New Imigration policy

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by AMDMACMAN, Jan 7, 2004.

  1. AMDMACMAN macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    #1
    I cant believe I am the first one to post about the new Bush imigration policy. THis is the most liberal open imigraton policy in recent memory.

    Link
     
  2. Frohickey macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Location:
    PRK
    #2
    Only if its accompanied by stricter border enforcement. I would not be averse to building a wall, or mining the border with seizmographs and cameras and Predator drones. :p

    Of course, the same level of scrutiny would need to be done at the seaports, and airports. Remember the trailerful of chinese aliens trying to get smuggled into the US?
     
  3. bousozoku Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    Gone but not forgotten.
    #3
    It seems as though they just might give the country to someone else, if the price is right.

    Does this seem like a way to get the hispanic vote in the presidential race?
     
  4. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #4
    i believe that's at least one of the motivations behind the action.

    even if the measure never passes, bush can claim compassion.
     
  5. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #5
    Too bad it seems aimed at one ethinic group. I have a Hungarian friend who can't get his girlfriend into the country since 9/11. This bill is liberal for some, but doesn't help his situation one iota.
     
  6. wwworry macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2002
    #6
    THis bill is structured for...

    cheap labor for PepsiCo.

    Do you see how it is structured? First a company has to make sure that the jobs are not being filled by Americans. (Sign a form.) Then bring in cheap labor that has to leave in 3 years. (No benefits! No long term responsibility for the employer!)

    What is to stop US employers from slashing wages when they now have access to cheap foreign guest workers? Instead of moving the factory overseas for cheap labor, now anyone can move the cheap labor here!

    THis bill could have been improved by a raise in the minimum wage and some negotiated worker standards in our foreign trade agreements.

    For Bush it's WIN WIN. Cheap labor for big business. Florida and California electoral votes.
     
  7. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #7
    Something never mentioned when speaking of the numbers of immigrants--whether legal or illegal--is the effect on the resource base of an inflow of large numbers of people.

    For instance, the water supply for the LA Basin comes via the All American Canal from the Colorado, and via the California Water Project which gets its water from the snowmelt of the Feather River above Sacramento. Both systems are stressed as to supply capability.

    Phoenix and Tucson are dependent on the Central Arizona Project, which also takes water from the Colorado.

    Atlanta, Birmingham and Chattanooga are in a squabble about water from the Tennessee River.

    The growing megaplex strip city of San Antonio-Austin is also stressing the local-area water supply.

    All these areas are high-growth, and have large numbers of immigrants as well as native in-migration.

    Interesting times...

    Minimum wage is aimed at entry-level skills. From what I've seen first-hand, the productivity of entry-level workers barely justifies the existing $5.15 per hour, regardless of a worker's "need". If you raise the minimum wage, you reduce the profitability of many small businesses--a high percentage of which are already marginal. One major problem for them is the inelasticity of their pricing. One regular result of raising the minimum wage is a reduction in a business' workforce. More workload on those remaining, and more folks on unemployment.

    'Rat
     
  8. 2jaded2care macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2003
    Location:
    Atlanta
    #8
    As a Republican voter, I am deadset against the Bush proposal. Wwworry is right in that it is all about cheap labor for big business (and any resultant Hispanic voter support would be a nice fringe benefit). So, we will import cheap manual laborers; outsource tech work to India; import cheap products from foreign countries; and the only way for US citizens to make money will be to give each other haircuts and sue one another.

    Desertrat, you are right in pointing out the strain on our natural resources. Dems are compassionate to a fault regarding illegal immigrants, but they conveniently ignore the increase in smog, pollution, energy consumption, etc. that goes along with that. If they are going to complain about overpopulation, why do they support more crowding in their own areas?
    This is bad policy. The GOP will get no donations from me this year, and if Clark manages to get the Dems' nod, I will seriously look at his candidacy.

    And before you allege racism, let me tell you that my mother just got approved for US citizenship TODAY (after 40 years as a legal resident alien in the US), and will be taking the oath this afternoon. I support limited, legal immigration.
     
  9. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #9
    the bush family has been buying up water rights around the world for years
     
  10. Giaguara macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2002
    #10
    why do everyone now need an electrical etc passport (or go thru the visa thing via consulate) to get here? why make that more hard, and then tell it's really easier ..?


    what does actually happen when someone stays longer than they should? if you have e.g. a 90 days or 1 year vista, but you just stay (for 10 or 20 years.. as long as you can)? you can't renew your passport eitehr .. :rolleyes:

    wait, reading it further... 140,000 g cards .. of which 10,000 to skilled persons? if it takes up to 6 y or longer to wait for the card anyway, why to sign to that thing even if it theorically promises something?

    in practise it will just increase your probability of being kicked out of the country.

    miserable attempt to try to catch votes from the hispanics. jsut let people stay, period.
     
  11. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #11
    Back 20 or 30 years ago, the numbers of "wetbacks" was not overwhelming. Today and in recent years, it's very much overwhelming. Look at the public-cost numbers for California and Arizona, and to a lesser-but-significant extent, Texas. (The largest single factor is medical.)

    I'm favorably disposed toward legal immigrants to this country. I am strongly opposed to illegal immigrants from any country, including Europe or what were the Iron Curtain countries, regardless of how good and hard-working these folks are.

    I fail to see how criminals' rights are supposed to be superior to my right to not be over-crowded or a right to a fairer level of taxation.

    'Rat
     
  12. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #12
    Why dont we just open all the jails and say we are starting over? whats the point of Laws if anyone can break em and then be made a U.S citizen. This is smoke and mirrors to divert attention from getting us in Iraq and he is trying to get that latino vote. Bush administration has failed at doing anything about our borders. and to think i voted for this guy:rolleyes:
     
  13. Frohickey macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Location:
    PRK
    #13
    Sounds like your Hungarian friend ought to get his US citizenship and marry his girlfriend. Thats one way of getting a foreigner into the country.

