Bush and Immigration Deal

[Nocalb]

Bush Begins Push for Immigration Deal With Congress
By Jim VandeHei and Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, April 25, 2006; Page A04

IRVINE, Calif., April 24 -- Under pressure from Republicans to play a bigger role in the immigration debate, President Bush will begin meeting key lawmakers Tuesday to help forge a bipartisan agreement by Memorial Day to offer some undocumented workers a path to citizenship.

But White House aides emphasized that Bush has no intention for now of staking clear legislative positions on the immigration bill. He does not want to embrace a proposal, only to see it lose once House and Senate negotiators try to reach a final agreement, whose prospects are still seen as remote on Capitol Hill. For a president eager to show he still wields power in Washington, the immigration issue is looming ever larger. Beyond a few smaller energy and science proposals, legislation to tighten the nation's borders, address the 12 million illegal immigrants already here and offer new avenues for legal employment for immigrants may be the only major domestic initiative still attainable for Bush this year.

Speaking here to the Orange County Business Council, in a region where the competing arguments about immigration are in constant tension, Bush rebuked those who believe the answer is sending illegal immigrants back home.
"Massive deportation of the people here is unrealistic. It's just not going to work," [img]graemlins/flamingmad.gif[/img] Bush said, while anti-immigration demonstrators chanted outside the hotel. "You can hear people out there hollering it's going to work. It's not going to work." [img]graemlins/scream.gif[/img]

As Bush's comments suggested, the issue has left his party deeply divided between conservatives who favor a bill that only clamps down on illegal immigration, and others who believe any immigration legislation must maintain a supply of low-cost labor for an economy dependent on it. A compromise forged in the Senate this month is locked in a procedural stalemate, even though it appears a clear bipartisan majority supports it.

"The president . . . has to get involved in immigration right now," said Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), an architect of the compromise.

But beyond general calls for a comprehensive approach to the immigration issue, Bush has refused to say exactly what he wants in a bill. In his speech to the business council, he again stopped short of endorsing a particular bill. Instead, he spoke favorably of components of the middle-of-the-road approach that Specter and the bipartisan group of senators are pursuing.
The president called the Senate group's idea of allowing illegal immigrants an easier path to citizenship the longer they have been here an "interesting approach" that Congress must debate. Work visas should be temporary, he said, but "the definition of temporary will be decided in halls of Congress."

To Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), a co-author of the compromise, Bush's statements amounted to an endorsement of the bill at a critical time. Other Democrats -- and many Republicans -- were not so sure.

"I had hoped that the president would finally weigh in and exert some leadership, but that did not happen again today," said House Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.).
A senior aide said Bush -- after private discussions with Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) and House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) -- is trying to push Republicans for a compromise before Memorial Day that does not alienate either his party's conservative base or the fast-growing Latino community.

Tuesday's meeting will be heavy on senators favoring the Senate compromise, including Frist, Specter and John McCain (R-Ariz.), Mel Martinez (R-Fla.), Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), Kennedy, Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) and Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.).

Of those invited, only Senate Majority Whip Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has not endorsed the plan. In contrast, its most vociferous opponents, including Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), will not be there.

But Bush is resisting pressure from members to take the lead hands-on role in cementing a congressional compromise, aides said. The White House first wants to see if the Senate can strike a bipartisan agreement on its own. Bush does not want to be seen as interjecting himself prematurely while the legislative debate remains fluid.

Bush's strategy, said aides, is to press for a Senate deal and step up his personal involvement to get the House to agree to its parameters. Many House leaders, including Hastert, have told Bush they are open to softening the bill they passed in December and allowing illegal immigrants a road to citizenship, as long as it includes stiff financial penalties and back taxes for illegal immigrants who seek lawful work papers, and strong border enforcement. White House advisers see the debate playing out like previous ones over Medicare and tax cuts, in which Bush allows Congress a lot of leeway and then comes in at the end to help secure a deal -- and claim credit.

White House officials consider the next few months critical to Bush's domestic agenda. With the budget season in full swing, Congress will also consider new spending for math and science training and other components of the president's "competitiveness initiative," a centerpiece of Bush's 2006 wish list.

