The only way I can see this working is if Bush uses it as a “head-fake” for Hispanic votes:
Propose amnesty/temporary worker plan for illegal immigrants.
Hispanic voters cheer move (don’t ask me why, this is Karl Rove’s plan), decide to vote Bush in '04.
Republicans make a big stink. Democrats make a big stink.
Bush gets deer-in-headlights look, sits on sidelines and watches proposal die a bloody death.
Bush campaigns with “See, I tried to do good for illegal immigrants, but some folks in Washington don’t like that.” Ends up looking like a centrist, like an outsider, and gets a few more Hispanic votes.
Again, at least, that’s the only idea I’ve come up with so far to explain it. And it still holds the risk of pissing off the lower-income voters who would feel threatened for jobs as a result.
rjung:
If this proposal dies (which is very possible), won’t it be more for lack of support from Pubs than from Dems in Congress? Seems like “my party wouldn’t let me do it” is not the kind of excuse that is likely to go over well with people who might vote for Bush only because of this issue.
This is also going to affect Senate/House races, as it will force some Republicans to come out against it publically, thus damaging their chances for re-election.
I’m very confused about this. I disagree with the policy, and just don’t see how it’s a polical plus for Bush. I just don’t see it.
This is a SERIOUS issue where I live and one very close to me. One can find “day labourers” on the streets here, usually undocumented, begging work at stoplights around certain areas of town. Mow lawns, put up sheetrock, whatever. They get paid cash and they don’t exist as far as the system is concerned. There are even more working under fradulent ids and social security numbers.
My dad works in the construction industry. He is also a union member. Nowadays union jobs are increasingly more and more scarce. The presence of illegal workers and unethical employers working outside the system and avoiding taxes and assorted laws on both sides has effectively driven down wages so far that most average Americans won’t or can’t survive on such pay. Now he can’t even get around on most job sites because well over three quarters of the workers don’t speak English. How does the average American compete witha worker willing to accept two-thirds the wage? You can’t. A man like my dad once upon a time could support a wife and two kids in relative middle-class comfort on a salary for what most of these immigrants now, even here, barely scrape by on. It drags everyone’s standard of living down. These are NOT jobs that “Americans don’t want” – they’re jobs that immigration and crooked employers have dragged down wages for so far that many Americans are just simply unable to survive off of, so they don’t even bother anymore.
It really doesn’t bode well for Mr. Bush and is obviously pandering to what he must feel are very easily manipulated Hispanic voters. It would hurt everyone in the long run. And when even high-tech, manufacturing jobs and customer service call centres and things like that are being outsourced overseas, pretty soon the only legitimate people left in this country with jobs will be the highest CEOs and the sales lady af Foley’s.
I don’t know the answers to these problems, but Mr. Bush’s proposition is definitely NOT it.
It is even less explicable when you take into account the continuing high unemployment rate in this country. What possible gain for anyone is there in legitimizing the presence of people who drive down wages in this economy and have no legitimate business here?
If you ask me, it is yet another ass-covering move by Bush, who may be starting to realize that his Department of Homeland Security is beginning to show how unwieldy it is at heart. By taking a great deal of enforcement burden off their backs, he hopes to stave off far-right “I told you so” criticism for creating such a large bureaucracy.
If he were to lose the public support of the ultra-conservatives, and if his pinheaded gestures toward the soldiers he has stranded in the desert (“If you come home you can’t retire!”;" If you stay we’ll give you $10,000") result in no satisfying resolution in Iraq by November, his numbers could drop to the point that he winds up smelling like a Poppy…
If this causes him to lose the election, I’ll be the first to say he deserves it.
This was part of Davis’ downfall with the “drivers license for illegal aliens” deal. I say “part”, because I think he would have still lost the recall if he hadn’t signed that bill into law. But I think it sealed his fate. Bush is in a pretty good postion from what the polls indicate. I don’t know if this will flip things, but it will be interesting to see how the polls come out over the next week or so concerning this issue.
PIMullet: politics is about people, not just winning and losing
My concerns with this are numerous, so lets start
watching labor die is a sad thing. This undermines unions like CRAZY and I don’t like that.
This is a huge political move for Bush: court the Hispanic vote (which is will do) and helps lower costs for big biz, which will donate money to Bush watches cycle continue
This is blatantly just using immigrants, who have no priority for a green card and therefore very little hope of getting one.
This lie of the jobs that “Americans are not willing to do” (Bush paraphrased_). These don’t exist, especially not in today’s economy. What this legislation will do is lower the cost of labor for big business, so that they can pay near minimum or minimum wage for jobs that some breadwinners would love to have but can’t afford to settle for that little when they have a spouse and kids to take care of.
