posted on December 26, 2003 08:50:31 AM new
Well, I didn't think there would be anything to get me not to vote for President Bush in November...however inlight of some his recent immigration policies proposed by the administration... I will not be voting Republican if this trend continues....
posted on December 26, 2003 09:03:04 AM new
Are you referring to the statements he made last week about hooking up those that have jobs with those that want to work?
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on December 26, 2003 09:08:27 AM new
Twelve - here is the Mexican view of the announcement.....
MEXICO CITY, Dec. 24 -- Mexicans reacted with cautious optimism Wednesday to reports that President Bush planned to propose immigration reforms more than two years after the United States shelved the issue -- Mexico's top priority -- to focus on combating terrorism.
Analysts said they worried that Bush's plan, which officials said Bush would present before he traveled to Mexico in mid-January for a hemispheric summit and private talks with President Vicente Fox, could be little more than a campaign tactic in the election year.
But whatever the motivation, many also said they hoped Bush's interest in Mexico and immigration reform were genuine and that relations that had soured over Mexican opposition to the war in Iraq were on the rebound.
"This could be a very risky Christmas present for President Fox," said Rafael Fernandez de Castro, one of Mexico's leading international relations specialists. "This is very welcome news. But I am worried that we could end up getting more security on the border without more legal channels for workers to go to the United States."
Republican Party officials said Tuesday that Bush planned to propose a program that would make it easier for immigrants to work legally in the United States, while at the same time stepping up security and enforcement along the 2,000-mile U.S.-Mexico border.
They said the plan would include a new program of temporary work visas, as well as an effort to grant legal status to some of the immigrants already in the United States. Most government and private studies estimate that at least 8 million immigrants live in the country illegally, more than half of whom are Mexican.
"To do immigration reform, he is going to need Congress and it's going to be a tough battle in an election year," Fernandez de Castro said, noting that since the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, U.S. politicians have been more interested in closing borders than opening them. "But in 2000, the Republicans lost a lot of votes by keeping their mouths shut on migration. They won't make that mistake again."
Political analyst Gabriel Guerra called Bush's plan "very impressive if it's really half of what they say it is.
"We have to wait and see what all the qualifications are, and how they respond to all the reactions to this trial balloon," Guerra said. "I don't see this as something feasible to get through Congress before the election."
Immigration reform was the talk of Mexico three years ago, when Bush and Fox took office within a month of each other, and Bush's first foreign trip was to Fox's ranch in February 2001. Both men portrayed themselves as common-sense ranchers who wanted to improve the deadly situation along their shared border. An estimated 300,000 to 400,000 Mexicans every year cross illegally into the United States looking for work. Thousands have died trying, often by drowning or from exposure in the deserts and mountains in their path.
For months after that initial meeting, officials in both governments worked toward a scheme that would have created mechanisms to make immigration, in Bush's words, more "safe, orderly and legal." Mexicans were excited that an issue that affects millions of families seemed to be getting personal attention from a U.S. president.
But by the time Fox made a state visit to Washington in early September 2001, it was clear that opposition in Congress meant there would be no immediate breakthroughs. A week later, terrorists attacked New York and the Pentagon, and immigration and Mexico dropped off Bush's list of priorities.
Then Fox's vocal opposition to using military force in Iraq, and his refusal to vote with the United States at the U.N. Security Council, sent relations into a deep freeze. Fox and Bush seemed to begin repairing the damage when they met in Thailand at a meeting of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in October.
Guerra said he saw the reported immigration plan as "a domestic political initiative. It's not being done to try to salvage the relationship with Fox and become good buddies again."
"Of course this is all political; he's trying to appeal to the Hispanic vote, two-thirds of which is Democratic," said Rossana Fuentes, managing editor of the Spanish-language edition of Foreign Affairs magazine.
Fuentes said the Mexican government should take a pragmatic, realistic approach to Bush's proposals. She said Mexican officials should insist that the United States also contribute development money to Mexico to help alleviate the poverty and joblessness that leads to mass illegal immigration.
"Then we will have a safer continent," she said. "It's in both countries' interest to develop Mexico."
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on December 26, 2003 09:43:37 AM new
Fuentes and Guerra are right! Unfortunately, It's just another Busco political ploy.
