🚀 go-pugleaf

<dsharavi@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139376833.129401.237300@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> We're not surprised but ... Nearly everything has turned for the worse
> in
> Washington right now.
>
> Amnesties, massive guestworker programs and increased permanent
> immigration are
> all on the table right now.
>
> The day after his State of the Union address, Pres. Bush began speaking
> around
> the country about the need to open up America's occupations to far more
> foreign
> workers.
>
> >From the sounds of the last week, this is one of the four or five most
> important
> things on his agenda.
>
> For all of his talk in the fall about tightening the borders, he has
> proven the
> cynics right the last week by showing that he will give Americans
> secure borders
> only if Congress gives him massive new flows of foreign labor.
>
> Pres. Bush talks repeatedly about lower-skilled jobs that Americans
> WON'T do and
> about higher-skilled jobs that Americans CAN'T do. To hear him talk,
> Americans
> are either too lazy or too incapable to any longer do the work to keep
> this
> nation going.
>
> NumbersUSA believes that, for the most part, the American labor is
> available to
> do nearly all the jobs of the country.
>
> But to the extent that there may be jobs with such low pay, benefits
> and working
> conditions that Americans WON'T do them, importing more foreign labor
> into them
> will just ensure that the jobs remain below American standards.
>
> And to the extent that we may not have quite enough American kids going
> into
> certain high-tech and other high-skill fields, filling the occupations
> with
> foreign workers just further drives kids away from those fields.
>
> But the President said this in his State of the Union address (and it
> has been
> quoted favorably in newspapers across the land):
>
> "We hear claims that immigrants are somehow bad for the economy - even
> though
> this economy could not function without them. All these are forms of
> economic
> retreat, and they lead in the same direction - toward a stagnant and
> second-rate
> economy."
>
> Well, that was pretty maddening, most importantly because it isn't
> true. There
> is no indication that the average American would be worse off
> economically if
> the 50-million-plus foreign workers and their families weren't here.
>
> And it is certain that most Americans' overall quality of life would be
> far
> better without all the congestion in traffic, schools, housing and open
> spaces
> caused by having tens of millions additional people in the country.
>
> Please understand, though, that I am not saying that the individual
> legal
> immigrants who are here are personally to blame for the congestion that
> their
> overall presence has caused -- or that I wish they would leave. But
> policymakers
> need to consider just how much more congested they want to make our
> lives as
> Americans.
>
> The President's comments showed that he doesn't tend to think about
> individual
> Americans' quality of life but instead focuses primarily on gross
> economic
> growth as a measure of his Administration's success.
>
> The focus of the President is on THE ECONOMY but not on the American
> people the
> economy is supposed to serve. He could import 10 million more foreign
> workers
> and leave millions of Americans living on dramatically reduced wages or
> government subsidies and THE ECONOMY would indeed be larger. But would
> the
> federal government have fulfilled its obligation to THE PEOPLE?
>
> The Bush Administration philosophy of disregarding the needs of
> American workers
> while rushing to import from the pool of hundreds of millions of eager
> foreign
> job applicants is shared AND LED by Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA), Sen. John
> McCain
> (R-AZ) and is followed by what appears to be the majority of Senators
> in both of
> their parties.
>
> Not by coincidence, this is the philosophy promoted day and night here
> in
> Washington by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and small armies of other
> corporation
> lobbyists who have said they will not accept anything less than a
> massive
> increase in foreign workers out of this Congress this year.
>
> YOU AND YOUR FAXES, PHONE CALLS AND RAISING OUR ISSUES AT PUBLIC EVENTS
> ARE THE
> ONLY POWER THAT CAN COMPETE AGAINST THE CORPORATE LOBBYISTS' MONEY
> FLOWING TO
> THE SENATORS.
>
> The Senate is filled with multi-millionaires who long ago ceased to
> know what it
> is like to be an average American -- and by others who spend so much
> time with
> multi-millionaires raising money for their campaigns that they seldom
> spend time
> with ordinary folks. Most Senators have no idea what immigration is
> doing to
> their constituents and don't give their constituents a chance to tell
> them.
>
> But as bleak as the unequal political battle looks, we have strong
> evidence that
> your constituency pressure can turn enough Senators that we will be
> able to stop
> the plan to force American workers in all occupations to compete with
> the rest
> of the world for their jobs.
>
> Despite Pres. Bush's behavior since the State of the Union and despite
> the
> problem with his mention of immigration in the speech, constituency
> pressure has
> to claim credit for his comments not being a lot worse.
>
> Overall, I feel that Pres. Bush's comments about immigration and
> Virginia Gov.
> Kaine's Democratic Response were signs of great victories for
> grassroots citizen
> action against open borders.
>
> I say that, not because they said particularly good things, but because
> they
> both were careful to avoid saying most of the really bad things that
> the
> leadership of both Parties really prefer (as evidenced by comments from
> top
> leaders of both Parties in recent weeks).
>
> Yet last Tuesday night, the Republican Bush and Democrat Kaine steered
> far clear
> of stating such radicalism.
