?
-
Guest
http://www.vdare.com/epstein/070410_ploy.htm
Printer Friendly Version...
April 10, 2007
Three Points To Puncture Bush's Latest Amnesty Ploy
By Marcus Epstein
President Bush is on the amnesty offensive again, again. Yesterday he
gave a speech in Yuma Arizona, [Text] full of the usual platitudes
about illegal aliens "doing jobs Americans are not doing" and how
family values do not "stop at the Rio Grande." And, of course, he
urged Congress to pass "comprehensive immigration reform."
The White House released a fact sheet giving the president's usual
plan: nominal increases in enforcement, a temporary worker plan, and a
way to "resolve" the status of illegal aliens in this country.
None of this was unexpected. What was noticeably absent from his
speech or fact sheet was any discussion of Y or Z visas-or any other
details of the immigration plan that was leaked from the White House
earlier this month.
Given that Bush's omission, and the sparse and negative press coverage
that accompanied the proposal, this earlier leak, as VDARE.COM's
Patrick Cleburne guessed, may not have been planned.
What is public is not a bill, but a 23 page PowerPoint presentation
detailing the major themes of the legislation. [View it in PDF here]
There are some good things in the proposal, but nevertheless in no way
should any patriotic immigration reformer even consider supporting it.
The White House PowerPoint notes that 58% of visas granted annually
are given based on family reunification, while only 22% are given
based on skills-much lower than most other First World countries. It
suggests increasing emphasis on skills. The plan also calls for the
long overdue abolition of the diversity visa lottery. And like all
immigration bills, it has a security component to it as well.
This is all well and good. But when considering new legislation, there
are three very simple questions that immigration reform patriots
should ask:
Does it increase the annual quota for legal immigration?
Does it create a guest worker program that will invariably end up
as increased legal immigration?
Does it allow illegal aliens to become legal residents of this
country?
If the answer to any of these questions is yes, then the proposal
should be disregarded. As bad as the status quo is right now, any
policy that has any of those provisions will simply increase the
immigration flood, no matter what other reforms it promises.
Like every single proposal that has come from the Bush White House,
the answer to all three questions is: yes.
While it is nice to give higher priority to skill-based immigration
rather than family-based chain migration, the proposal aims to
increase the total immigration quota to 1.4 million people a year. So
rather than ending chain migration, it simply increases skilled
migration relatively faster than it increases family-based
immigration.
The plan also creates an unspecified number of $1500 "Y visas" for
"rotating" guest workers that can be altered by the Secretaries of
Homeland Security, Commerce, and Labor. "Rotating" means that, in
theory, these guest workers need to return home for a short period
before they can renew their visa. (They are either 2 years and out 6
months or in 9 months and out 6 months.) Also, in theory, these
workers are not automatically given permanent residency after their
term expires. And "Y visa" guest workers cannot bring in their
children. (But, of course, any children they have here will be
citizens under the current misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment).
And, of course, the PowerPoint paradoxically tells us that the bill
"brings illegal workers out of the shadows without amnesty."
Needless to say, any plan that "brings illegals out of the shadows"
without deporting them is an amnesty.
Many of the legislators in Washington who opposed last years amnesty
did so because it gave illegal aliens a so-called "path to
citizenship". So now the PowerPoint notes explicitly that the proposal
offers "no special path to citizenship". Instead, illegal aliens
already here can pay $3500 to get a three-year "Z visa" that can be
renewed indefinitely. They can also then apply to get a permanent visa
through regular channels, paying a $10,000 fine when their number
comes up.
Even if all goes as we are told, this bill would dramatically increase
the rate at which this country is flooded both legally and illegally.
But there is absolutely no way things will go as planned if this
proposal were enacted.
The guest workers supposedly are not given automatic legal permanent
residency-but we all know that in 5 years we will be assailed with MSM
sob stories about how they played by the rules, put down roots in this
country, but now have to go home. (And, sure enough, the PowerPoint
says "there ought to be some meaningful chance for a temporary worker
who has been a model employee and good member of the community to be
eligible for LPR through normal channels".)
Similarly while, the illegals shouldn't get citizenship even with a
$10,000 fine, you can be sure to read features in the Los Angeles
Times about families who can't afford to send their daughters to
college because they have to pay the fine to become citizens. And we
can expect plenty of loopholes.
$10,000 is a lot of money, but the mass immigration crisis that this
country faces is about more than dollars and cents. Even if it were,
$10,000 dollars is not close to enough. The Heritage Foundation
recently released a report on the fiscal costs of high school drop out
households (which includes the majority of illegal alien households)
and found them to be a net fiscal drain of $22,449 a year or 1.1
million dollars over their lifetime.
In fact, the sob stores have already started. Thousands of illegals
marched in Los Angeles this weekend partially in protest of the Z
Visas. The Associated Press dutifully reported their complaint:
"Charging that much, Bush is going to be even more expensive than the
coyotes."