"Of course this is all political; he's trying to appeal to the Hispanic vote, two-thirds of which is Democratic," said Rossana Fuentes, managing editor of the Spanish-language edition of Foreign Affairs magazine.
Fuentes said the Mexican government should take a pragmatic, realistic approach to Bush's proposals. She said Mexican officials should insist that the United States also contribute development money to Mexico to help alleviate the poverty and joblessness that leads to mass illegal immigration.
"Then we will have a safer continent," she said. "It's in both countries' interest to develop Mexico."
posted on December 26, 2003 12:56:31 PM new
I wholeheartedly agree that we need to loosen our immigration laws some. It's very difficult to come here and live legally and that should not be. However, I don't agree that anything should be done until those here at home are taken care of. Again, I see a plan in the works to benefit people other than Americans. First we better Iraqi's lives and now Mexicans. What ever happened to us, the Americans? Well, duh Mr. Bush, joblessness here is a serious issue. You won't be signing to extend unemployment benefits next year, but you will make it easier for Mexicans to come here to work legally? What is it you want to be? President of the World? Maybe if all our men and women who are out of work moved to Mexico or Iraq and became citizens of those countries they could come back here and find jobs?
I'm sorry for the rant, but two more of my friends are now out of work due to a company closing and we are getting ready to close our doors, which will put both me and my daughter out of work. Bah humbug.
posted on December 26, 2003 02:04:07 PM new
I'm sure austbounty will know this much better than I. But when Mike put his resume for a company in Sydney, Australia, they have a pretty strict immigration policy. (he was offered the job, we thought about it, but just couldn't see leaving here, with the kids and all) Great place though!
From what I could read from the papers he did get.... you have to have a job lined up for you to move there, that does not include vactioning there. I think they do have a limit on how long you can stay as a vistor or tourist though.
Maybe we should restrict ours as much as Australia does theirs
Wanna Take a Ride? Art Bell is Back! Weekends on C2C-www.coasttocoastam.com
posted on December 26, 2003 02:18:08 PM new
It's the same in the U.S., Near, but only for Canadians, I guess. People here would die for a green card... they take years to get. In the meantime, you would be able to live in the U.S. under a visitor's permit until you got your green card. I wonder why it's so different for Mexico?
posted on December 26, 2003 03:55:15 PM new
If you are in the US on a tourist visa you are not allowed to work. If you are caught working on a tourist Visa you can be kicked out of the country for up to five years I believe. (It is subjective - I know someone that had his visa pulled for 1 year because customs "believed him to be employed" ) If you stay in the country after your Visa expires, you can be denied re-entry for up to five years. I have a friend that was expelled from the US for three years after overstaying his visa for 1 week. (The catch here is that this generally happens when you leave, if you just stay it is easier to get the visa extended - don't ask me why or how but I know that happened with a friend from Japan).
Here are some of the most common visa versions and requirements.
TN - These are for Canadian and Mexican citizens only. They are the easiest to attain however In order to be granted a work Visa you must have employment and the employer must verify status.
H-1B - These are for skilled workers and are a pain in the butt but are much easier to to transition to permanent resident status. In this case you must provide documentation as to your specific skills and traing in the area alonng with any other info which would show that you are more qualified than the average american worker applying for the same position. I read one source that stated that they are three year and can be renewed only once for the same period but I know at least one person whose initial and renewed visas were for 5 years periods) The employers name appears on the actual Visa and although they can be valid for 5 or more years, they actually must be renewed yearly. Part of the requirements of that renewals is a letter from the original employer verify continued employment. If you are caught working for a different employer without proper filings it can again result in banishment for up to 10 years.
H-2B are non agricultural scut worker visas. They are granted for people in lines of work that 'no American is able or willing to take" but that you are experienced in and you must be willing to return to your homeland after the work ends.
It is the same for Mexico as for Canada - I seem to remember a report a couple years ago when I was doing more research on immigration issues that there is actually a finite number of green cards (thus the Green Card Lottery) issued each year and that their division is a predetermined number but I was not able to find any stats on it.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
[ edited by fenix03 on Dec 26, 2003 03:58 PM ]
posted on December 27, 2003 11:20:40 AM new
Bush's move is clearly a play for the latino vote...I applaud it none the less. What he fails to take into account is the fact that the latino community is far from united on the question of immigration. There is no stronger prejudice against illegals that that which comes from many latinos whose families no longer have ties to Mexico, or who have always been here, and never had those ties to begin with. Those folks won't be won over. While I like his stand on immigration, I still won't be voting for him. There's too much at stake on more critical issues.