The House and Senate will also debate Bush-backed plans to provide new incentives for production and use of domestic fuel sources such as ethanol and hydrogen. The energy debate is moving to the top of the agenda with gasoline prices expected to hold at $3 or more per gallon throughout the summer.

White House aides are scrambling to find new proposals to hold down gas prices and deflect criticism that Bush is doing little to ease consumer pain at the pump. Bush plans to put increasing pressure on companies to prove they are not colluding to drive up prices, though Republican aides concede the move is mostly cosmetic.

All of this must be done with an eye toward holding down overall government spending. Conservative activists have told top officials the chief concern of many Republican voters is not the war or even the rash of scandals but the growth of government under Bush.

A key part of the Bush political recovery plan, which aides hope will result in what they jokingly call a "Bolten bounce," is persuading the Republican Congress to cut spending before the August congressional recess. New White House Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten has told aides he hopes the addition of former congressman Rob Portman as head of the budget office and other forthcoming changes will help facilitate a willingness to make tough budget cuts.

One key congressional aide will not be leaving, according to White House sources: Candida Perotti Wolff, the head of the legislative affairs office. At a morning meet with top aides, Bolten said that he has full confidence in Wolff and that she will be staying, the sources said. Bolten also reaffirmed his support for White House counsel Harriet Miers, the sources said.

Still, the budget-cutting efforts may prove difficult -- Congress has already rejected Bush's call for trimming entitlement spending. Worried about conservatives sitting out the November elections to protest spending, White House and top congressional officials are planning a summer push for legislation on abortion, same-sex marriage and stem cell research to excite social conservatives. After losing control over policy as part of the White House shake-up, Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove is expected to focus intensely on maximizing voter turnout, as he did in the 2004 presidential race.

-------------------------------------------------
[img]graemlins/flamingmad.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/flamingmad.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/flamingmad.gif[/img]

[andophiroxia]

How about this? How about they stop the flow of illegal immigrants first?

[Nocalb]

True. First thing that's needed is tightening of the border. But, what disturbs me is that Bush is taking the side of corporate America on this issue by compromising just in the interest of 'cheap labor.' He's basically flipping the rest of America 'the bird'

[andophiroxia]

No, he's just merely attacking the issue from the completely wrong point. It's kind of like the war on drugs. We are currently attacking the supply aspect of it, which is quite expensive and counterproductive, whereas we should hit the demand side instead. Instead of trying to control the flow of drugs, we should get the information out there of the full effects and consequences of drug use. So instead of the people making a cost-benefit decision, we're just restricting it, which creates even more demand and a criminal element. I'm not saying legalize the stuff, but give people a right to decide.

Here, they think that attacking businesses and obligating them to do THEIR job is ridiculous. Businesses as a whole are not equipped to run the types of background checks and verifications that law enforcement can do. Also, even if they could, they cannot ask the types of questions that would pinpoint an illegal, because it would be DISCRIMINATION. Personally, the best thing that I see is to stop the flow, and then deal with what we got here. To me, it seems like obfuscation, to the greedy want of vote-buying (which is really what the politicians mostly do).

[RandomNY]

Originally posted by Nocalb:
True. First thing that's needed is tightening of the border. But, what disturbs me is that Bush is taking the side of corporate America on this issue by compromising just in the interest of 'cheap labor.' He's basically flipping the rest of America 'the bird'

Honestly we aren't going to round up 11 million people and pull a Nazi Germany. It's not going to happend, and it's not prudent nor is it politically viable especially since we are considered the beacon of freedom throughout the world.

The saying on Lady Liberty tablet is ,"Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to be free."

Everytime it has been tryed, the INS was told by CONGRESS to stop deporting people, in the 50's the meat industry was almost run into bankrupcy, in Nebraska, because the cost to bring the meat to market was so high noone bought anything.

You have "ILLEGAL" aliens who have been here for years working. It's foolish to think we are going to round up millions of people along with their children, take whatever property they have acquired and kick them out.

We can't even deport arabs that have expired visa's that were rounded up after 9/11.

Let's say we do deport these people, the inflation rate of this country will skyrocket, it won't be an extra 20 or 30 cents added to a tomatoe but 2 or 3 dollars added. Guess what? Prices will skyrocket, and our economy will take a very big hit which will cause people to lose thier jobs.

