Redstate

I appreciate your taking the time to sign on here. I hope you or Mr Thompson doesn't mind if I ask a question in an area I haven't seen mentioned lately: the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI). What impact does this have on documentation requirements?

One of the leftie complaints seems to be that there shouldn't be any paperwork requirements because anything can be forged. (Okay maybe I'm overstating it ... a little.) Wouldn't every person who is forced to return home be unable to return without a passport after some point? Originally that was to be Jan 2008 but apparently it's getting pushed out for people driving. Maybe passports are just as easy to forge as anything else, but shouldn't everyone coming into the US have a passport, even if it's to visit a border town for a day? Does this have any impact? What about family members who are here without passports for example? Would they be forced to return home to get them? If not, why not?

I hope you can appreciate the skepticism of those of us who don't trust the Democrats on this. Today I heard Pete Dominici saying that none of these other things can happen until every single one of the enforcement pieces is in place, including 370 miles of fencing by 12/31/2008 (which is a false statement as far as I can tell). There is thin mantra of "don't worry, this fixes security before the don't-call-it-amnesty kicks in" coming from Rs like him as well as from Ds. Well common sense tells me the Dems are going to gut this before the ink is dry on President Bush's signature, saying for example that a PLAN for the fence is sufficient so we don't REALLY have to wait for it to be funded much less built. And they will come up ways galore to reduce fines, touchback rqmts, etc. Why should we trust them to keep their word on this since they lie about everything else? They've fought against the fence and other security and documentation measures, so why should they suddenly be backing something that supposedly does all that first?

Some comments:

1) "Wages. Economists have produced many data-intensive analyses of the response of native-born workers’ wages to immigration, and the debate is still ongoing."

Among my many friends whose wages have been severely depressed or cut due to illegal immigration, that debate has been settled.

2) "370 miles of fence.."
... is nice, but it is still not 700, and I still do not see any meaningful increase in measures of border enforcement. That means my children will be having this debate, and sooner rather than later.

3) No requirements for basic English proficiency in order to receive government services? Shouldn't we require that just as a common courtesy to natives and those that bothered to learn?

4) "Family members in hardship cases. This is true.."

To put it mildly, I think there is a chance the state and local social services machines, particularly in blue states / cities, might take advantage of that loophole. Or more accurately, drive a semi full of family members through it.

Bottom line is that I still feel that people who are here illegally are being given amnesty instead of being deported. They broke the law, and because enough of them did it, they get a reward. The easily forged documents required by illegals to begin the process will cause a rush to the border, if it hasn't already.

I have supported President Bush and Republicans through thick and thin, and it has cost me personally in several different ways. I am tired of the preening "mavericks" and a President who has lost touch with the last of the base that Ronald Reagan so skillfully built. I am so, so sorry to say this, but tomorrow I will go register as an independent. My conservative principles are too important to me.

I hope they will still let me post here.

Does the immigration blueprint President Bush is following have its roots in a 2005 agreement between the US, Mexico, and Canada named the "Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America" or (SPP) ? If so, read on....

To get a better understanding of what is being discussed and proposed behind the scenes regarding the SPP and immigration policy, one should read the report published by the Council on Foreign Relations..."Building a North American Community".

http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/NorthAmerica_TF_fina...

The following paragraphs are part of that report and suggest that perhaps there are significant discussions going on with agreements such as the SPP - the stated goal which would result with an open borders policy in North America. The following paragraphs are from the Council on Foreign Relations report....

" At their meeting in Waco, Texas, at the end of March 2005, U.S. President George W. Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox, and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin committed their governments to a path of cooperation and joint action. We welcome this important development and offer this report to add urgency and specific recommendations to strengthen their efforts.

In March 2005, the leaders of Canada, Mexico, and the United States adopted a Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP), establishing ministerial-level working groups to address key security and economic issues facing North America and setting a short deadline for reporting progress back to their governments. President Bush described the significance of the SPP as putting forward a common commitment "to markets and democracy, freedom and trade, and mutual prosperity and security."....

