posted on January 29, 2004 08:48:30 AM new
Illegals rise 15%
since Bush plan
Border Patrol seeing increase
in attempts at busiest crossing
Confirming the worst fears of those who oppose President Bush's plans to change immigration laws, U.S. Border Patrol officials report a 15 percent increase in the use of fraudulent documents at the world's busiest land border crossing.
Immigration-reform groups point to the finding at the San Ysidro border crossing with alarm – suggesting that putting what some see as an amnesty program on the table represents an invitation for more illegal immigration.
The alarming increase in illegal migration prompted this editorial reaction from the San Diego Union-Tribune: "It has been nearly three weeks since President Bush proposed 'temporary' legal status for millions of illegal immigrants residing in the United States. Already, San Diego is starting to see the unintended consequences at the San Ysidro port of entry."
More than half of those caught using phony documents say the president's offer of de facto amnesty motivated them to attempt to sneak into the United States, the report added.
"This surge in unlawful attempts to cross the southern border is precisely what U.S. border enforcement officers and immigration policy experts predicted," said the paper's editorial. "By proposing to forgive millions of illegal aliens their trespasses against this country, President Bush has encouraged even more illegal aliens to join those already here."
Meanwhile, an immigration reform group said Bush would save the American taxpayers a lot of money if he shut off the magnet that draws millions of illegal aliens across our border – simply by enforcing laws that prohibit companies from hiring illegals.
"The illegal immigrant population would simply disappear," said Jim Studenraus, spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform. "Overnight, Americans would start being attracted into those businesses. Now, would some employers have to offer maybe 50 cents or a dollar more an hour, maybe provide medical benefits? Yes."
Staudenraus says in the long run it would be cheaper for American taxpayers if they did not have to pay for social services at schools and prisons filled with illegal aliens.
The Union-Tribune said the White House is not learning the lessons of 1986, "when Congress granted amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants. The amnesty did absolutely nothing to discourage future illegal immigration. In fact, the number of illegal immigrants has increased exponentially since then."
A recent New York Times poll indicates that two-thirds of Americans oppose a temporary worker program for illegals.
While Bush has claimed his program is not an amnesty, it "expects temporary workers to return permanently to their home countries after their period of work in the United States has expired." Immigration-reform groups say that is an unrealistic expectation and the program is a de facto amnesty proposal.
"There has never been a temporary worker program in the United States, Europe or anywhere else under which all of the workers returned to their native countries," said the Union-Tribune editorial. "Indeed, many illegals who have crossed this nation's borders didn't do so to spend a mere matter of years in the United States before returning home. They planned to be here permanently."
FAIR, meanwhile, contends Bush's plan would threaten homeland security, grant amnesty for lawbreakers, establish a back-door immigration program and threaten the jobs and wages of American workers.
posted on January 29, 2004 10:57:02 AM new
This increase really makes no difference since neither party is willing to do anything about the illegal problem.
You'd think one side or the other would see the 'poll' numbers of how American's really feel about the problem and take it as an indication that they might just get more votes if they made bold changes.
posted on January 29, 2004 11:01:00 AM new
They probably think this is bold.
Twelve would be bold - just put a line of stakes along the border and put the illegals heads on them as you catch them. Bulldoze the rest in a pit. That will give the rest the idea when they come up to the line. Right Twelve?
posted on January 29, 2004 12:44:03 PM new
I hate to say this because it is going to drive people crazy but as someone that uses that particular border crossing on a regular basis and knows a number of others that do as well - the Border Patrol set up that stat. They have been much more diligent for the past couple weeks, checking things more closely and some things that they normally don't.
The only reason they are catching more is because they are being more diligent . It's only logical that they are going to try to show increases in number supposedly resulting from an announcement since they fervently oppose the announcement.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on January 29, 2004 01:37:56 PM new
California would cease to function without the labor forces that come from Mexico. Probably other states would be adversely affected, too...
posted on January 29, 2004 01:58:51 PM new
I see that differently Pat. I believe there would be many teens who could do many of the jobs illegals take from our citizens. I believe there are those on welfare who could do the jobs these illegals do or else not receive their monthly checks. I think CA would do just fine without the expense of providing for the care of the illegals.
When a finger is removed from a glass of water, the water fills that spot. Same would happen if any party ever got serious about getting rid of all those here illegally.
posted on January 29, 2004 02:26:55 PM new
And what, the teens live away from their city-dwelling families while they work the fields? In migrant-worker shacks? Or would you propose busing them back and forth every day?
Or, let's stroll the service-oriented areas of work now performed by Mexicans: housekeeping and yardwork (mow it, blow it, pick it up). What teenager can even manage to keep his/her own room clean? You think they'd be willing to do someone else's laundry, mop someone else's floors, do someone else's dishes for the pittance a Mexican is paid to do so? Yardwork used to be a family chore when I was growing up, and I imagine it was in many other families, as well. Perhaps it still is. Here again is a dilemma, though, because not all teenagers have trucks or the landscape maintenance equipment necessary to groom someone's yard. Acquiring these things would necessitate a costly investment. Where does the kid get the money? Then there's the matter of operating his/her own business. Gotta have all kinds of insurance and pay all kinds of taxes. And if we're talking about teens who are still in school, when are they going to find the time to do any of these jobs? Weekends? After school?
