2006 April 25 Tuesday
Bush Pushing For Illegal Alien Amnesty And Foreign Worker Program

Not content with his disastrous debacle in Iraq Bush is lobbying Congress to put through a damaging illegal alien amnesty and large scale importation of foreign workers.

IRVINE, Calif., April 24 -- Under pressure from Republicans to play a bigger role in the immigration debate, President Bush will begin meeting key lawmakers Tuesday to help forge a bipartisan agreement by Memorial Day to offer some undocumented workers a path to citizenship.

But White House aides emphasized that Bush has no intention for now of staking clear legislative positions on the immigration bill. He does not want to embrace a proposal, only to see it lose once House and Senate negotiators try to reach a final agreement, whose prospects are still seen as remote on Capitol Hill.

Bush is a really bad President of the United States. If he manages to get his immigration polices through Congress he'll be the worst President at least since World War II.

Bush met with a bunch of pro-amnesty Senators to try to restart a Senate push for amnesty.

WASHINGTON - Seeking to jumpstart an immigration debate that stalled in the Senate three weeks ago, President Bush on Tuesday summoned senators from both parties to the White House to emphasize his support for a comprehensive reform.

"I strongly believe that we have a chance to get an immigration bill that is comprehensive in nature to my desk before the end of this year," Bush said after meeting with 17 senators immersed in the oft-contentious debate.

Some Senators think that Bush has restarted the stalled push for amnesty.

WASHINGTON - A bipartisan group of senators emerged from a meeting with President Bush on Tuesday more optimistic than before about the prospects for creating a national guest-worker program and a permanent residency application process for some of the nation's roughly 12 million undocumented immigrants.

"After this meeting, I'm convinced we'll pass immigration reform this year," Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said following an hour-long meeting at the White House with the president and more than a dozen senators involved in the debate. Specter predicted Senate passage of an immigration bill by Memorial Day and a final bill, adopted by both chambers of Congress, by the end of the year.

Bush lies and claims that deportation couldn't work.

''I know this is an emotional debate," Bush said in a speech before the Orange County Business Council in California. ''But one thing we cannot lose sight of is that we're talking about human beings -- decent human beings that need to be treated with respect. Massive deportation of the people here is unrealistic. It's just not going to work."

The Federation for American Immigration Reform has responded to Bush's remarks pointing out that Bush is using a massive deportation as a strawman while ignoring many other options for reducing illegal immigration.

In his Irvine speech, President Bush assiduously ignored viable proposals for enforcing U.S. immigration laws that do not entail mass deportation. Proposals, including one approved by the House of Representatives last December, call for a comprehensive approach to immigration enforcement rather than merely deporting the estimated 12 million illegal aliens in the country. The comprehensive approach includes strict enforcement of laws against employing illegal aliens; removal of business tax deduction and government contracts to employers found to be hiring illegal aliens; limiting illegal immigrants' access to non-essential and non-emergency benefits and services; enhanced border security; greater cooperation between federal and local law enforcement agencies, and other measures that remove the incentives for people to remain in the U.S. unlawfully.

"President Bush is using the mass deportation argument as a political straw man," charged Dan Stein, president of FAIR. "The fact of the matter is that no one has seriously suggested that we deport 12 million people. Nevertheless, the president continues to attack this straw man, while he refuses to exercise any of the powers he already has at his disposal to enforce the nation's immigration laws, protect American workers, and defend the homeland security of this nation."

Illegal aliens can be induced to remove themselves from the United States gradually over several years. See my post "Illegal Aliens Would Self Deport If Immigration Laws Enforced".

FAIR says the costs of an illegal alien amnesty and guest worker program would run into the many tens of billions of dollars per year.

If an illegal alien amnesty and guest worker program similar to the one being contemplated by the United States Senate and supported by President Bush were enacted, the cost burden to state and local governments would be staggering, projects an analysis by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). FAIR estimates that state and local costs associated with illegal immigration for public education, health care and incarceration, now about $36 billion a year, would balloon to $61.5 billion by 2010 a 70 percent increase and increase to $106.3 billion by 2020. “From every possible angle, an illegal alien amnesty and guest worker program would be a fiscal and administrative nightmare,” said Dan Stein, president of FAIR. “Never mind the fact that an illegal alien amnesty is a moral betrayal of the American public and immigrants who played by the rules. It would be an unfunded federal mandate that will bankrupt states, counties and cities all across the United States.”