You want to end illegal workers? Get rid of welfare, get rid of minimum wage laws and other regulations. If someone can make more from the gov't than earn from the jobs available, they are going to stay at home and collect the government check.

It's the path of least resistance and it breeds dependence.

We currently have a 4.7% unemployment rate(anything under 5% is considered full employment), millionaries are being created at a higher rate than any other time in our history.

These folks for the most part are looking for a better life, if the goverment was serious than move ELLIS Island to the Southern border so these people can be checked out.

Remember the savages that destroyed the TWIN TOWERS were here in the country legally on visa's. We allow 65,000 work visa's to go out to INDIA and other countries every year, we should allow anyone with a skill to come here if they choose to.

We send back Cuban's (who built a boat out of 1957 Chevy truck, which is insane, they have skills and we send them back to CASTRO so he can kill them.)

And to be honest these Mexicans aren't coming here to become the CEO of IBM(although if one of them does evetully become that success, great for him that is what this country is all about).

[RandomNY]

Here in NY, there was a fence company that was sued, by one of the unions, because a contractor hired "Illegal day-labors", to do some work.

He paid these guys $16 and hour, the union labor would have cost him $25 an hour.

(Oh the Union won in court and this company was forced to pay a fine for the difference in labor costs.)

Sorry for the same quality work, I'm going to pay the lower cost. It's hightime the unions wake up and stop with the SOCIALIST bs. Look at what they have done to GM with their demands.

[Nocalb]

Originally posted by RandomNY:
Honestly we aren't going to round up 11 million people and pull a Nazi Germany. It's not going to happend, and it's not prudent nor is it politically viable especially since we are considered the beacon of freedom throughout the world.

The saying on Lady Liberty tablet is ,"Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to be free."

Everytime it has been tryed, the INS was told by CONGRESS to stop deporting people, in the 50's the meat industry was almost run into bankrupcy, in Nebraska, because the cost to bring the meat to market was so high noone bought anything.

You have "ILLEGAL" aliens who have been here for years working. It's foolish to think we are going to round up millions of people along with their children, take whatever property they have acquired and kick them out.

We can't even deport arabs that have expired visa's that were rounded up after 9/11.

Let's say we do deport these people, the inflation rate of this country will skyrocket, it won't be an extra 20 or 30 cents added to a tomatoe but 2 or 3 dollars added. Guess what? Prices will skyrocket, and our economy will take a very big hit which will cause people to lose thier jobs.

You want to end illegal workers? Get rid of welfare, get rid of minimum wage laws and other regulations. If someone can make more from the gov't than earn from the jobs available, they are going to stay at home and collect the government check.

RandomNY, you make some very good points, but,
the statue of liberty was a gift from France. I would think it to be quite absurd that we would take that and hold it over the law.

While it is true that these illegals are better for America than the legal terrorists. Those terrorists are a smaller minority and represents the problem with the border system and only confirms why shutting them up or tightening them is the best bet.

You mentioned illegals who've been here for years. Do you realize that most of them got here because of violation of a 'temporary' visa or border hopping altogether which is breaking the law? Granted, most have been here for years and have contributed invaluably to business across the land, they should still be required to be penalized for their failure. I think either deportation with monetary payment or some sort of fine without deportation.

Your last point is correct...This minimum wage crap needs to be abolished. Child labor laws also need to be abolished. If a child wants to work, let them. In many foreign countries, child labor is what stands between eating and starving.

Also, welfare is the most sickening and anti-American practice going right now. I know and hear floods of stories about how people sit there and abuse welfare. They sit on their lazy a**** day in and day out and leech off of the government! It's ridiculous. You're a New Yorker like I am (tips my hat to you), you've heard Bloomberg's proposal to compensate for the repairs needed in public housing...He wants to place the burden on the struggling poor working class with higher rents with not a single dollar being taken from lazy welfare recipients!! [img]graemlins/flamingmad.gif[/img] How right is that? Working families have much more needed for every break they can get. Welfare recipients are perpetually unemployed. Society has no need for them. They don't produce, contribute zilch to the economy, and only take up space, contribute to crime as well, and stay in a culture of poverty.