To that end, the Task Force proposes the creation by 2010 of a North American community to enhance security, prosperity, and opportunity. We propose a community based on the principle affirmed in the March 2005 Joint Statement of the three leaders that "our security and prosperity are mutually dependent and complementary." Its boundaries will be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter within which the movement of people, products, and capital will be legal, orderly and safe. Its goal will be to guarantee a free, secure, just, and prosperous North America.

THE THREE GOVERNMENTS should commit themselves to the long-term goal of DRAMATICALLY DIMINISHING the need for the current intensity of the governments’ PHYSICAL CONTROL of cross-BORDER TRAFFIC, travel, and trade within North America. A long-term goal for a North American border action plan should be joint screening of travelers from third countries at their first point of entry into North America and the ELIMINATION of MOST CONTROLS over the temporary movement of these travelers WITHIN NORTH AMERICA.

in the immigration area, just why should we believe you that new laws will be enforced?

Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."

Family members in hardship cases. This is true, but an exceedingly narrow category, likely to protect families that have a member with a disability. Such individuals can only migrate if otherwise there would be “extreme hardship” that cannot be relieved by temporary visits. Moreover, the petitioner must be ineligible to immigrate through any other means.

Temporary Workers And Families. Temporary workers can only bring their families if they meet certain income requirements and show they will cover their family with health care. All Y visas will have to pay a state impact fee toward public services used as well.

...chain migration will explode, rather than be ended, if either of those provisions remain in the bill. I imagine the ICE will define "disability" and "extreme hardship" quite differently from the other 99.99 percent of the reality-based universe, and unless birthright citizenship is ended, exactly what will happen when those "temporary workers" have children on American soil?

Thanks for your contributions, but I remain unpersuaded. Perhaps if the Administration had a better enforcement record, things would have been different. As it it, the GOP has been ripped asunder already, and I couldn't envision a bill the president wouldn't sign.

A Z visa holder wishing to remain in the country under their Z visa indefinitely would still have to renew their visa every four years.

Or what? I’ve asked this before and have nor received a reply. Since deportation has been taken off the table, what consequences will follow?

And what about people who decline to go through this process at all, who ignore the whole thing? What will be done about them?

Miles of Fence. This does not mean that more fence will not be built.

Given that only two miles have been built so far of the fence Congress ordered built last year, it may not mean it, but it’s a pretty fair assumption to make.

The current proposal aims to end the green card backlog in eight years. However, this does not mean that 3.5 to 4 million people over the current number will be admitted into the country.

200,000 green cards per year for eight years is 1.6 million people.

You are vague about the “240,000 green cards .. shifted from other priorities”. Is that a one time deal or per year? If it is per year, that is another 2 million people, for a total of 3.6 million.

before the Department of Labor will allow a TWP worker to fill a U.S. job, the opening will have to be posted and offered at a competitive wage to U.S. workers.

And who will determine what a “competitive wage” is? The employers? The government?

Under the current market the competitive wage is set by supply and demand. If an employer seeks a worker at what he thinks is a competitive wage, and cannot find anyone, it does not mean nobody exists, it simply means that the wage he offered was not sufficient and he has to offer more. Under this new setup, I gather he would not need to do that, he could simply find someone overseas willing to work for the lesser amount. This whole scheme sounds as though government and employers will be working together to fix labor costs. If I’m wrong feel free to correct me, but I can hear Hayek spinning in his grave at this.

The proposed Employment Eligibility Verification System (EEVS) would require all employers check basic data with DHS and the Social Security Administration to confirm all employees are in fact lawfully in the U.S. and eligible to work.

That is wonderful, but why cannot this be done right now, without attaching it to the rest of this bill? I won’t bother to ask why it was not done twelve years ago when it was recommended in 1995 by the bipartisan Congressional Immigration Commission.

To the Redstate lions den can't be easy or very pleasant for you.

The problem for myself is that I have been down this road before. So while its fine to say that there are triggers, mandates and events that won't happen its been said before. So when the current administration says enforcement will be a priority, I have to ask "what about the enforcement of the existing laws for past six years ?"