FAIR also points to a huge increase in the American population as a result of amnesty and lax handling of illegal immigrants.

Depending on what Congress decides to do about immigration — curtail it, expand it — the United States is facing a future population just 45 years away that could vary by more than 135 million residents. Our population is going to be growing in any case, largely because of immigrants who have arrived in the past few generations, but that growth could be limited to about 66 million persons (a 22% increase) if we effectively combat illegal immigration and pare back legal immigration to a moderate level. Alternatively, if current proposals to increase immigration, give legal status to those currently here illegally, and create a new guest worker program were adopted, we likely will be facing the prospect of a population in 2050 of half a billion people. That would be about 200 million more persons than today (a 67% increase). If our policy makers pursue the latter course, our projection is that the country will be on a course to reaching about one billion people by the end of the century.

If Congress should end up ducking the issue of immigration reform and maintaining the status quo of mass legal and illegal immigration, our population is projected to still continue its rapid growth. Our projection is for a population of between 445 and 462 million residents depending on the assumptions used.

I have previously listed all the reasons why so-called guest worker programs would fail to stop illegal immigration and actually make it worse. See my post "Thinking About Bush's Less Than Half-Baked Worker Permit Proposal"

The stakes in the immigration policy fight are absolutely enormous for the future of the United States. If you want to choose a single issue for which to write to Congresscritters or to your newspaper or to argue about with friends immigration is the most important issue to argue today. Read about why massive Hispanic immigration will turn the United States into a less developed country with declining living standards and also see my post "Benthamite Libertarian Collectivists Wrong On Open Borders". A great deal is at stake.

Update: Lawrence Auster says Bush believes in the merger of Latin America and the United States of America. Bush's tendency to embrace faith in whatever he decides he believes as a substitute for reasoning about empirical evidence makes him an especially damaging President.

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2006 April 25 08:58 PM  Immigration Politics


Comments
crush41 said at April 25, 2006 11:45 PM:

"Massive deportation of the people here is unrealistic. It's just not going to work."

Well I'm convinced.

Seems that Chertoff recently agreed to remove some 39,000 Chinese immigrants from the US. Why do we deny "sanctuary" to well-behaved escapees of a communist system we putatively despise by shipping them halfway around the world while we are unable to move any of the half-million or so culturally and economically burdensome Hispanics who wave the flag of a parasitic nation a few hundred miles south?

If history is any indicator, the expulsion of twelve million would require physically deporting a number much smaller than that:

The INS claimed as many as 1,300,000, though the number officially apprehended did not come anywhere near this total. The INS estimate rested on the claim that most aliens, fearing apprehension by the government, had voluntarily repatriated themselves before and during the operation. The San Antonio district, which included all of Texas outside of El Paso and the Trans-Pecos,qv had officially apprehended slightly more than 80,000 aliens, and local INS officials claimed that an additional 500,000 to 700,000 had fled to Mexico before the campaign began.
The numbers are difficult to substantiate, but the general trend is not. For every one forced out another five or six will leave.

John S Bolton said at April 26, 2006 12:04 AM:

It does go to show that no rational argument can be found, even by all the presidents' advisers, and their think tanks;
for the harboring of many millions of hostile foreign criminals within the borders, in wartime, no less.
If such arguments could be provided, they would not have to offer a false dilemma like saying our alternatives are; deport ten or more million illegals in less than one year,
or tolerate them and wave in millions more.
The NYT has it that enforcement would create a 'police-state' and be diagnosable as 'xenophobic'(Ed. p.A26 4-25-06).
Why must they use smears and false dilemmas like these?
If there is debate on immigration, why must the prominent participants, with vast resources to support their pro-illegal positions, find it unavoidable to use the methods of unreason, in the place where rational debate is to be expected?
Is it because there is no rational argument which can support the massive volume of aggression which is involved in illegal immigration here?
The only question is whether millions of illegal aliens are aggressors or not.
There is abundance of evidence of the presence of very large numbers of foreign aggressors, exploiting offcial tolerance of illegal immigration.
The government does not make the case that illegals give more than they take, for the most part; but that it is what they have to demonstrate.

