Skip to main content

Immigration Rising on Bush's To-Do List

These White House keep doing a lot of talking, but I don't see any walking. The greater problem is that these sort of stories running in the media serve as advertisement for illegals. Come soon, come all, and get in so you can benefit from an amnesty! I'm not saying this is what it is, but it sure sounds like it when they don't give a lot of details, do a lot of talking, and I don't see any enforcement of our current laws! Stop playing politics Mr. President. Do your job.
The effort is designed to help Bush take control of an increasingly contentious debate that has threatened to split the Republican Party and undermine its outreach to Latino voters. Although the White House has not laid out details for a plan, in January 2004 Bush proposed a guest-worker program that would be open to many illegal immigrants already in the U.S. and to prospective workers abroad.
As I have said, fix the legal immigration process first. Make it so the American economy can benefit from all these hard working individuals that are honest, have no criminal background, and are in need of an honest living--if they have entered legally.

This kind of all-encompassing talk of undocumented workers presenting a security threat is nonsense, racists, and all it does is divide our country. There is a difference between the real and present danger of terrorists getting into our country, and the problem of illegal immigration. I understand that this is a problem, and in many ways, that facilitates the entrance of terrorists. But, these individuals, illegal latinos, are not the same as terrorists--with the exception of Latino gang members that keep coming in again and again after deportation. Those need to get the full force of the law for their crimes.
A guest-worker program is favored by many Latinos and by businesses, many of them major GOP donors that depend on a steady flow of workers from Mexico and other countries. The White House effort is aimed at satisfying these groups while promoting tougher border security enforcement. The latter focus is an attempt to mollify a vocal bloc of cultural conservatives in the GOP — some in the House leadership — who argue that undocumented workers present a security threat and take some jobs that could be filled by Americans.
What I want to know is what sort of jobs are they taking away from Americans? What are we so afraid of? A little competition? Maybe that will convince more American youth to stay in school and be hard working, instead of sucking of from mom and dad who don't have the guts to tell them to move out and get a job!

Again, this is different from illegal immigrants that are abused by employers that pay below what is fair simply because they are undocumented. That is why the border security and the immigration mess must be fixed. Lives are at stake.
Referring to the Latino vote, which turned out in larger numbers last year for Bush than in his 2000 campaign, Holt added: "There are great opportunities for Republicans, and also dangers if we don't handle this properly."
The GOP is missing this one. They turned out in large numbers to vote because of the values issue. Moral values! That is moral integrity that translates into a strong government and a strong economy and strong opportunities for a more secure future.

Most legal, voting Latinos, I would bet, are committed to the rule of law, and to border security. They don't want to encourage more illegal immigration. They do want the process to be fair, open, and quick. Mr. President, if you want to unify Latinos, simplify the process for immigrants to enter into this country legally. Specially in the case of those that already have legal relatives in the country. Provide incentives for illegals to return home, and then give them a way to enter the US to find work in a secure, accountable, and cost-effective way.


Popular posts from this blog

Communism: Good Money for the "El Viejo"

I guess Fidel Castro is doing ok. Forbes lists Castro as one of the richest in the world, right up there with the Queen of England. I bet he didn't like the attention. It was hard to figure it out, but it seems they managed to throw some numbers together.
In the past, we have relied on a percentage of Cuba's gross domestic product to estimate Fidel Castro's fortune. This year we have used more traditional valuation methods, comparing state-owned assets Castro is assumed to control with comparable publicly traded companies. A reasonable discount was then applied to compensate for the obvious disclosure issues.

Hispanic Trending: Leave your name at the border

Most people miss the fact that Hispanics do not consist of a single ethnic group. Besides that, the heritage that each one of the many nationalities represented in our immigrant population is diverse in itself. As I read Manuel Muñoz's post on his assimilation experience, I can tell you mine was nothing like his. But I can relate to this paragraph. My niece's name is Katie Belle (Sierra). It's intriguing to watch "American" names begin to dominate among my nieces and nephews and second cousins, as well as with the children of my hometown friends. I am not surprised to meet 5-year-old Brandon or Kaitlyn. Hardly anyone questions the incongruity of matching these names with last names like Trujillo or Zepeda. The English-only way of life partly explains the quiet erasure of cultural difference that assimilation has attempted to accomplish. A name like Kaitlyn Zepeda doesn't completely obscure her ethnicity, but the half-step of her nam…

RealClearPolitics: The Democrats Dither on Trade

The backtracking on free trade in South America has been among the frustrating news for me coming out of the beltway. Considering how the economic downturns in Latin America affect us through the increase in illegal immigration, I would think more Americans would be fighting for this one as loudly as they fought for the failed Immigration legislation. Democratic presidential candidates like to talk about "turning a page" in America's relations with the rest of the world. But what does that mean, in practical terms, on bread-and-butter issues such as trade? Are today's Democrats a party of open markets and economic development, or of market restrictions and job protection?The answer is that leading Democrats seem to want both -- they favor economic development overseas but not at the cost of U.S. jobs. That sounds like a coherent position until you begin to look carefully at the political choices in Latin America, a part of the world where …