And the AP quoted Latino leader Juan Jose Gutierrez: "'People are
really upset. For years, the president spoke in no uncertain terms
about supporting immigration reform. . . . Then this kind of plan
comes out and people are so frustrated.'"[Immigrants march in downtown
L.A. to protest Bush visa plan and demand path to citizenship, By
Peter Prengaman April 7, 2007]
My question: is this really the White House's proposal? Bush
reportedly crafted this with Senators John Cornyn and John Kyl-two
opponents of last year's 2611. Many of the other 22 Republicans who
voted against it may sign on to this plan as well. But, despite the
White House's involvement in crafting the plan, a Bush spokesman
refused to comment on it.
At the same time, suspiciously, the Bush White House is still in
active talks with Ted Kennedy who plans on introducing a carbon copy
of last year's 2611 and has spoken highly of the recent
Flake-Gutierrez bill.
White House aides tell the Washington Post, that the "Z visas" are
just one of many "one of many ideas the president would consider." In
other words, Bush will not consider any sort of legislation that just
secures the border and enforces the law.
What the White House and their allies may be hoping is that the
"restrictionist wing" of the Senate, if you can call it that, will
begin negotiations with a bill that increases legal immigration,
creates a massive guest worker program, and gives amnesty to illegal
aliens. If they do, they will have surrendered before the battle has
even begun. [Bush Makes Push To Resolve Status Of Illegal Workers By
Michael A. Fletcher, Washington Post, April 10, 2007]
Of course, the Mainstream Media will insist that the "Z visas" are the
product of right wing restrictionists, and angry Mexicans will be in
street denouncing it. This will give the false aura of real
restriction, encourage a phony debate in the Senate and provide a nice
plan for some GOP presidential hopefuls to latch onto.
Then the best we can hope for is that the Democrats and Republicans
will split on partisan lines, and nothing will get past cloture.
However, if we get a dreaded "bipartisan compromise", we can be sure
that the final result will be a bill that strips out any of the
relatively good reforms made in this proposal, leaving us with the
same amnesty and legal immigration increase.
Partisan bickering may avert disaster for the interim. But if we are
going to win in the long run, the terms of the debate must be changed.
Marcus Epstein [send him mail] is the founder of the Robert A Taft
Club and the executive director of the The American Cause and Team
America PAC. A selection of his articles can be seen here. The views
he expresses are his own.
The articles on VDARE.com are brought to you by the VDARE Foundation.
We are supported by generous donations from our readers. Contributions
are tax deductible and appreciated.
1999 - 2007 VDARE.com
Printer Friendly Version...
April 10, 2007
Three Points To Puncture Bush's Latest Amnesty Ploy
By Marcus Epstein
President Bush is on the amnesty offensive again, again. Yesterday he
gave a speech in Yuma Arizona, [Text] full of the usual platitudes
about illegal aliens "doing jobs Americans are not doing" and how
family values do not "stop at the Rio Grande." And, of course, he
urged Congress to pass "comprehensive immigration reform."
The White House released a fact sheet giving the president's usual
plan: nominal increases in enforcement, a temporary worker plan, and a
way to "resolve" the status of illegal aliens in this country.
None of this was unexpected. What was noticeably absent from his
speech or fact sheet was any discussion of Y or Z visas-or any other
details of the immigration plan that was leaked from the White House
earlier this month.
Given that Bush's omission, and the sparse and negative press coverage
that accompanied the proposal, this earlier leak, as VDARE.COM's
Patrick Cleburne guessed, may not have been planned.
What is public is not a bill, but a 23 page PowerPoint presentation
detailing the major themes of the legislation. [View it in PDF here]
There are some good things in the proposal, but nevertheless in no way
should any patriotic immigration reformer even consider supporting it.
The White House PowerPoint notes that 58% of visas granted annually
are given based on family reunification, while only 22% are given
based on skills-much lower than most other First World countries. It
suggests increasing emphasis on skills. The plan also calls for the
long overdue abolition of the diversity visa lottery. And like all
immigration bills, it has a security component to it as well.
This is all well and good. But when considering new legislation, there
are three very simple questions that immigration reform patriots
should ask:
Does it increase the annual quota for legal immigration?
Does it create a guest worker program that will invariably end up
as increased legal immigration?
Does it allow illegal aliens to become legal residents of this
country?
If the answer to any of these questions is yes, then the proposal
should be disregarded. As bad as the status quo is right now, any
policy that has any of those provisions will simply increase the
immigration flood, no matter what other reforms it promises.
Like every single proposal that has come from the Bush White House,
the answer to all three questions is: yes.
While it is nice to give higher priority to skill-based immigration
rather than family-based chain migration, the proposal aims to
increase the total immigration quota to 1.4 million people a year. So
rather than ending chain migration, it simply increases skilled
migration relatively faster than it increases family-based
immigration.