John Mace: How this increases big biz’s control over workers.
a) Over currently employed Americans who can be forced to take a cut in their pay with the threat of being replaced by cheap immigrant labor
b) Over immigrant workers, who are forced to STAY employed under this plan, thus required to take even the lowest, most abusive/unhealthy jobs.
I’m stilll trying hard to see who besides Bush (as an election issue) would win with this plan.
Immigrants -
Down side - No guarentee of a green card or of status renewal at the end of 3 years, AND now they are registered in the US, to make tracking them easier. Also, may be tied to the job they have, under threat of deportment if they are not employed.
Up side - the ability to make visits home during the 3 years.
Employers -
Upside - there would be less of a threat of legal repercussions, but that isn’t stopping them now.
Downside - wages would now be subject to taxes, and probably some form of minimum wage and increased benefits. Long run, employer costs would probably go up.
General US public -
Up side - More taxes raised from previously untaxes employment. Better tracking of “guest” workers. Acknowledgement of already existing but unrecorded workers/jobs.
Down Side - Downward pressure on wages, due to increased labour pool.
So yes, I do see some positive points for this, but not nearly enough to outweigh the negatives, for anyone.
There’s all kinds of ways to kill legislation without leaving fingerprints, undectable procedural poisons, committee curare, death by scheduling… The list goes on and on, and the pros know it.
GeeDubya has already scored. He has established the idea in his target that he is sympathetic to thier goals and a powerful ally of thier agenda. As long as he does nothing to overtly contradict that image, he’s got his goodies. You know, I know, and damnsurebetcha Karl Rove knows, that this will not get through Congress before the next election. All gain, no risk.
I agree that there is little chance of this being enacted into law. The risk is that it energizes a Pat Buchanan to run and siphon off some of the conservative/nativist/isolationist votes. If Nader doesn’t run, this could be a big problem. I guess we have to asssume that Rove has done some math on the + Hispanic votes vs the - Buchanan votes, though, and that the result was a positive number, at least in a few swing states.
I’ll be keeping my eyes on the polls in the next few days to see what can be learned.
If they went through the legitimate process of becoming immigrants, they would be in a far better position once they get over here than if they come illegally and basically damn themselves to perpetual poverty.
Plus in many of the areas I have been, and of those I have encountered, a lot of immigrant families might live three generations in a house that for me or you would be just room enough for a couple and their 2-3 kids. I’m talking grandparents, their children, and possible the spouses/girlfriends/grandchildren. I know some of it is due to differences in culture, and they might be able to find a job here, but living on top of each other in run down neighbourhoods can’t be THAT much better than where they came from. Especially when you factor in the things like crime that often plague those areas.
You’re right about the downside, but not so much about the upside. I was listening to a program about this yesterday. Aside from the fact that a lot of workers, once in the system, might not even make enough money to actually have to pay taxes, most of the illegal workers here are using fradulent social security numbers. What they aren’t telling you, is that since those accounts are fradulent, they keep the money in some sort of special account-thing that basically never gets paid out to those that paid into it (since the #s weren’t legitimate). Some of that money that’s being contributed is part of the reason why social security is still afloat – I guess it adds up to a pretty big chunk of dough. So if these workers were legal, a lot of what they pay would have to start going out in the form of SS benefits. Especially since one provision of this I heard discussed involved paying them Social security as an incentive to leave after 3 years.
I believe I heard that on the Sam Donaldson show yesterday morning, but I’m not 100% sure.
This disregards how difficult it is for an unskilled laborer to immigrate legally. Illegal immigrants are illegal out of necessity.
A lot of it is culture. The Mexican(*) side of my family is maybe 4 times as big as the WASP side, and congregate for holidays and such in spaces 4 times as small. I don’t find it uncomfortable.
As for the quality of life, you better belive it’s better then what’s available for many of them in Mexico. We take so much for granted: a tight roof, running water, a sewage system, electricity, a superb education system, etc.
(*) Note that the Mexican side of my family aren’t and never were immigrants (lived in a part of Mexico that was conquered by the US and became part of Texas).
I wonder if this isn’t part of a longer-term plan to try to ease the coming social security crisis? One way to cure an aging population is to bring in a steady stream of younger workers from out of country.
Close your borders with below-replacement birth rates, and you wind up like Japan - a country that runs a risk of a population crash so bad that it threatens their very standard of living. In the U.S., the big risk is having a big, generous retirement system, coupled with an aging population that is living longer. The only real solution is immigration.
Well now Metacom, if the Mexican side of your family are still “Mexicans” after having lived here so long, perhaps they should immigrate back south of the border to Mexico so they might re-live their ancestral heritage and re-experience the wonderful Mexican culture that we Americans so wrongly destroyed when we stole Texas.
(My own ancesters came over from Ireland but today I have no desire to kiss the silly damn Blarney Stone.)
