Most veggies can not be mechanically picked and now we just banned the use of mechanical separation for the beef ind. Among the many other ridiculous examples of "modernization" the author claimed... I am not convinced.

Oh and billy jean the gov already tried forcing those who were not positively contributing to society to work in the feilds...they called it Chain Gangs.

Jes-luis! I'm not saying, "Go round up all the vagrants and force them to work!" I'm saying, "raise the minimum wage, provide housing for them, educate them while their there, job programs, learning skills and get them better jobs and give the employer incentives to hire Americans." Can't we take care of our own first?

I agree Billy Jean. Why can't we increase the minimum wage. What is it now? $5.15 or something close to that. I remember the last time we increase the minimum wage that all the businesses said they would lay people off and couldn't afford it. Did that happen? Heck no!!!

Give the little people a better minimum wage and take it from the fat cats(ceo,executive vice presidents) at the top.

Back to the subject. Reagan did almost the same thing and now we are doing it again. In a number of years we will do it again. ILLEGAL is ILLEGAL no matter how many times you say it.

From what I gather this doesn’t apply only to Mexicans immigrants. A terrorist could get a ticket to Mexico cross the boarder illegally, find work, get a 3 year visa and setup shop.

An individual is breaking the law when they enter our country illegally. Period.

I’m all for opening our doors to those who respect our laws enough to try to gain entry the right way. It’s a disgrace to those who have tried to enter legally with work visas and were turned away

And what message does this send to the rest of the world. We’re fingerprinting and photographing visitors in the name of national security (and creating even more animosity against America from those who don’t understand why). But if you can find a way into these fruited plains illegally Dubya will wave his magic wand and forgive you.

Amazing, when the Dem’s show any compassion to the minorities it’s called ‘pandering’. When the the Rep’s do the same its called 'compassion'. I will give the Rep’s credit, they have always had better spin.

Amen Fife and Drum!!! The whole idea of National security is a joke now because of what Bush is proposing! We're sending mixed signals and we KNOW that terrorists will take advantage of ANY week spot we allow.

A few things I don't get...

First and foremost, I didn't realize that rewarding illegal aliens really meant rewarding illegal Mexicans.

Meaning, illegal Mexicans will not receive the only benefit. So will the aliens here illegally that are here to kill us - not pick our tomatos.

In case Bush never got the memo, we're at war with people trying to come here and kill us. I doubt they'll put "mastermind terrorist" on their passports to gain entry. So, while we're busy worrying about Mexicans, all the other "aliens" are breathing a sigh of relief.

Secondly, it is true that they are taking jobs nobody else wants. However, the reason the pay is so low is because someone will work for that. If illegals aren't there to work for next to nothing, maybe the business owners would change their business model (or profit structure) to increase their payroll to a level Americans would work for. A zero sum comparison is not fair here. We can't know who they can hire legitimately if they don't have to.

Thirdly, what's the problem with giving those jobs to legal aliens? There are people all over the world wanting to come over here and live the American dream. We don't need illegals because there are plenty who have been playing the game correctly wanting those jobs. And Bush just pushed them further back in line so the people that broke the law and snuck in get rewarded with the jobs they want.

This idea is both absurd and dangerous. We are at war and Bush opened our borders even further while punishing people who played the game fairly.

Compare this proposal to the guest worker program in europe from the 1950's to the 1970's when there was a labor shortage.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/09/opinion/09ABRA.html?th

Why is it that people assume that businesses staying competetive and profitable is bad for employees? Since when was it that failing, unprofitable businesses led to a surge in employment? Doesn't it take money to pay wages? No, in fact doing this is what saves jobs--else the entire company would go under and no one would be working. Another thread, I know, but when will people realize that what is good for the company is good for the employee?

As for the main topic, I am a bit torn. I see repeatedly in this thread the sentiment that 'these people don't have any other option but to enter the country illegally'. Of course they do--not entering at all. If they can't qualify to come here illegally, perhaps they shouldn't come? Providing people with benefits only encourages more illegal immigrants--is that the desired outcome?

On the other hand, for those that are in fact already here, I don't really see a problem with this. So, I guess it comes to which problem is viewed as more important--dealing with the illegals already here, or putting steps in place which will reduce their numbers later.

Perhaps at a time when Corporate Ethics outweigh Corporate Greed.

K-Mart, Enron, etc. saw no reason to scrimp on salaries, loans, and other benefits for the Board of Directors, parties for their families, or dividends to the stockholders as they plunged headlong into massive bankruptcies. The auto companies have been offering massive rebates and zero interest loans on cars to attract buyers. The City of Detroit is facing a crisis as thirteen grocery stores plan to close their doors. They slashed their prices to drive their competitors out of business, but forgot to watch their own bottom line...

I seem to remember that in Economics 101, I learned that "Prices and Wages are only flexible upwards." Let's turn your question around. When will corporations realize that what is good for the employee is good for the company? It takes wages, and benefits to have purchasing power. If the consumer has no purchasing power, the corporations will have no customers. The first lesson I heard in every business or leadership class I ever took, was "Every business needs customers to survive." When Joe six-pack who lives from payday to payday brings home a few hours overtime, baby gets new shoes, or maybe the family gets a night out, or maybe he just stops on the way home on payday and has a couple drinks at the bar. The extra cash flows into the economy in a very real way. When someone collects an extra $100,000 in stock dividends, I suspect that baby gets new shoes, or maybe the family gets a night out, or maybe he just stops on the way home and has a couple drinks.. The same $100 trickles into the economy, and the other $99,900 gets reinvested in the stock market.

