|
Mercnbeth -> RE: Amnesty For Criminals Passed in the Senate (5/18/2007 6:14:53 AM)
|
Wonder why it was necessary to start another thread on the same subject?
This isn't amnesty? The day before the bill goes into effect it is a criminal offense, albeit not enforced by our government, to be in the US without a visa. The day the bill goes into effect it is legal to be here. Create any other name you'd like for it. Congress designed - President approved legitimacy? Amnesty is a word that describes the result.
The Border Fence? I thought we approved it last year. Its already been cut back. Nice smokescreen.
The "final solution" to the illegal alien problem? It was the same description used in 1986. That was anticipated to legalize 750,000 illegals. Actual result was 2 million. Subsequent result a whole new batch, estimated at 12 million comes in, correctly anticipating, this second "final solution". Wonder how many will come in this time. While we look at 1986's amnesty, what happened to all the enforcement at the employer level that was supposed to go in place back then? Why will this time be any different? Are people pointing to this really ignorant to history?
The fine and process? Okay, I'm an employer who owns a warehouse. I pay my men an average of $50,000 to wrangle around goods. I now have a workforce I can hire at $7.25/hour. Workers there better not drop anything off the forklift, you're history. Bring in a new worker, and I'll "lend" him/her the $5,000.00 he/she has to pay pack over the next 8 years. Oh, you have a union? Well - so did the Air traffic controllers. Truck drivers, especially owner operators, have 12 million potential competitors entering the workforce.
Personally, this has nothing but a positive effect on me. No one gaining amnesty will be competing for my job, although I may be hiring some. My kids aren't in school and if they were, they would be in private school, not in some district with 50-60 kids per class, half of them with no ability/desire to learn English. The Bill gives points for the ability to speak English to the illegal. The illegal's family, allowed to come with him/her, isn't impacted.
When me and the boys were talking about this last night we anticipated this will impact anyone in the labor sector. The more you make, the more exposure to replacement. The rising wage pressure will be over. Any employee seeking a raise will be evaluated considering what we could get for minimum wage. Before the next union strikes, they must consider if the job can be done cheaper by scabs. Next time the checkout workers at the food store go on strike, I doubt any negotiation or concessions will be won. Those seeking fairness for those here illegally forget that the greatest impact will be positive on them, but negative on the current USA citizen worker.
We all know people in the US legally already in the immigration process. Some of us are sponsoring them. What happens to them? It was suggested that they have their attorneys toss away their application and instead declare themselves illegal. It will be a cheaper and quicker process under the new bill.
I'm glad to see so much support for the President by many people who generally don't speak highly of him. I'm glad to see the Republicans taking a hit for this, but I'm sure it will be pointed out in November 2008, that a Congress with Republicans in power did not pass a similar bill last year. If this Bill becomes law, it will become law under a Democratically led Congress. I see no difference in the label but there are many who will and act upon it. It was interesting to see the Democratic Congress, led by Senator Kennedy, work so hard for the Presidential legacy President Bush said he wanted from his first year in office.
Edited to add:
The article quoted below speaks to both sides of the issue; quoting both Senator Kennedy and his opposition:
quote:
The deal came under attack from a set of lawmakers and interest groups as diverse as those that united to craft it. Their varying concerns and competing agendas - along with a challenging political environment - could be enough to unravel the painstakingly written agreement. Two of the key players in the talks from each end of the political spectrum, Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., and Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, walked away from the deal before it was announced. "What part of illegal does the Senate not understand? Any plan that rewards illegal behavior is amnesty," said Rep. Brian Bilbray, R-Calif., chairman of the Immigration Reform Caucus.
Congress should coalesce behind sweeping new compromise immigration legislation despite steep political obstacles because opportunities to confront the problem head-on are rare, Sen. Edward Kennedy said Friday.
Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., said he will move to kill the guest worker program because it would hurt American workers.
Liberals, on the other hand, are unhappy with the proposal because it makes a far-reaching change in the immigration system that would admit future arrivals seeking to put down roots in the U.S. based on their skills, education levels and job experience - limiting the importance of family ties.
Source: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070518/D8P6PHL80.html
|
|
|
|