    DesertRat touched upon the lunacy of minimum wage (current term is living wage) laws. Used to be that you would have teenage kids and people with no skills in gainful employment accumulating more skills as they work. With the minimum wage laws, these people end up on the welfare rolls, or unemployment.

    I've been following the illegal alien migration from various websites by people that own land that is being trespassed on a daily basis. You would not believe the ecological damage and rubbish these aliens leave. Diapers, shoes, empty water jugs, and other trash. And Democrats are pro-environment. Sounds like the correct solution is for more border enforcement, and if they want more immigration, make it legal immigration via border check stations where these people can be screened for criminal records, infectious diseases and other stuff.

    Lets see. If Al Qaeda has the smallpox virus, and it takes 11 to 14 days after virus encounter to get sick, lets see. They can hand illegal aliens hoping to cross the border smallpox infected blankets. Terrorists don't even have to be the one to die to cause an epidemic.
     
  14. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #14
    He's been naturalised since he was a kid. Marriage is a bit extreme of a way to have to get into the US, isn't it?

    So what? You think Democrats are pro-illegal immigration? What's your point here?

    Oh God. The sky is falling. Let's all be really scared. Orange alert!
     
  15. Frohickey macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Location:
    PRK
    #15
    Well, there are tourist visas that your naturalized friend can ask his girlfriend to get. But she would need to go back after thats over with. I'm assuming that he wants her to stay in the US for a bit longer than that.

    Democrats haven't went out and said they are against illegal immigration. Its always been, lets give amnesty to the ones that are here illegally already since they are only here for a better life. Sure, the last president that signed the illegal alien amnesty was Ronald Reagan, and we know that that did not do. It did not stop the flow of illegal aliens.

    The smallpox scenario is just that, a scenario. It could happen. Something else that could happen is that illegals carry 10 lb packages of cocaine in as well. Oh wait, thats not an imaginary scenario.

    So, what is your solution?
     
  16. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #16
    it _did_ happen. that was one of the techniques of genocide against native americans.

    oh the irony, should it happen again.
     
  17. Frohickey macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Location:
    PRK
    #17
    I know about the smallpox blanket situation, why do you think I used it. But you have pseudobrit yelling...
    Yeah, but if it should happen again, indians get to have it happen to them twice!
     
  18. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #18
    We do have a few things today that we didn't have those days. You know, modern medicine and vaccines and all...

    I've got better things to do than sit around worrying about killer germs that are going to come from wherever I'm supposed to be afraid of.

    Let's remember that the only documented biological attack on America didn't come from without.
     
  19. Durandal7 macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2001
    #19
    At this point it appears that if al-Qaeda is about to attack anyone then it will be Saudi Arabia.
     
  20. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #20
    It isn't something they focus on so they're for it?

    Republicans don't go out and say they're against smoking and gun violence because it might send the a conflicting message to their party base. Does that mean they really don't care about homicides and lung cancer?

    Republicans focus on illegal immigration because it's an easy target, same as the Dems focus on gun violence. Democrats don't go after immigration because their base doesn't have a big red xenophobic button that's easily pressed.
     
  21. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #21
    pseudobrit offered:

    "Republicans don't go out and say they're against smoking and gun violence because it might send the a conflicting message to their party base."

    'Scuse me. Just what part of their base favors gun violence?

    "Republicans focus on illegal immigration because it's an easy target, same as the Dems focus on gun violence."

    I wouldn't argue that Republicans focus on it more than do Democrats, if one admitted that legalization of illegals and facilitation of citizenship would expand the voting base for Democrats. But forgiving criminals in order to gain votes strikes me as pretty sorry politics--whether proposed by the usual bloc of Democrats or by Our Lil Dubya.

    'Rat
     
  22. 2jaded2care macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2003
    Location:
    Atlanta
    #22
    Probably some commentator has already suggested this, but I haven't heard it yet so here goes:

    Bush should propose an amnesty for Pres. Clinton so that Bill can get his impeachment revoked. Sure, Clinton broke the law, but he was productive otherwise, and lots of business-types look favorably on him. (Besides, the guy was just trying to get ahea-- ahem, won't go there.) Plus, it'll appeal to the "swing" voters ("Yeah, baby!").

    Makes as much sense to me.
     
  23. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #23
    None. But there are more than a few who are very touchy about gun issues. The mention of a hint of any gun control throws them into a spin. So Republicans end up avoiding the issue. I'm not faulting them; it's a strategy practiced on both sides for certain issues.
     
  24. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #24
    Clinton was never convicted of any crime.

    Now the current President...
     
  25. 2jaded2care macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2003
    Location:
    Atlanta
    #25
    Pseudobrit, you are correct, Clinton was never convicted of any crime. However, he did admit to one in a plea-bargain with prosecutor Robert Ray, who said (per CNN):

    "President Clinton has acknowledged responsibility for his actions. He has admitted that he knowingly gave evasive and misleading answers to questions in the Jones deposition and that his conduct was prejudicial to the administration of justice.

    "He has acknowledged that some of his answers were false. He has agreed to a five-year suspension of his Arkansas bar license. And he has agreed not to seek attorney's fees in connection with this matter.

    "The nation's interests have been served, and therefore I decline prosecution."

    So, while technically correct to say that he was never convicted, it is somewhat misleading.

    Sorry, didn't mean to throw the thread off-track.
    I guess one could also argue that individual illegal immigrants are not "illegal" until they have been ruled by the government to be such. To me, this does not mean they are not breaking the law.
     

Share This Page