🚀 go-pugleaf

"George Harrison" <G_Harrison@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:118ka7gl5unnmd5@news.supernews.com...
> http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,109026,00.html
>
> Bush Amnesty Plan Threatens U.S. Economy
>
> Wednesday, January 21, 2004
>
> By Matt Hayes
>
> Three weeks ago there was no one among Republican voters who would have
> said that fixing the problem of illegal immigration to the U.S. meant
> granting amnesty to an estimated eight million illegal aliens, the
> majority of whom have entered the U.S. without a visa by walking across
> our border with Mexico.
>
> But that is precisely what President Bush said last week he intends to
> do, as he posed for pictures before a Mexican flag in Monterrey, Mexico.
> To his left was Mexican President Vicente Fox (search ), who -- in an
> even more alarming image -- was framed by the Stars and Stripes as he
> smiled for the cameras.
>
> Americans should get used to scenes like this, and all they portend.
> Despite an enormous backlash from core Republican voters, conservative
> groups and a growing number of Congressional Republicans, the Bush
> administration seems determined to curry favor with Hispanic voters, and
> has chosen an immigration amnesty as the means to achieve that.
>
> The President has said repeatedly that what he proposes is not an
> amnesty, though by the accepted definition it is precisely that, and
> more. An amnesty is a general pardon granted by a government for a past
> offense. Crossing a U.S. border without a visa is a misdemeanor under
> federal law, and reentering the U.S. after a prior order of deportation
> is a felony. Under Bush�s proposal, these crimes will not be prosecuted,
> and that means it is an amnesty. But Bush goes on to offer the
> perpetrators visas and work permits, so it is not entirely accurate to
> call the Bush proposal an amnesty. It is an amnesty with an awards
program.
>
> The blowback has caused its supporters to restyle the amnesty as
> something more palatable, but without changing any of its features. As
> RNC spokesperson Christine Iverson said last week to the Washington
> Times, �Once people have had a chance to educate themselves about the
> proposal and what it does, support for it will grow.�  Iverson went on
> to say that the proposed amnesty will actually stimulate our economy by
> linking �willing worker with willing employers.�  She attempted to cast
> the amnesty as an �economic proposal.�
>
> The Bush Amnesty (search ) will certainly have effects on our economy if
> it ever comes to pass, because what the president actually proposes is
> to end the unskilled and semi-skilled labor market in America.
>
> First, there is no cap on the number of illegal aliens in the U.S., or
> aliens outside the U.S., who would be allowed into the country, provided
> they could find some form of employment. Any employer in any area of
> business -- no matter how difficult or hazardous the work -- could
> decide to open a new business, or lower wages in an existing business,
> to federal minimum wage of $5.15 per hour and wait for citizens and
> lawful permanent residents to apply. When none do, the employer could
> then order up the needed workers from anywhere in the world. Under the
> Bush amnesty, we could see a crew of Saudis cleaning nuclear reactors
> for $35.20 each per day.
>
> If that happens, what is likely to happen to a competing cleaning
> contractor that employs citizens and lawful permanent residents? It will
> go out of business or fire its American employees in favor of dirt-cheap
> imported foreign labor. Taxpayers will foot the bill for the
> Unemployment Insurance, AFDC, and Medicaid consumed by the newly
> out-of-work Americans.
>
> That should make clear just how calculated a political move the Bush
> proposal is. Then consider that at the moment, approximately nine
> million Americans are unemployed. The majority of them once occupied
> unskilled and semi-skilled jobs. Since 1997, when the National Academy
> of Sciences conclusively linked immigration and the depression of wages
> of unskilled and semi-skilled American workers, it has been beyond
> argument that an ever-increasing number of Americans compete directly
> with legal and illegal immigrants for jobs.
>
> (The NAS showed that immigrants taking the jobs of Americans without a
> high school diploma lowered prevailing wages by between 40 to 50 percent.)
>
> While a responsible steward of the economy might crack down on unethical
> U.S. employers that commit the felony of hiring illegal aliens, this
> president seems to think even greater slack is needed in the unskilled
> labor market and he is prepared to inject into that market an additional
> eight million or more people.
>
> Bush sees no conflict in doing this because he believes (as he must)
> that nine million of us are without jobs because the only jobs open are
> those that, as he put it three weeks ago, �Americans won�t do.�  Aside
> from being insulting to Americans, who probably have the most
> egalitarian concept of work of any people in history, this assertion is
> just false. With extremely rare exception, an American will happily do
> any job that will support his family. But the employment of illegal
> immigrants in some sectors of the economy has depressed wages to the
> point that a U.S. citizen cannot simultaneously work that job, pay his
> taxes and feed his family.
>
> According to the National Center for Policy Analysis, 25 percent of U.S.
> jobs now pay $8 or less per hour, and these are jobs which many illegal
> aliens fill, thereby decreasing the market pressures that would normally
> push wages higher. In effect, some American employers have deliberately
> imported a Third World economy to areas of our country, and Americans
> with a First World overhead must seek work elsewhere.
>
> When Republicans voted for Bush in 2000, they expected to get a
> president who would uphold the law, not change it in an ill-advised
> attempt to garner a few more votes. California�s last governor lost his
> job in part because core Democrat voters instantly saw his decision to
> grant illegal aliens driver�s licenses for what it was: blatant ethnic
> pandering in exchange for votes. In November, Republican voters may be
> faced with a similar choice.
>
> Matt Hayes began practicing immigration law shortly after graduating
> from Pace University School of Law in 1994, representing new immigrants
> in civil and criminal matters. He is the author of The New Immigration
> Law and Practice, to be published in October.