All I'm saying is level the playing field.
Access to our markets in exchange for access to foreign markets.
That isn't currently the case.
Technology and "productivity" destroy jobs also. The trick is to either stay out of the way, or protect Americans who own this country. Right now, the effect of the corrupt lobbying system is to protect offshore corporate interests, who do not employ Americans, patriate profits or pay taxes. There's much greater ROI in paying lobbyists to manipulate legislation.
This same labor arbitrage is billowing out into illegal immigration, which Bush is mealy-mouthed on, since 80% of the people of this country don't want illegal immigration, but his campaign contributors do:
investors.com
"Borderline Pandering
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Immigration: For someone who thinks of himself as a straight-shooter, President Bush sure gets mealy-mouthed when the subject turns to illegal immigration.
Take his news conference early last week. It was devoted mainly to the capture of Saddam Hussein. But one reporter asked for a clarification of his position on illegal immigration in the wake of comments the week before by Tom Ridge, head of the Homeland Security Department.
Ridge told a town hall meeting in Florida that most illegal immigrants in the U.S. are not a threat to national security and should be given "some kind of legal status."
Ridge stressed that any changes to immigration laws are up to Congress. But there was growing momentum, he said, to change the way the nation dealt with illegal immigration.
"I'm not saying make them citizens," Ridge said. "They violated our laws to get here. You don't reward that kind of conduct."
He did not elaborate.
Flash forward to Bush. "Could you clarify your policy, what it is, short of blanket amnesty?" the reporter asked.
"Well, first of all," answered Bush, "I have constantly said that we need to have an immigration policy that helps match any willing employer with any willing employee. It makes sense that that policy go forward. And we're in the process of working that through now so I can make a recommendation to the Congress.
"Let me also clarify something: This administration is firmly against blanket amnesty."
Don't know about you, but we'd have preferred a follow-up question or two. Such as:
How does the Homeland Security chief determine which people who enter the U.S. illegally pose a threat to national security?
Of those who pulled off the 9-11 attack, how many were "matched up" with employers?
Who is going to pick up the tab for the education and health care of the families of those who have been matched with employers if the employers don't provide it and the families can't afford it?
What is the difference between "some kind of legal status" for those who came here illegally and "amnesty"? Aren't the two, in fact, the same thing?
And won't giving those who come here illegally big rewards — legal status, government benefits, drivers licenses, etc. — only encourage a new flood of illegals to make America their home?
We recognize the issue is politically dicey. Most illegals are Latinos, and they are seen as an important and growing voting bloc.
But if that's what's producing such vague policy pronouncements out of this administration, then it's not policy at all — it's politics. In fact, it borders on pandering.
This isn't a minor issue. There are at least 8 million illegals here. According to the National Research Council, they cost the government — federal, local and state — as much as $22 billion a year.
The last politician to pander on the immigration issue was California Gov. Gray Davis, who flip-flopped on driver's licenses for illegals in a vulgar attempt to save his job. Look where he ended up.
The country deserves more from a president who, as former governor of another border state, should know the issue cold and have noodled out a sound approach to it long ago. |
