SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: michael97123 who wrote (23236)1/6/2004 8:24:58 PM
From: Sully-  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793623
 
Amnesty Trapdoor
What is the president thinking on immigration?
January 06, 2004, 8:50 a.m.

In comedy, when you see a man walking straight towards an open trapdoor, his eyes fixed on the far horizon, you laugh. In politics, when you see the same thing, you wonder why.

Just now President Bush is striding three-quarters of the way to "open borders" immigration policy. According to the Washington Post, Mr. Bush will next week announce an immigration package with three new elements:

1. A new visa system for "temporary" workers who would be allowed into the U.S. if there were jobs unfilled by Americans waiting for them (i.e., a new guest-worker program.)

2. Some kind of "legal status" for the estimated eight million "undocumented workers" in the U.S., i.e., an amnesty for illegal aliens.

3. Stricter entry controls "to make the plan more palatable to conservatives."

Even on its own terms, Mr. Bush's plan is full of holes. Experience from Germany to California shows that "guest-worker" programs invariably increase illegal immigration since they create welcoming cultural enclaves of foreign nationals into which the "illegals" promptly vanish without trace. Amnesties also encourage illegal immigration by sending the message that if an "undocumented worker" makes it over the border, he will eventually be granted legal status. The 1986 amnesty prompted just such an upsurge in illegal immigration. And what exactly is the point of stricter border controls if you admit anyone willing to work-temporarily — for starvation wages? Surely not even Republican congressmen are likely to be deceived by such a "palatable" absurdity.

All in all the effect of such reforms will be to increase both legal and illegal immigration massively. This in turn will foster an underworld of American life in which the authorities — despite the palatable cosmetic of better border technology — are simply unable to keep track of who is in the U.S. and for what reason. It hardly needs pointing out that such an underworld would be an ideal environment of night and fog for the terrorists to move about in.

We have already gone too far in building such an underworld. It is an open secret that neither administration officials nor federal immigration judges enforce the law on deporting illegal aliens. Judges in particular often refuse to order arrest warrants for those illegal aliens who fail to turn up for their court hearings. And according to a senior official in the Homeland Security Department (quoted by Michelle Malkin in her indispensable column), the Bush administration is about to reintroduce the Travel Without a Visa program that has enabled illegal aliens from countries harboring al Qaeda terrorists to simply walk out of Los Angeles airport into the underworld. They probably weren't terrorists. But who knows?

Both our current immigration policy and the "reforms" proposed by the president are national-security disasters waiting to happen. So why is Mr. Bush walking so determinedly towards the trapdoor?

Can it be that more immigration will benefit the U.S. economy sufficiently to justify the national-security and other risks? The answer to that is plainly "no." Peter Brimelow's Alien Nation remains the best guide to the economic arguments. But research shows quite clearly that the net economic benefit to native-born Americans from immigration is miniscule — and dwarfed by the fiscal costs that immigration imposes in the form of higher spending needed for the extra schools, hospitals, roads, and other services that immigrants use.

Two specific groups do benefit substantially from immigration: namely the immigrants themselves and those who employ them at lower wages than Americans would accept. The corollary, however, is that some specific Americans lose out: namely, low-paid workers, often minority Americans, who must either lose their jobs or must accept lower wages to compete with the new arrivals.

If economic benefits are not the explanation of Mr. Bush's reforms, what about political benefits? It is certainly possible that the president, under the tutelage of his pocket Machiavelli, Karl Rove, may believe that there are votes in a policy of more immigration. Not from the voters in general to be sure — every poll shows that about two-thirds of the American people want less immigration rather than more. But Rove apparently sees immigration as a vote-winner with particular ethnic groups, such as Hispanics who supposedly want to see Mexican "illegals" legalized, or from Arab/Muslim voters who resent some immigration controls as anti-Muslim. Nor are these just recent concerns. As part of such outreach, President Bush was scheduled to meet with Muslim and Arab-American leaders to discuss an end to ethnic profiling at airports (or "flying while Arab") and "secret" trial evidence on the afternoon of — September 11, 2001.