Recently there were immigration raids on meat packing plants. This was an event of such significance it made the evening news and most of the major newspapers. The raid was small potatoes, the fact that it was major news is of great significance. My first job was working in the garment industry in Manhattan. (I betray my age in that there still was a garment industry in Manhattan) There were two things everybody in the factory knew how to react to.

1. Was when word was passed that a fire inspector was in the factory, get the cigarettes out.
2. Be quick about passing the word immigration was on site.

The illegals were not doing work Americans would not. These days there are chinese illegals being used in sweatshops under horrific conditions.

This is only because enforcement has been non existent.

Just what changes in Washington that will actually dispel some of Mr. Bluey's facts.

Once again its quite kind of you to venture into the lions den and I appreciate your contribution.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Why was this bill brought to the floor in such an unusual manner, bypassing the normal committe hearings? If the bill is so wonderful, surely it can withstand scrutiny for a few weeks?

" 'before the Department of Labor will allow a TWP worker to fill a U.S. job, the opening will have to be posted and offered at a competitive wage to U.S. workers.

And who will determine what a “competitive wage” is? The employers? The government?'"

MAN - I missed that. That alone is enough for me to oppose the bill.

A few questions:
1. Cost. I've seen estimates in the hundreds of trillions of dollars for the current bill (including costs to social programs, education etc). How is it going to be paid for and by whom? If the costs increases, will the fines increase?

2. Back taxes - I don't see where folks will have to pay income taxes for years they were here illegally. Is this amnesty intended, if so why do we give illegal immigrants a break for something an American citizen would go to jail for?

3. Has Homeland Security and NORTHCOM signed off on a 370mile fence being sufficient to keep terrorists from crossing our southern border? If not, why aren't we building a complete fence?

thanks.
====
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." -- James Madison

Dear Mr White House,

I am still not buying you ocean front property in Arizona!

You still can't tell us why the border won't be secured FIRST before this amnesty goes into effect.

"Wubbies World" - MSgt, U.S. Air Force (Retired): "Call to Me and I will answer you, and I will tell you great and mighty things, which you do not know." -Jer 33:3-

I keep hearing it said that this is not an amnesty bill. But I have looked through it and I don't see any penalities to be levied against the employers who have been breaking the law. Are there any?

I assume you are telling us that existing immigration law can not be enforced, what about existing law make it impossible to enforce? Secondly, what attempts are you making to enforce existing law that is taken your attention away from building the fence? Seems to me, if the administration was serious about the issue it would be doing a better job on the fence and with enforcement. Why am I wrong?

From Sec 403 of the bill.

‘(iii) PREVAILING COMPETITIVE WAGE LEVEL- For purposes of
subclause (i)(II), the prevailing competitive wage level shall be
determined as follows:

(I) If the job opportunity is covered by a collective
bargaining agreement between a union and the
employer, the prevailing competitive wage shall be the
wage rate set forth in the collective bargaining
agreement.

(II) If the job opportunity is not covered by such an
agreement and it is on a project that is covered by a
wage determination under a provision of subchapter IV
of chapter 31 of title 40, United States Code, or the
Service Contract Act of 1965 (41 U.S.C. 351 et seq.),
the prevailing competitive wage level shall be the
appropriate statutory wage.

(III)(aa) If the job opportunity is not covered by such
an agreement and it is not on a project covered by a
wage determination under a provision of subchapter IV
of chapter 31 of title 40, United States Code, or the
Service Contract Act of 1965 (41 U.S.C. 351 et seq.),

the prevailing competitive wage 1 level shall be based on
published wage data for the occupation from the Bureau
of Labor Statistics, including the Occupational
Employment Statistics survey, Current Employment
Statistics data, National Compensation Survey, and
Occupational Employment Projections program. If the
Bureau of Labor Statistics does not have wage data
applicable to such occupation, the employer may base
the prevailing competitive wage level on data from
another wage survey approved by the state workforce
agency under regulations promulgated by the Secretary
of Labor.