>
> When the President got to specifics about what immigration policy
> should look
> like, this is what he said:
>
> "Keeping America competitive requires an immigration system that
> upholds our
> laws, reflects our values, and serves the interests of our economy. Our
> Nation
> needs orderly and secure borders. To meet this goal, we must have
> stronger
> immigration enforcement and border protection. And we must have a
> rational,
> humane guest worker program that rejects amnesty, allows temporary jobs
> for
> people who seek them legally, and reduces smuggling and crime at the
> border."
>
> Notice how Bush didn't say that immigration should serve "national
> interests" as
> we always say. Rather, he says immigration should serve the "interests
> of our
> economy."
>
> Nonetheless, compare these statements with five years ago when he was
> calling
> for a citizenship amnesty for illegal aliens.
>
> Bush and his staff have been beaten back by so much pressure from
> people like
> you that they are intimidated when the whole nation is watching from
> making the
> same requests that once felt safe. They waited until they were on the
> road in
> somewhat out-of-the-way places to reveal what they really want on
> immigration.
>
> Those of you who have sent hundreds of thousands of faxes through
> NumbersUSA to
> the White House -- and repeatedly make phone calls to the switchboards
> there --
> over the last five years deserve a lot of credit for the public backing
> down we
> are seeing.
>
> As for the Democratic response, Kaine had said on radio earlier in the
> day that
> he would talk about several things, including immigration.
>
> Here is what Kaine said that night in remarks that were reported to
> have been
> finished late in the day:
>
> "The failure of the federal government to implement and enforce a
> rational
> immigration policy has resulted in a confusing patchwork of state and
> local
> efforts. Of course, we should welcome those who seek to lawfully join
> and
> contribute to our American family. And we must. But the same time, we
> must
> ensure that our homeland defense efforts begin with consistent federal
> action to
> protect our borders."
>
> Amazing.
>
> No calls for "legalization" or guestworker programs. The emphasis was
> on
> security and enforcement.
>
> This is further indication that some national Democratic leaders are
> beginning
> to understand that it is not to their political advantage to be seen as
> the
> party of amnesty and open borders (even if many of the top leaders
> really aspire
> to those goals).
>
>  Chamber of Commerce's pick won House Majority Leader race
>
> The race to replace Tom Delay as the Republican Majority Leader in the
> House was
> between Rep. Blunt (R-MO) and Rep. Boehner (R-OH).
>
> We tipped you off early that the two had wildly different approaches to
> immigration, based on their recent record.
>
> Blunt had stood up to the Chamber of Commerce lobbyists and, as acting
> Majority
> Leader, ushered through a tough immigration bill that greatly increased
> enforcement against illegal immigration and reduced legal immigration.
>
> Boehner, on the other hand, was one of only a handful of Republicans
> last month
> who voted against the bill and backed the Chamber of Commerce's line
> that it
> should be defeated for being anti-business.
>
> Blunt was far ahead of Boehner in the first secret-ballot vote of all
> House
> Republicans last week. But a major campaign by many conservative
> political
> groups had urged votes for a third candidate, Rep. Shadegg (R-AZ), who
> they saw
> as more purely conservative. After the first vote, Shadegg dropped out.
> Apparently all of Shadegg's supporters switched to the Chamber of
> Commerce's
> Boehner who, in an upset, narrowly defeated Blunt.
>
> Boehner has now taken over the #2 position in the House. Blunt remains
> in the #3
> position as Majority Whip.
>
> Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) the chairman of the 92-Member Immigration
> Reform Caucus
> has told reporters that he hopes Boehner will moderate his immigration
> positions
> now that he is supposed to represent the majority of the Republicans in
> the
> House.
>
> We hope so, too.
>
> One point of hope is that immigration did not appear to be the factor
> in the GOP
> Representatives who voted for Boehner. Rather, they seemed far more
> interested
> in breaking with Tom Delay who was Blunt's mentor. We can hope that
> Boehner's
> supporters will rebel if he starts to try to lead them down the Chamber
> of
> Commerce path on immigration.
>
> Boehner has a B-minus immigration grade. Not terrible. But he totally
> misrepresented H.R. 4437's provisions requiring all businesses to use
> an
> electronic system to verify whether new hires are illegal aliens. If he
> isn't
> willing to go after outlaw businesses, there will be no credible
> immigration
> enforcement in this country.
>
> Boehner was part of former Speaker Newt Gingrich's leadership team.
> Gingrich
> earned an Immigration Grade of D, as he was a major reason why our side
> failed
> to gain reforms in 1996.
>
> Our main hope that the Senate would not succeed in passing a huge
> amnesty for
> illegal aliens and a huge increase in foreign workers was that the
> former lineup
> of House GOP leaders would refuse to allow such a bill to come back to
> the
> House.
>
> With Boehner now in the driver's seat with Speaker Hastert (R-IL) --
> who has a
> major weakness for guestworkers for his District's suburban Chicago
> landscapers
> -- the political equation has changed. The corporate open-borders
> lobbyists have
> been gleeful about their change of fortune after everything looked so
> cloudy
> with the passage of H.R. 4437 in December.
>
> We have our work cut out for us.
> --------------------------------------------------------
> Roy Beck
> NumbersUSA, Arlington VA
> www.numbersusa.com
>
> Deborah

Bush and the cheap labor lobby should be on trial.

Hank
>