Wal-Mart's contract janitors appear to be an exception. Most of the illegal workers that I have read about are migrant farm workers, domestic employees, etc. They are people who will work for cash, allowing their employers to avoid records of their employment, avoid paying taxes, avoid social security, etc. They are contributing very little to the survival of the major corporations that drive the economy.

That's not what's happening here, though Hobbes.

Lou Dobbs pointed out on his show last night that some economists are starting to call this not "the jobless recovery", but "the selfish recovery".

The recession has been over for almost two years, the stock market is up, and business profits overall have seen about a 25% surge in the last year and a half. Why no jobs? Because corporations have yet to ship every possible job that they can overseas, and extract every possible wage concession out of what workers they have left. The only thing they seem interested in is the short term boost they get in their stock price for beating expectations on their profits.

These aren't failing, unprofitable businesses we are talking about, Hobbes. If these were things needed to be done to keep a company from losing money, that would be one thing. But to do it when profits are at an all time high? That's just plain profiteering for short term gain, over the long term health of the economy. After all, if you're out of work, odds are you aren't going to be able to afford the products your former employer is trying to sell.

From what I understand, Bush has not used an executive order with this proposal, so that is all it is right now, a proposal. He is just floating the idea out there, thus putting the impetus on Congress to pass or fail this bill. I think politics are a large part of this proposal, and a smart piece of politics. But then again, what percentage of Hispanics are registered to vote? Do they even know about this, are they watching the shows and listening to the radio programs that are passing the word on this? Bush didn't need to open this can of worms in an election year, I admire him for stepping outside the box and tackling some domestic problems.

Yes, I'm in favor of it-it's a good short term remedy(though the long term part of it needs to be addressed) The president is acknowledging that many sectors of our economy are working solely on the basis of foreign help and the fact that many Americans won't do certain jobs that others would be glad to perform for us. The president is to be commended for his initial steps in this matter. Without these immigrants, we would be experiencing negative population growth as the nations of Europe are currently finding out. We will soon have a largesse of retired people to support-any more workers we can have to share the burden would be much appreciated.

I can't friggin believe this. If this goes through, I might vote Independent. Or not vote at all.

First of all...

There's a reason why they call them ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. It's against the law.

Second.....

It sets a bad example to all others who wish to immigrate here. It's gonna make the ones who come here legally think twice.

Last..... They take jobs away from American Citizens. And don't give me that 'they take the jobs no one wants' *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. ***. If they actually paid a lil better for those jobs, and not pay cheap for day laborers to do em, you'd have Americans (who want or need jobs like that) fightin for em.

I am somewhat surprised at the strong negative vote in this poll. That makes a strong negative from AD on the prescription drug act, the proposed Energy Act, and now on immigration.

I think this is a pro-business bill and it is an attempt to court Hispanic voters. But it seems to have received only a luke-warm reception from hispanics.

This trend seems to be a social force that cannot be easily stopped. The differences between our economies are great enough that it Mexican laborers do not lose economically when they come to the United States to live underground. They lose regulatory protection (to the point where they can inform on their employers practices and risk being sent home) and then they generally don't have to pay taxes.

In this international economy we need to decide what we want to do. To create a strict border and enforce it as seamlessly as possible will cost a good deal of money. Then I would expect that American wages for laborers would rise.

However, I wonder how many more jobs we would lose in this country. This registration process would at least better document who is in the country and it would collect payroll and income taxes from the workers.

My biggest problem with the proposal is that Bush tossed it out to congress to work out too many details to get an effective system. This may be a proposal that the Bush administration would be happy to see get killed in Congress.

I don't think we can stop illegal immigration. I am not sure it is in the best interest of our economy to do so. This worker registration program with a renewable work permit may be a solution to a problem we have not yet been able to solve.

I see more people around here being affected by jobs going overseas than getting hurt by losing out in a job at a fast food business or a construction site to an illegal immigrant.

I am against this proposal. I am one of those who believe that we should not reward people for bad behavior and that's what this proposal will do.

One of the most used sound bites regarding this issue is that "illegal immigrants do the jobs Americans won't" followed by "and the reason is because Americans can't live on those wages".

But the most ironic thing about that statement is that these illegal immigrants are "living" on those wages and in many cases sending money back to Mexico to help their family.

I am very disappointed in this proposal and hope it never makes it to the House and Senate floors.

Personally, I think that he really has no intention in granting illegal immigrants legal stay in the US. To me, that's just saying: Good Work! You Broke the Law! You can stay here now!.

Remember, Bush is a politician. I believe that he's doing this for himself. He wants to (and who wouldn't) get re-elected. Usually, the democrats get the minority vote in the election. Bush wants the minority (mostly Hispanic) vote. It is crucial in getting him re-elected. Have you noticed that Bush hasn't been doing much in his term? All of a sudden, by coincidence, because it's election year, he's in the new a lot? He starts doing all of this stuff to get him re-elected. (No Child Left Behind Act, The Illegal Immigrant thing, and the Mission to Mars program)

I guess we'll find out in the State of the Union. When is it again?

There is a reason for that, too, Beladonna. Where I live, about a year ago, a local restaurant was shut down when it was found that a lot of their employees (15 of them) from the cooks to the servers to the dishwashers were Honduran illegals.

These 15 people were all living together in a 3-bedroom apartment, splitting living and sleeping space, depending on the shifts worked. If you had 13 other people in your house, all contributing to the mortgage or rent, utilities and such, I bet you could afford to sock away money to send home, too.

On the other hand, do you really want to live like that? I had two room mates at one time, and they drove me nuts half the time? Another 10 or 12? I dont think so......