(bb) Such regulations shall require, among other
things, that such surveys are statistically valid and
recently conducted.

1) This looks like an unprecedented involvement of the government in setting wages in the United States.

2) This seems to have been purposefully designed to cap wages at their current level, or even to drive them down.

The White House lost this debate with conservatives when the talking points included calling us bigots and included the phrase "they will accept nothing less then the death penalty", that ma'm is from your Homeland Security front man Chertoff. Did you all think we would shut up as Lindsay said along with the bigot comment. I can guarantee you and the WH and Chertoff and Graham and each and every one of those Senators who voted for cloture, we will not shut up and the Memorial Day holiday will be no such thing as we will continue to call, fax and write on a daily basis to our Senators and Congresspeople. This Mr. Chertoff and Mr Graham is the United States of America and you work for us and we will not be silenced.

Oh, and by the way, comments like this from the RNC Chairman is enough to cause me to leave the party!
\
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Republican National Committee Chairman Sen. Mel Martinez rejected the claim that the new immigration bill will anger conservatives and destroy the GOP's chances to win in the 2008 election.

Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."

Thank you for responding to the Redstate community.

I also have a couple of questions.

First, what is the White House's position/statement to the LEGAL immigrant community, those of us who followed the law, followed the rules, waited years in most cases for a chance to immigrate to the United States and to become an American? For those who are still waiting for green cards, or waiting to take steps towards citizenship, is there anything in this bill to address their issues?

Dramatically Increasing Chain Migration In The Next 8 Years. The current proposal aims to end the green card backlog in eight years. However, this does not mean that 3.5 to 4 million people over the current number will be admitted into the country. The backlog will be cleared in two ways:

240,000 green cards are being shifted from other priorities within the existing green card pool. This is important – it doesn’t represent an increase in the number of green cards given, it is simply a reallocation of green cards that are authorized for issuance within the current system.

Separately, the number of green cards will be temporarily increased by 200,000 for each of the eight years after the enactment of the bill. This is an increase, but it does not mean 200,000 applicants plus their spouses and children. It is 200,000 new people total.

This passage appears to speak to my concerns for the legal immigrant community, and yet it is not clear that this is intended to benefit those who followed the rules. Could you be more clear on this?

Would legal immigrants have priority for the 200,000 additional green cards? Is that written into the legislation, or up to the discretion of the DHS?

Second, with respect to the scheme laid out vis-a-vis enforcement, oversight, and management... please explain to those of us who believe in limited, smaller government how this is a step forward. Lost in the midst of all the argument over the specifics of implementation is the idea that government doesn't solve problems, but subsidizes them. Confronted with what appears to be a simply massive expansion of the federal bureaucracy, how are we conservatives supposed to make sense of it?

Was it absolutely necessary to undertake such a massive "reform" instead of trying one step at a time? For example, build the border fence first. Implement the EEVS, see how it works? Then implement 200,000 additional green cards. Then perhaps consider the Z and Y visas, etc.?

I'd like to understand why we're being asked to sign on to such an enormous enterprise, when our faith in government is not enormous to begin with. Since the White House is still nominally Republican, and nominally conservative, can you explain this departure from the core principles of conservatism since Goldwater and Reagan?

Thank you,

-TS

"What is a moderate interpretation of the text? Halfway between what it really means and what you'd like it to mean?" - Justice Antonin Scalia

First, immigrants tend to have different characteristics from natives, making them complements rather than substitutes for native workers. Even natives who are relatively close substitutes for immigrants appear to have suffered little wage impact from immigration. Second, the capital stock tends to grow in response to labor force growth, and this dampens the effect on wages.

Kerrie --

We aren't "natives." We're Americans.

Romney or Fred.

Currently writing non-political stories over at first-cut-stories.blogspot.com

add enough judges and jails in the southern states to handle the work load and then we come back and talk about letting illegals gain citizenship.

Or better yet.