However firmly held, however, such beliefs are a delusion as Steve Sailer of United Press International has documented in several analyses of exit polls for the 2002 elections. To begin with, self-identified Muslim voters account for 0.3 percent of the electorate — and 90 percent of them voted Democrat. Second, Hispanics, who account for only about 6 percent of the voters, consistently lag 20 points behind whites in voting Republican in both landslides and defeats. Third, Hispanics are only slightly less hostile to illegal immigration then the rest of America. Not surprisingly either since new immigrants, both legal and illegal, tend to compete with them at the lower end of the labor market. And, finally, almost all other voters — namely 90 percent — are bitterly opposed to illegal immigration — and 60 percent are hostile to the legal kind too. So much for outreach!

That leaves the left-wing critique: Bush is simply doing the bidding of corporate America by supplying them with an endless supply of cheap labor to hold down wages. A RICO lawsuit against Wal-mart in New Jersey — brought, ironically, not by displaced American workers but by the illegal immigrants Wal-mart employed at one remove through contractors — reveals a second underworld of sweatshops in which workers are bullied, cheated, and casually dismissed that is the inevitable result of uncontrolled mass immigration.

Maybe the president thinks he is ending such sweatshops that by legalizing illegals. Not so, alas. By increasing the supply of labor without limit and without legal risk, he is really making it easier to import sweatshops throughout America. For mass immigration and sweatshops go together like love and...well, like love and shacking up.

So, as President Bush strides confidently towards the trapdoor, I am reminded of Talleyrand's famous question: "I wonder why he did that?" His question was inspired by the death of the Russian ambassador.

— John O'Sullivan is editor of The National Interest and National Review editor-at-large. He can be contacted via www.benadorassociates.com.

nationalreview.com



To: michael97123 who wrote (23236)1/6/2004 8:26:34 PM
From: Lane3  Respond to of 793623
 
There must have been illegals throughout our history from areas other than south of the border, no?

For much of our history, there was no such thing as illegal immigration.

Immigration: History
Of
American Policy

From the time the first white settlers came to America,
this country welcomed people from any country in the
world. Many newcomers came from Ireland, Germany, Great
Britain, and France because of poor harvests, famines,
political conflicts, or revolutions. A new wave of
immigration began in the late 1880's and people came from
countries in southern and eastern Europe, such as Italy and
Austria-Hungary. The number of newcomers was so large that
many cities became overcrowded and jobs became scarce. This
situation aroused antagonism, resentment and conflicts,
and the need to establish some laws and regulations became
evident. The "open-door" policy ended in 1882 when Congress
passed the nation's first general immigration statute.

The first law that regulated immigration was the Oriental
Exclusion Act which halted Chinese immigration. n 1917,
Congress passed a second law that required an immigrant to
prove that he could read and write at least one language.
Physically handicapped immigrants and children under 16 did
not have to meet this requirement.

After World War I, a marked increase in racism and the
growth of isolationist sentiment in the U.S. led to demands
for further legislation. In 1921 a congressional act
provided for a Quota System for immigrants. The law was
aimed especially at central and eastern European countries
that had been sending untrained and underprivileged
emigrants. The quota that was set allowed each country to
send each year only 3 per cent of the number of persons of
that nationality living in America in 1910. The Immigration
Act of 1924 changed the quota to 2 percent and made 1890
the base year. The National Origins Law went into effect
in 1929 and set a limit of 150,000 immigrants a year. After
World War II, immigration into the United States rose
sharply as thousands of refugees sought new homes. The
United States admitted about 7,376,000 immigrants from 1945
through 1971. In the 1980s concern about the surge of
illegal aliens into the U.S. led Congress to pass
legislation aimed at cutting illegal immigration. The
Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 allows most
illegal aliens who have resided in the U.S. regularly since
January 1, 1982, to apply for legal status. Also, the law
prohibits employers from hiring illegal aliens and mandates
penalties for violations.

Debate over immigration and immigration policy is not new
to the nation's history. From time to time, Congress jarred
legislation to control the flow of immigration. As
immigration rises and hatred grows more laws will be
implemented trying to release some of the pressure. An
important immigration issue that the government needs to
resolve at the present time, is the problem of illegal
immigration. The 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act
which aimed at curbing illegal immigration, has succeeded
in reducing the flow of illegal immigrants into the United
States, according to a study released on July 20, 1989 by
the Urban Institute. Border patrols operated by the U.S.
Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) arrested 1.3
million illegal immigrants, most from Mexico, in a two-year
period ending in September 1988. In 1989, the U.S.
Department of State announced that 10,000 extra visas would
be issued to immigrants from 162 countries - most of them
in Europe, Africa, and South America - deemed
underrepresented in the usual immigration flow. People
from those countries, including aliens living in the United
States illegally, were eligible to apply for permanent
residency through a special lottery. Winners of visas would
be chosen randomly by computer.