___________________________________
The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then gets elected and proves it.
-- P. J. ORourke (Holidays in hell, 1989)
posted on December 27, 2003 12:45:19 PM new
I've been convinced for years that neither the republicans nor the democrats are going to do much about stopping the illegal immigration problem. So...this won't make a bit of difference to me.
-----------
What he fails to take into account is the fact that the latino community is far from united on the question of immigration.
I don't think he fails to take that into account. All anyone has to do is take a look at how the Latinos voted in CA on the illegal drivers license issue. Many immigrants feel they earned their right to be here legally, and so should everyone else.
posted on December 27, 2003 05:41:10 PM new
Its a hard issue to resolve. But, if they are going to live and work in this country, they should pay taxes and all the other bites we have from our paychecks. English is our official language so learn it for the work place. Your children will be required to speak and read english in our school systems. Speak whatever language you like in your home. Follow your personal spirital beliefs and traditions. Be a part of the society not a burden.
As far as jobs leaving the US. Uncle Sam can't regulate and dictate to Corporations. We lost manufacturing jobs in the 80's. Some came back from south of the border due to poor work ethic of the labor and governemt corruption. The jobs going east to Asia Pacific region won't be coming back. The people in these countries have strong work ethics. They will make our nikes and levis. They will do the computer programming and call centers offshore for a fraction of the price it costs here. These people will make a decent living in their own country.
posted on December 27, 2003 08:30:22 PM new
chimp: could you please elaborate on what you mean by the "poor work ethic" south of the border? I look forward to your justification of that statement.
Oh, and by the way, english is the defacto language of this country, it's not "official", no matter how much you want it to be.
___________________________________
The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then gets elected and proves it.
-- P. J. ORourke (Holidays in hell, 1989)
posted on December 28, 2003 08:13:02 AM new
English should be the "Official" Language...
Linda you are probably right, hiring wetbacks is too much of an easy thing for some employers, because no Administration is willing to make those employers pay and pay dearly for it.
However Presiden't Bush's comments about jobs for those who want them irked me to no end, many people here want jobs, they just aren't willing to live like rats to have one....
posted on December 28, 2003 09:16:13 AM new
profe: Thanks, I stand corrected on "official" vs defacto.
As far as how do I know about the labor issues? I know first hand. I was part of a transition team for a manufacturing company that went south of the border. I was there for 6 weeks. The company came back stateside within 18 months. Labor problems, quality control issues and other factors.
posted on December 28, 2003 02:16:25 PM newif they are going to live and work in this country, they should pay taxes and all the other bites we have from our paychecks.
One other thing that you need to add to this statement is; THEY SHOULD ALSO SPEND MONEY EARNED IN THE USA IN THE USA.
Besides taking jobs in the US they are sending alot of money south of the border rather than spending it here, thus helping the economy of Mexico at the expense of the USA.
posted on December 28, 2003 02:23:50 PM new
That's very true, yellowstone.
----------
twelve - [and any one else who's interested in taking a look] Here's a great site for looking up statements each candidate has made on a lot of the different issues. You can compare them to one another more easily. This page is on where they stand on the immigration issue.
posted on December 28, 2003 02:36:20 PM new"One other thing that you need to add to this statement is; THEY SHOULD ALSO SPEND MONEY EARNED IN THE USA IN THE USA."
I'm not sure that I understand your comment. I have neighbors, from Mexico, India and China. They work and pay taxes just as I do. Why should they be restricted from spending the money which they have earned outside the U.S.?
posted on December 28, 2003 02:41:41 PM new
If I immigrate to Mexico, should I be restricted from doing business with American sellers on Ebay, for example.
posted on December 28, 2003 03:08:04 PM new
They aren't here as tourists. Most are only here to make enough money in a few short years to send back to their country and then live like royalty afterwards. Most of the illegals have no intention of becoming legal US citizens, if they did it might be a different story. I don't know that where and how they spend their money can be restricted. I just see it as a huge drain on our economy and the powers to be that make the laws need to take this into account.