I appreciate your desire to employ young people, Linda, but frankly, I don't think significant numbers of them would work as hard as the Mexicans do and they certainly wouldn't do it for the same paltry wages.
posted on January 29, 2004 03:39:36 PM new
plsmith
While I agree with you for the most part, once Bush's plan comes into effect, they won't be making the paultry wages you are talking about. It will be minimum wage. More jobs taken from Americans who need them. His plan smacks every out-of-work American square in the face. What do you think will happen to jobs that are now going to Americans? Think they'll stay with Americans? No way. If a corporation can legally hire a Mexican at minimum wage, why in the world would it hire an American at $10 an hour? Maybe you can live on minimum wage in Mexico, but you cannot here. This is nothing more than Bush's attempt at getting the Hispanic vote. The Hispanics in this country have one of the highest unemployment rates. Think they're at all happy about this? I kind of doubt it. He does not give the Hispanic community enough credit. In fact, I don't think he gives them any credit for having brains. We need to take care of our own FIRST - not Iraq, not Mexico, not Canada, not Afghanistan, not Africa. Personally, I don't give a rat's backside about Mexico's economy right now. Ours is bad, really bad. When my family is suffering, I really could care less about another country's woes. America needs to take care of Americans. It just isn't happening.
posted on January 29, 2004 03:52:30 PM new
Oh yes Pat...there are plenty of excuses one can make up for why we so desperately need these illegals. But the truth of the matter is WE DON'T. And those jobs would be filled by someone who was hungry enough to work. We've had more than a few posters here who have shared they worked in the fields as teens. Most didn't need to travel very far at all. There were many orchards in CA at one time. All the hotel/motel jobs are all over the place. et c etc etc. Anyone hungry enough or wanting to provide for their family could do ANY of these jobs. Maybe even take on two jobs to do so.
But liberals would rather cry about all the jobless.....after all, can't expect American's do work for next to nothing..like the illegals ususally do. No....they're above that. Welfare is so much easier.
Re-elect President Bush!!
posted on January 29, 2004 03:59:39 PM new
Conservative political analyst Laura Ingraham, smart as ants and very quick-witted, has quite a bit to say about the temporary work visa program.
Here's a recent column of hers in which she echoes many of your own sentiments, Cheryl:
Where do you get that people on welfare are liberals who feel above menial labor jobs? Because that's what your statement implies. Or that any liberal thinks they are above those jobs? Is it because in this administration's eyes you aren't worthy unless you are as to the right as they are and are lining their pockets with perks? Don't lump this liberal in with your statements. Most liberals I know are happy to take any job they can get.
posted on January 29, 2004 04:20:57 PM new
Linda, your first post to me specifically mentioned teenaged Americans doing the work now done by Mexicans, so I replied with some thoughts as to why I found that particular idea impractical.
I wish you would try to get beyond the liberal vs. conservative bent in your posts; it's too black and white, too narrow, and it suppresses dialogue rather than engage it. You and I -- or you and anyone -- are simply having a conversation of sorts on this board and sharing our divergent views. I'm not expecting to change your ideology and I am open to hearing your opinions. This is a great place to get a sense of how middle-class Americans feel about their politicians; it's also a great place for those of us on opposite sides of many issues to prove that we really can agree to disagree, and do so in an atmosphere of mutual respect.
posted on January 29, 2004 04:36:04 PM new
plsmith
Great article! Thanks so much for the link. I encourage others to read her views. It's amazing how they almost mirror mine.
This whole issue should be made an American issue not a conservative or liberal one. The results of this bill will affect each and every American. I, in fact, know a few conservatives who feel the same way I do about this issue. So, I think it transcends political parties.
posted on January 29, 2004 06:51:19 PM newPoll Finds Hispanics Divided on Bush's Proposal for a National Guest Worker Program By Justin Pritchard Associated Press Writer
Published: Jan 29, 2004
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - Hispanics generally approve of President Bush's proposal for a national guest worker program, but their opposition grows after they learn its details, a poll released Thursday shows.
The survey found 42 percent of respondents supported Bush's immigration reform plan, with 20 percent opposed and the remainder undecided. But opinions split 45-45 once respondents were informed that most immigrant workers would have to return home once their legal status expired.
"They seem to think that the proposal is incomplete," said Sergio Bendixen, who conducted the poll for New California Media, a nationwide coalition of ethnic news organizations.
Bush's plan would let currently undocumented immigrants work U.S. jobs for up to six years.
Three-quarters of respondents said they preferred a plan that lets foreign workers earn citizenship through their work - a central theme among proposals from members of Congress since Bush announced his plan earlier this month.
On Thursday, White House spokesman Trent Duffy said the details will be negotiated with Congress, but Bush opposes giving illegal immigrants a direct path to citizenship.
"This president doesn't make decisions based on polls, he makes decisions based on what he thinks is right," Duffy said.
Pollsters between Jan. 20-26 conducted a telephone survey of 800 people with Latino surnames who identified themselves as being Hispanic. Such methodology is sometimes used by pollsters but critics say it is not as reliable as drawing a sample through random-digit dialing. The sampling error margin was plus or minus 3 percentage points.
Bush's guest worker plan was big news in Hispanic communities: Three-quarters of poll respondents said they had heard about it, but nearly two-thirds saw it as an election year attempt to woo Hispanic voters.
The policy debate will likely have implications for the presidential race, in which both parties are courting Hispanics, who account for an increasingly important voting bloc in national elections.
Hispanics were important to Bush's election in 2000. He garnered just 35 percent of their votes, but Hispanics traditionally have voted more solidly Democratic.
Associated Press Writer Leslie Hoffman in Albuquerque contributed to this report.
Edited to add: Cheryl, call me Pat, unless you prefer the anonymous formality of "plsmith"
posted on January 29, 2004 07:48:33 PM new nearly two-thirds saw it as an election year attempt to woo Hispanic voters.
duh, there's a surprise ...he's winning very few votes on the latino side, and I'll bet losing a few from his traditional voting block...smooth move..
I have no doubt the INS engineered that count. I've seen them in action countless times, and in inaction even more frequently...
___________________________________
Mi abuelita me dijo "en boca cerrada no entran moscas".