How about:

1) We fence the whole border
2) We establish enough courts and jails to crack down in TX, AZ, NM, and CA.
3) We add 18,000 border agents
4) We increase legal immigration, but only for those who have never been caught illegally in the US.
5) If we catch you in the US illegally, you can NEVER gain citizenship in any regards.

Romney or Fred.

Currently writing non-political stories over at first-cut-stories.blogspot.com

Not one bit. Not one little bit. He ought to be ashamed.

La Raza writing the Legislation? With Teddy Kennedy? Seriously how the President can expect anyone to trust him on this is beyond me. I certainly don't.

What has the President done in 6 years in office but drag his feet at every turn to refuse enforcement? What fence has been built (answer: none) and how many positions have gone unfilled at the Border Patrol (answer: thousands). The President's record on enforcement as a matter of fact is worse than Bill Clinton's. Who was miserable on that matter in his own right.

I don't see how anyone can trust the President on enforcement given his IMHO foot-dragging on enforcement at every turn. I certainly don't.

I don't see how anyone can trust the President when he wants illegals to be exempt from back taxes? Can I also be exempt from back taxes? I could sure use it. I don't trust the President on bit.

I don't see how anyone can trust the President when he's OK with gang members becoming citizens if they sign a piece of paper saying they quit the gang. And the Dept. of Homeland Security (aka "you're doing a heckuva Job Brownie") has ONE WORKING Day to investigate any applications for the Z-Visa aka Amnesty and path to citizenship.

I don't trust the President AT ALL. At every turn he has betrayed his fundamental duty to secure the borders, throwing open citizenship to the entire world with this bill.

As far as I'm concerned if Dennis Kucinich wants to impeach the President, I'm OK with that. We might as well have President Pelosi given the base and outright betrayal of as Newt says "every conservative principle."

I voted for a Republican, not a RINO-Democrat. I could have had Teddy and La Raza writing an "open borders and citizenship for the World" under President Kerry.

The President DOES NOT have my support in anything.

Impeachment? On what grounds? We are still fighting a war. Most of us are POed about this but impeachment? I could tell in 2004 that he was soft on immigration but the war trumped it.

I'm sorry, but that's the bottom line. I'm by no means a hard-liner on immigration in comparison with some of the people here, but a song and dance about how "this does not mean that more fence will not be built" does not cut it.

The United States possesses a great advantage in its desirability: people throughout the world hope, as they have hoped for hundreds of years, now, to make a better life upon our shores. We have it within our power to pick and choose from them, to bring to our national bosom not only those whom our country can help, but those who can help our country. This plan does not do that. Among those whom it rewards, their friends and families, it will breed contempt for the impotence of a government that dares exercise no power over them; and among those who have obeyed its laws, it will breed resentment for having been so foolish as to do so.

If the President wants to demonstrate the country's commitment to immigration, let him arrange for the borders to be secured in reality, not merely in name, and for legal immigration to be increased and accelerated. Once our government has demonstrated that it can effectively control entry into our country, we can discuss forgiveness for those who have already entered unlawfully. To do so without securing the borders is dipping water from a sieve, and no amount of soothing is going to convince the populace at large that it's not a sieve, but the newest sort of bucket.

I am just saying calm down and lets see if we can change some votes. I have both Hatch and Bennett voting yea today. Conservatives both.

Here is a whooper of pure misdirection from the White House:

"One recent study did conclude immigration slightly lowered the wages of those without high school degrees (about 10 percent of the native-born labor force). However, the study also found, immigrants slightly raised the wages of most native-born workers."

Notice how the White House redefines the issue as "immigration"? Including high-skill, high-knowledge immigration? What this bill will primarily impact is Mexican immigration - a large majority of which even lack a basic high-school education. The strain both on blue-collar wages, as well as all entitlement systems (education, health-care, welfare) will be enormous. But they can't mention that, because that would be, well, honest. And we can't have honesty in the immigration debate.

Where are the provisions that hold the Mexican government to the same standards that they are trying to foist off on us? Why should a U.S. citizen still require a passport to visit Cancun, if the border is such a nonsensical and outdated device?

Just asking.