Ned said at April 26, 2006 5:52 AM:

Bush the worst President since WW II? Maybe, but I can well recall LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Bush-41 and Clinton. I can remember moments during the terms of these worthies that I thought each would qualify for the title. So don't be too quich to give the award to Bush, there's a lot of competition.

David Lajaunie said at April 26, 2006 7:04 AM:

President Bush doesn't have a problem with illegal immigration; we're the ones who have a problem. President Bush and the remainder of the ruling class can safely ignore the most reasoned of arguments against the massive inflow of illegals. In fact, there is no argument in the world so well crafted as to sway them, since controlling the border and repatriating lawbreakers would not advance their interests.

The open borders crowd and millions of illegals have demonstrated in terms stark enough for even the densest Senator to appreciate that the balance of political power favors them not us. As long as we are content to merely be articulate and reasonable we will remain impotent. This is power politics and so far we've been powerless…

Drindl said at April 26, 2006 8:01 AM:

No, honestly. I think flushing billions of dollars down the toilet of Iraq with nothing to show for it exept a couple thousand dead young Americans uniquely qualifies Bush as the worst president ever. Handing our ports and the factories that our manufacture military equipment over to terrorists and doing absolutely nothing for the security of our borders, nuclear and chemical facilities is impresive too. I really think you've got to hand it to him.

SuperDuperDave said at April 26, 2006 8:37 AM:

I agree Drindl. Also Bush's rampant disregard for environmental protection and the national parks (not even Reagan dared touch the Nat'l Parks), part and parcel with Bush's nutty Armageddon messianic tendencies, his gutting of international treaties including nuke treaties (resuming nuke testing and development for us while trying to all but hand new nukes to India on a silver platter, an incredibly dumb idea that would provoke a new arms race), Bush's utter failure to pursue OBL thus allowing bin Laden to be the first person since the British generals in the War of 1812 to attack the US homeland, and to even *get away with doing it*. Bush has done the country too much damage to calculate.

SuperDuperDave said at April 26, 2006 8:45 AM:

One side effect of this mass-immigration is that Caucasian-Americans (and a goodly number of well-educated Asians who've been here a while or are second-generation) are leaving California, Arizona, New Mexico, Florida, Texas and other big immigration hubs in droves. I used to work with Silicon Valley-based companies, and the outsourcing and programmers-on-the-cheap policy (for Indian and other programmers) has utterly devastated many parts of the industry and effectively priced out Caucasian computer programmers from the area.

They generally tend to leave California as a whole since, well, there's not much to be said for staying there anymore when you don't have much in the way of economic prospects *and* you're so politically powerless as to be unable to change the system. Meanwhile, mass low-skill immigration in Southern California (and even Northern California these days) is driving out working-class Caucasians and African-Americans, interestingly enough, who are heading for places like Nevada, the Mountain West and the Midwest. California as a Caucasian-American state is fast fading into history, and the new California is shaping up to be a radically different place from any state the USA has ever seen.

SuperDuperDave said at April 26, 2006 9:43 AM:

BTW, interesting to point out that while George W. Bush is without question one of the nastier elected officials today in his open borders views, he's hardly the only or even the worst President in recent history to take them. Both parties have been treacherous on this issue.

It was Ronald Reagan, for example, who signed into law the terrible IRCA act of 1986 that extended the first major amnesty to illegals-- an act that was passed by a GOP Senate. In 1990-91, it was George H. W. Bush who signed one of the most awful pieces of legislation since WWII (at least since the 1965 law), the immigration act that increased legal immigration quotas to close to 1 million, generating much of the deluge that's currently upon us. Bush was too stupidly wrapped up in his own idiotic rhetoric of "family values" to realize that the families he was effectively inviting in-- thanks to Ted Kennedy's treachery with the 1965 law-- would amplify upon themselves many times due to chain migration. George H. W. Bush therefore has the notorious distinction of doing the most since 1965 to deluge the US with the Third World. Remember, even if we could evict all the illegals next week, it wouldn't make a dent in our overall immigration problem since the number of "legals" allowed in by chain migration is so stupidly high. It's the legal quotas that have to be targeted first and foremost.