Emigration and immigration cause problems for the
immigrants, for the country he leaves, and for the country
to which he moves. Congress passes all immigration laws of
the United States, and the Immigration and Naturalization
Service in the Department of Justice administers these
laws. It has authority to admit, exclude, and deport
aliens according to the laws. Even with all the above
mentioned rules and regulations, the United States has
received a larger number of immigrants than any country in
history.

Bibliography

Bontemps, Arna and Conroy, Jack. Anyplace But Here. Hill &
Wang, 1966.

Carney,Dan, " Social Policy " Congressional Quarterly
Weekly Report, 9/7/96, Vol. 54 Issue 36,p2531.

Conover, Ted. A Journey Through the Secret World of
America's Illegal Aliens. Vintage, 1987.

Hutchinson, E. P. Legislative History of American
Immigration Policy, 1798-1965. Pennsylvania, 1981.

May, Charles Paul. The Uprooted. Westminster, 1976.

Miller,Glenn F., Los Angles Times, 7/1/93,pA25.

Taylor, Monica. Workbook For Political science 5, Western
Custom Publishing.






Copyright © 1996-2003 Oakwood Mgt.



To: michael97123 who wrote (23236)1/6/2004 9:44:43 PM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793623
 
Edwards

From ABC News' Edwards campaign reporter Gloria Riviera:

MASON CITY, IOWA, Jan. 5 — A heavy snow didn't keep John Edwards from jogging with supporters Sunday morning in Des Moines, but 24 hours later, zero degree temperatures and a to-the-bone wind chill was enough to keep the Senator inside and on the hotel treadmill (a machine he hates) for Monday's a.m. run.

The Senator says he does some of his best thinking on his "RUN TIME" — as it is noted on the to-the-minute daily schedules. Perhaps the treadmill was better than nothing for fine-tuning the speech he gave later that morning in front of the single largest audience of national press to turn out to date for Edwards alone.

The big five networks, NPR, The Washington Post , The New York Times , USA Today were all on hand to hear Edwards deliver his current caucus-tailored stump speech in front of a mixed crowd of supporters, staff and press totaling just over a 100.

Against the backdrop of the campaign's latest slogan "A New Beginning for America," Edwards barely looked at his prepared text, instead leaning both hands on the podium before shaking his fist or extending and outstretched hand to the crowd. "We are done with infatuation," he tells crowds, "It is time to pick a President."

For what it is worth, today was the first time this reporter has heard an audience member (actually the grand total was two at two separate events) tell Edwards he came across as "presidential."

At the day's last event in Mason City there was a somewhat heated exchange between Edwards and a gentleman in the audience who asked Edwards for his opinion of the School of the Americas in Fort Benning, GA (recently renamed Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation). When Edwards said he hadn't really given the school a lot of thought, but he would get back to him — the man rather gruffly retorted, "That's what they all say."

And there is was again, that Rock the Vote flash of fire. "You are not talking to the other guys," Edwards came back, "You are talking to me. You will have an answer."

Edwards will stay in Iowa until Wednesday morning before making quick stops in two other states (guess which ones!). There are two striking difference between Edwards' events here and elsewhere. He gets the largest crowds here but perhaps more importantly, Edwards is more impassioned and the crowds more readily engaged in Iowa than anywhere else. Still, whether that translates into caucus goers on the 19th is difficult to say definitely with two weeks to go.

Working in New Hampshire on behalf of Edwards, campaign chairman Ed Turlington Noted a small coincidence. He was in Iowa when he heard about Gore's endorsement of Howard Dean, and he'll be in New Hampshire tomorrow morning when a certain former Senator (for whom Turlington served as a deputy campaign manager in 2000) announces his endorsement of a certain forrmer governor. "While Bill's endorsement is something any candidate would want, it is something on a list of items voters will consider," said Turlington.

Look out for a new ad of the "Just Do It" genre to debut before the big day. And in case you were light on bedtime reading, the Edwards' press is printing again for a final pre-caucus pamphlet (similar to the "Real Solutions For America" platform outline) to be presented later this week.

abcnews.go.com