So yes, you're right get rid of welfare, minimum wage, and child labor laws. Problem solved. [img]graemlins/salute.gif[/img]

[Nocalb]

Originally posted by RandomNY:
Here in NY, there was a fence company that was sued, by one of the unions, because a contractor hired "Illegal day-labors", to do some work.

He paid these guys $16 and hour, the union labor would have cost him $25 an hour.

(Oh the Union won in court and this company was forced to pay a fine for the difference in labor costs.)

Sorry for the same quality work, I'm going to pay the lower cost. It's hightime the unions wake up and stop with the SOCIALIST bs. Look at what they have done to GM with their demands.

Yes, immigrants do work very hard and I dare say harder than some Americans. I agree, America does need to stop with it's socialist dung!. [img]graemlins/flamingmad.gif[/img]

My heart goes out to these people, but America at the same time has to maintain integrity and dignity for it's laws by setting examples. Otherwise we will be taken for a joke as far as immigration goes.

Unions are also very anti-capitalistic and a vestige of Marxism. America has become very soft in their Union dealings. Andrew Jackson dealt with unions as any sensible should deal with terrorists..he sent the military..problem solved..Rest assured the picket line was no more after that. [img]graemlins/Laughing.gif[/img] I'm glad that selfish thug of a grinch Roger Touissant is sitting in jail right now for ruining the christmas season of '05. Nobody talks about how a firefighter was critically injured because he had to bike it to work (hit by a bus) because he didn't have access to public transportation. They should lock Toussaint in jail and simply 'lose the key'

The media and hollywood keeps such incidents out of the public spot light to promote their own personal agenda! [img]graemlins/flamingmad.gif[/img]

[Buckley]

You mentioned illegals who've been here for years. Do you realize that most of them got here because of violation of a 'temporary' visa or border hopping altogether which is breaking the law? Granted, most have been here for years and have contributed invaluably to business across the land, they should still be required to be penalized for their failure. I think either deportation with monetary payment or some sort of fine without deportation.

I broke at least three laws on the way to work today. I jaywalked, drove too fast, and littered by throwing the end of my cigar on the sidewalk. Give me a minute and I could probably think of a few more laws I broke. I listened to a CD I copied...

[andophiroxia]

Granted, there are a LOT of stupid laws. However, there is a point to some laws. The ones that most make sense are the ones that are decided by society (society of individuals.)
That being said is that I favor stricter immigration. However, I do not care to penalize businesses where the law enforcement side has fallen short. That is a form of scapegoating. Whereas there are illegal immigrants genuinely escaping an oppressive system (Cuba, for instance), I completely understand this. Mexico falls invariably into this. HOWEVER, a lot of these immigrants do not want to be a part of our society, they do not pay taxes, and have no consequence whenever they break reasonable laws. They do not want to even advance. They just come here to escape and live the same way they do in Mexico.

In short, I was hit by an illegal whilst parked. He sped away and luckily there were two witnesses that caught the driver's license. His boss was held accountable because it was his vehicle, but the man who actually hit me got no punishment.

Also, we have to think of terrorism. Yes, mostly it has been young, Middle Eastern men that were identified as terrorists. However, they can sneak in from anywhere, and we must be vigilant. Not only that, even though they do fit the young, Middle Eastern, men profile, there are some exceptions to the rule like Jose Padilla. Granted, Padilla is an American citizen, but it just opens us up for the worse. Another point is that a lot of illegals that come here are escaping punishment from their own countries, and no it isn't CD copying or anything like that. It can range from murder, larceny, drug-trafficking, etc. Why would I need more of those people like that in this country if we have enough/too many here?

This also hits home for me as well. My parents came here from Korea where is was still war-torn and very poor. They came here to get a better life and to BE Americans. They weren't Koreans living in America. I have another friend whose mother fled the Vietnam war in a boat to Malaysia, because politics of that day did not allow to sponsor a person directly from Vietnam. She was pregnant with my friend and she brought her little sister. The boat was attacked by pirates, killing all the men and enslaving the women. Only she and her sister was spared. As soon as she was able to, she became an American citizen. Personally, I see no reason for them to stay illegal once they get over here if our system is so accomodating. The fact that they do just shows that they want all of the perks, but none of the responsiblities.