You can bet that Fox wants to see the laws loosened on immigration because it means that more US dollars will flow into his country.
Don't get me wrong on this, I personally know alot of illegals and as individuals some of them are quite nice people. But as a whole I don't want them here. In some ways I can understand their plight and given the same set of curcumstances I might illegally imigrate to another country as well.
Where I live, Santa Fe New Mexico, they are everywhere. It used to be just a few years ago that when you wen't to Sonic Drive In to get a hamburger and a coke, your order was brought to you by a cute girl in ponytails with a big smile on her face. Now when you go to Sonic a middle aged illegal Mexican man brings you the order and because he doesn't speak the language your order is wrong.
Every restaurant in Santa Fe is now staffed with illegals and it makes me sick to see it. The wages these restaurants are paying in most cases is far less than what they'd pay a legal US citizen. It's not like these are jobs that a legal citizen doesn't want but instead it's based on greed by the business owners. Citizens do want these jobs but the business owners just won't pay enough because they know they can hire an illegal and pay him/her far less than a legal.
posted on December 28, 2003 03:20:09 PM newIf I immigrate to Mexico, should I be restricted from doing business with American sellers on Ebay, for example
I think in that senario you should follow the laws of the land that you immigrated to. As far as what those laws are I don't know nor do I care. When do you leave??
Legal versus illegal, this is the issue and if someone is here illegally which essentially is breaking the law, thus becoming a criminal then that person needs to be deported and/or made to pay for their crimes.
posted on December 28, 2003 03:36:37 PM new
In that case, I would have animosity toward the restaurant owners and those businesses and corporations who continue to exploit poor immigrants by paying unfair wages. There seems to be a double standard here where nobody sees the employers as "illegal".
On the other hand, I believe that all workers here with a job, paying taxes, paying for food and shelter etc., in the U.S. should be considered legal until they commit a crime.
posted on December 28, 2003 03:57:07 PM newFor Fox, the reasoning is quite simple. Mexicans living in the United States – both legally and illegally – send so much money home to Mexico that it is the third highest source of money in the country.
With more Mexicans working in the United States who send money to Mexico the country's gross national product will increase even more, bringing it ever closer to First World status.
Fox wants it to continue rather than the rich people in their own country paying taxes to support the poor in their country. They avoid taxes if WE pay for them. He, and those allowing this trend to continue, are forcing American taxpayers to pay for the poor in both countries.
I've read reports that as much as $32BILLION dollars [a year] earned in the US is sent to Latin American countries. Some reports have $11Billion dollars a year being sent to Mexico alone. Some of their towns are emptying out while our towns are increasing by nearly those same numbers.
Some have suggested taxing their 'remittances' [US earnings sent to their home country] so the taxes could be used to support the 'benefits' they use here.
I'd vote for that....but neither political party would support such a measure.
posted on December 28, 2003 04:16:36 PM new
I agree Linda_K that we don't need to change the laws and that we need more $'s towards enforcing the existing laws.
It makes me wonder though why it was that these laws were enacted in the first place. Could it be because of the same reasons we are discussing here, I think so.
posted on December 28, 2003 04:35:56 PM new
:: Now when you go to Sonic a middle aged illegal Mexican man brings you the order and because he doesn't speak the language your order is wrong. ::
So when I get my order from Burger King and it is wrong as usual should I believe that the blond haired blue eyed girl at the counter is also illegal? And BTW - How do know the immigration status of the guyy at Sonic? Or do you just assume that anyone who speaks a different language is an illegal?
I can't really get into this arguement because it infuriates me but to say you believe that anyone has the right to decide how and where a person should be allowed to spend their hard earned money is a laughably ironic statement when it comes from someone trying to protect the rights of the good ole USA.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on December 28, 2003 04:41:39 PM new
I've read reports that show our leaders, from both parties, are out of touch with the way the Majority of Americans would like to have the illegal issue dealt with. Large differences in the percentages between 'them' and 'us'. Most feel illegal immigration has reached a crisis point.
posted on December 28, 2003 04:59:42 PM new
But, I just thought, what the hell...another ignorant and bizarre idea. The conflict reminds me of racial problems in the south.
This topic is 6 pages long: 1new2new3new4new5new6new