The plan also creates an unspecified number of $1500 "Y visas" for
"rotating" guest workers that can be altered by the Secretaries of
Homeland Security, Commerce, and Labor. "Rotating" means that, in
theory, these guest workers need to return home for a short period
before they can renew their visa. (They are either 2 years and out 6
months or in 9 months and out 6 months.) Also, in theory, these
workers are not automatically given permanent residency after their
term expires. And "Y visa" guest workers cannot bring in their
children. (But, of course, any children they have here will be
citizens under the current misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment).
And, of course, the PowerPoint paradoxically tells us that the bill
"brings illegal workers out of the shadows without amnesty."
Needless to say, any plan that "brings illegals out of the shadows"
without deporting them is an amnesty.
Many of the legislators in Washington who opposed last years amnesty
did so because it gave illegal aliens a so-called "path to
citizenship". So now the PowerPoint notes explicitly that the proposal
offers "no special path to citizenship". Instead, illegal aliens
already here can pay $3500 to get a three-year "Z visa" that can be
renewed indefinitely. They can also then apply to get a permanent visa
through regular channels, paying a $10,000 fine when their number
comes up.
Even if all goes as we are told, this bill would dramatically increase
the rate at which this country is flooded both legally and illegally.
But there is absolutely no way things will go as planned if this
proposal were enacted.
The guest workers supposedly are not given automatic legal permanent
residency-but we all know that in 5 years we will be assailed with MSM
sob stories about how they played by the rules, put down roots in this
country, but now have to go home. (And, sure enough, the PowerPoint
says "there ought to be some meaningful chance for a temporary worker
who has been a model employee and good member of the community to be
eligible for LPR through normal channels".)
Similarly while, the illegals shouldn't get citizenship even with a
$10,000 fine, you can be sure to read features in the Los Angeles
Times about families who can't afford to send their daughters to
college because they have to pay the fine to become citizens. And we
can expect plenty of loopholes.
$10,000 is a lot of money, but the mass immigration crisis that this
country faces is about more than dollars and cents. Even if it were,
$10,000 dollars is not close to enough. The Heritage Foundation
recently released a report on the fiscal costs of high school drop out
households (which includes the majority of illegal alien households)
and found them to be a net fiscal drain of $22,449 a year or 1.1
million dollars over their lifetime.
In fact, the sob stores have already started. Thousands of illegals
marched in Los Angeles this weekend partially in protest of the Z
Visas. The Associated Press dutifully reported their complaint:
"Charging that much, Bush is going to be even more expensive than the
coyotes."
And the AP quoted Latino leader Juan Jose Gutierrez: "'People are
really upset. For years, the president spoke in no uncertain terms
about supporting immigration reform. . . . Then this kind of plan
comes out and people are so frustrated.'"[Immigrants march in downtown
L.A. to protest Bush visa plan and demand path to citizenship, By
Peter Prengaman April 7, 2007]
My question: is this really the White House's proposal? Bush
reportedly crafted this with Senators John Cornyn and John Kyl-two
opponents of last year's 2611. Many of the other 22 Republicans who
voted against it may sign on to this plan as well. But, despite the
White House's involvement in crafting the plan, a Bush spokesman
refused to comment on it.
At the same time, suspiciously, the Bush White House is still in
active talks with Ted Kennedy who plans on introducing a carbon copy
of last year's 2611 and has spoken highly of the recent
Flake-Gutierrez bill.
White House aides tell the Washington Post, that the "Z visas" are
just one of many "one of many ideas the president would consider." In
other words, Bush will not consider any sort of legislation that just
secures the border and enforces the law.
What the White House and their allies may be hoping is that the
"restrictionist wing" of the Senate, if you can call it that, will
begin negotiations with a bill that increases legal immigration,
creates a massive guest worker program, and gives amnesty to illegal
aliens. If they do, they will have surrendered before the battle has
even begun. [Bush Makes Push To Resolve Status Of Illegal Workers By
Michael A. Fletcher, Washington Post, April 10, 2007]
Of course, the Mainstream Media will insist that the "Z visas" are the
product of right wing restrictionists, and angry Mexicans will be in
street denouncing it. This will give the false aura of real
restriction, encourage a phony debate in the Senate and provide a nice
plan for some GOP presidential hopefuls to latch onto.
Then the best we can hope for is that the Democrats and Republicans
will split on partisan lines, and nothing will get past cloture.
However, if we get a dreaded "bipartisan compromise", we can be sure
that the final result will be a bill that strips out any of the
relatively good reforms made in this proposal, leaving us with the
same amnesty and legal immigration increase.
Partisan bickering may avert disaster for the interim. But if we are
going to win in the long run, the terms of the debate must be changed.
Marcus Epstein [send him mail] is the founder of the Robert A Taft
Club and the executive director of the The American Cause and Team
America PAC. A selection of his articles can be seen here. The views
he expresses are his own.
The articles on VDARE.com are brought to you by the VDARE Foundation.
We are supported by generous donations from our readers. Contributions
are tax deductible and appreciated.
1999 - 2007 VDARE.com