Bill Clinton, of course, used his Executive Order privileges to bring about one secretive amnesty after another, to the tune of millions of new Central Americans (and, mostly, Democratic voters, of course). George W. Bush is just the latest in this lousy tradition.

The upshot is that both parties have terrible records on the immigration issue, so much so that even I, a longtime Republican, am considering a jump to the other side of the aisle. It depends on whom the Dems nominate. If the Democrats are stupid enough to nominate Hillary Clinton-- as treacherous and duplicitous on immigration as on other issues-- then I'll put a clothespin on my nose and vote for the Republican nominee in 2008. However, if the Dems nominate somebody like Mark Warner, who seems to at least be open to some kind of smart reform, then I'll vote for the Democrats. It's their choice.

JohnS said at April 26, 2006 2:04 PM:

Seems like a massive train wreck is coming for CA. Tax base erosion as educated high skill workers take off and increased dependency on government services from unskilled Mexican peasants. Things can only get worse from here and they're already near bankrupt.

Jorge D.C. said at April 26, 2006 2:14 PM:

...deportation...is unrealistic.

This is another transnationalist talking point to go along with "you just can't build a wall" and "jobs American's won't do".

Bush won't secure the US borders because he's more interested in the "North American security perimeter".

Check out some of the incredible facts about our retarded neighbor to the south:

Miserable Mexico Burdens U.S.

It's simply outrageous to encourage any sort of international integration with the gangster state of Mexico. Anyone who suggests doing so...can logically be assumed to be a gangster themselves.

Jorge D.C. said at April 26, 2006 2:24 PM:

Stunners from the Miserable Mexico article:

"Mexico ranks number one in the world for disappearances of women, number two for kidnappings for ransom (number one of countries not at war), number two for number of narco-cartels, and number three for murders per capita."

"According to the World Economic Freedom Index, Mexico ranks...88th (out of 123) in measures of legal structures and property rights."

"Heather MacDonald has discovered, 95 percent of all outstanding warrants for murder in Los Angeles target illegal aliens. Up to two-thirds of all fugitive felony warrants are for illegals. A California Department of Justice study reported in 1995 that the infamous 18th Street Gang (20,000 strong) is at least 60 percent illegal."

Apparently...CRIME FAMILY VALUES don't stop at the border.

The true costs of not controlling the border are astronomical. When a transnationalist like Joe Klein whines on Meet the Press about how "you just can't build a fence" because of the cost...he should be reminded of what it costs to incarcerate these dirtbags.

JohnS said at April 26, 2006 2:44 PM:

I have to take my hat off to the oligarchs (billionaires) in Mexico. They have the corrupt system in place that perpetuates and guarantees their wealth and the American taxpayer is more than happy to take care of many of the peasants kept in poverty by their control. The remittances keep their economy from total disaster and the export of peasants reduces the chance of revolution. These are some smart (and rich) people!

Randall Parker said at April 26, 2006 4:46 PM:

SuperDuperDave,

In Reagan's defense the idea of that amnesty is that we were supposed to crack down after that. Congress then proceeded to undermine real enforcement.

I think the difference at this point is that we know so much more about how Hispanics do in this country, their numbers have increased so far, and the damage is just so much harder to miss. Ignorance is no longer an excuse. It is just no longer credible to make rationalizations about how an amnesty will put a cap on it with tougher enforcement at the same time. Bush doesn't even pretend to be for that. He wants more Hispanics not less.

We have a couple of decades more psychometric research. The truth about racial average differences in intelligence and other cognitive characteristics can only be denied by a mass liberal tribal lie.

Wolf-Dog said at April 26, 2006 5:19 PM:

Another consideration, is that the upper class in Mexico is very happy to ship their poor people to the US, because this prevents a revolution over there.

Now this is very important, because Bush probably thinks that he needs to appease the South American countries, in the sense that if South America truly becomes an enemy of the United States, this will be a strategic problem in view of the escalating global guerilla war.

I am not sure which one is worse, the invasion of the U.S. by illegal immigrants, or more political tension between North and South. In the event that there are draconian measures against Mexican immigrants, all of South America will become like Venezuela.

Currently there is an optimistic attitude that is preventing the government from choosing draconian measures because the economy is not too bad. In fact, the economy is slowly expanding, even though many salaries are declining on an inflation adjusted basis. If there is an economic collapse in a few years, which is possible, then perhaps there will be more draconian events.

Jesus said at April 26, 2006 6:31 PM:

Well what's W supposed to do, just throw away the hispanic vote?

Randall Parker said at April 26, 2006 6:39 PM:

Jesus,

If you lose money on each item you sell you can't make it up in volume. The majority of Hispanics are going to continue to vote for the Democrats because:

1) Half of Hispanics drop out of high school.

2) Hispanics are incarcerated at over 3 times the rate of whites.

3) Hispanics have about twice the illegitimacy rate of whites.

4) A larger fraction of Hispanics receive welfare in various forms and are far more likely to be medically uninsured.

5) Hispanics have far lower average net worths than whites.

In a nutshell, people who fit this demographic pattern do not vote for the party of business and limited government. Bush is trying to make the Republicans into the party of big government. But the Democrats can always outbid him and offer even more taxing and spending to transfer wealth to poorer people.

JohnS said at April 26, 2006 6:50 PM:

Randall, I think the neocon tripe about gaining Hispanic votes (advocated by Brooks, Kristol, Barnes, etc.) is as realistic as making Iraq a democracy. Republicans will never compete with Democrats when it comes to pandering and expanding government services. The demographics of the illegal aliens suggests that they will overwhelming vote Democrat.

The only reason I can see Republicans committing suicide (which is what this amnesty will do - how is the GOP doing in CA?) is that short term business interests are overwhelming any rational thought. The last thing Bush needs is destabilizaion in Mexico that would create another Chavez in Mexico which is now supplying nearly 2,000,000 barrels of oil a day to the US.

Wolf-Dog said at April 26, 2006 10:46 PM:

Randall Parker,
Excellent point... The Hispanics will vote for the Democrats. So the Republicans are in a very complicated situation. If they use draconian measures to deport all Hispanics then there will be political consequences with South America, and if they let the Hispanics increase their numbers in the US, then the Republicans will lose the elections... Right now, 25 % of the US population is made of African Americans and Hispanics, who will vote for the Democrats. As this composite minority reaches 35 % within less than a decade, the Democrats will almost certainly gain a lot of ground.

Jorge D.C. said at April 27, 2006 12:09 AM:

So the Republicans are in a very complicated situation.

I don't think Teddy Roosevelt would see it as a complicated situation. Today's PC politician is bogged down in complexities though I will agree.

The GOP needs to enforce the law and trigger a massive self-deportation. It is nonsense to suggest that enforcing the law will alienate huge numbers of eligible-to-vote hispanics. Many hispanics want the borders controlled. They are not in lock step with the race hustlers like LULAC and La Raza.

It make take 10 years but the only thing that matters is reversing the migration trend. If the Republicans don't stop the browning of America we are looking at not the death of the Republican Party (the GOP will adjust and survive) but the death of conservatism in US politics.

In the UK the (formerly) conservative Tories are experiencing this phenomenon right now because they don't have the huge middle class Christian conservative block that acts as a bulwark against the Left over here in the USA. The Tories are actually giving up on conservatism. And accordingly the center in Britain is lurching leftward. This is our future without a reversal of current demographic trends.

Brown populations here on planet earth reject political conservatism outright...

wayne mckay said at May 3, 2006 5:34 PM:

I am a Die-hard Republican and agree with President Bush about his role as President of the Greatest country in the world. I have no problem with the US role in the Middle East. As a former Air Force and Navy Vet, I would much rather take it there than bring it here.

I do, However, disagree with allowing illegal aliens amnesty. We have Laws that have been in place for years that will mean nothing and all thoses who jumped through all the legal hoops and spent their life savings to do it right will get a slap in the face. Illegals protest in the open and make a mockery of our immigration laws and INS system. This is not a decition that any one person should make. I say do it legal, do it right or stay home. All this would do is open the flood gates for any illegal from anywhere to make the US home. Remember the thieves and murderers from Cuba who by-passed the screening system.

My Brazilian business partner and his family struggled and had to prove to this country they were the kind of people that would be good citizens. Let the Mexicans prove it too, and of course sing their version of the National Anthem to themselves.


Post a comment
Comments:
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
URL:
Remember info?

      
 
Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright ©