http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/04/20060424-2.html
Mr. President, is the back of the line in Mexico, or is it in the United States? Because if you allow illegal immigrants to stay in this country while they pursue your path to citizenship, it sure as hell isn’t in Mexico. What message does that send to those waiting patiently for visas to enter the country legally? What line are they at the back of? Why do you think it is fair to have two lines, Mr. President?
Well, I somehow doubt that the Chief Exec is going to get around to posting in this thread personally, and I also doubt that I could successfully explain his position(s) on the topic. So I’ll just jump in on my own account, if that’s okay.
Not sure I understand your objection: the proposal seems to be concerned simply with the “line” of applicants for Legal Permanent Resident status. That is, the LPR applications of illegal immigrants will be put in the queue behind all currently pending applications of those who have not immigrated illegally. Presumably, however, they then move up through the queue like everybody else.
Are you ticked off that the illegal immigrants get to stay in the US while waiting for LPR status? I can understand how that seems unfair, but I can’t think of an alternative except deportation, and I think the political reality is that mass deportation of illegal immigrants is not feasible.
Mr. President, you have said in essence that we can’t send all the illegal immigrants back because there are too many of them. Is our government’s policy that lawbreaking is tolerated if there are too many lawbreakers? For instance, if everyone cheats on their tax returns, is the government and IRS going to forgive them without any penalty?
Mr. President, you have said that this country needs a “guest worker program.” Could you compare and contrast your proposed guest worker program with the worker visa statutes we have currently on the books, and explain why a guest worker program is superior to the worker visa program?
It’s virtual line-- it doesn’t have a physical location.
I see the point you’re trying to make, but I think Bush (and those who agree with him, like Senator Kennedy) recognize that there is no way we can send 11M people back to where they came from. So, we either deal with the fact that they are here, or pretend that they aren’t here and force them into an underground economy. The latter might not be the idea solution, but it’s the best practical option that we have.
What strange apparition has come unto you, and, using its ghostly hand, forced your mind to the belief that our president is remotely concerned with fairness?
Hi, Fear Itself, and good to meet you. One of the neatest things about immigration law is that neither it, nor any of its previous incarnations, nor any of its proposed reforms, make any sense at all if you actually read them beginning to end. The objection you raise is a fair one, and I would say: whether the U.S. absorbs its illegally-emigrated population or not has little to do with a policy of fairness toward Mexican nationals who have the means and background to secure visas, and, later, citizenship, under the present system. There are two reasons for this. The first is that petroleum engineers make lousy dollar-per-hour lettuce-pickers, which is the group our government is desperately trying to keep at the expense of everybody else. The second is that the U.S. has never, never ever, based its foreign policy on its two closest neighbors, which has to be some kind of a first.
On the other hand, GWB was granted automatic citizenship. If only he’d had to pass a simple test.
Make that: “The former might not be the ideal solution, but it’s the best practical option that we have.” Sorry abotu that.
There’s certainly a sticky problem with effectively creating a “illegal but tolerated while the paperwork clears” class, distinct from the current “illegal and subject to immediate deportation” class of immigrant. Yes, the act of applying for citizenship would seem to put one in the first class, and presumably immunize one from deportation (short of committing a crime etc.). Does he propose a statute of limitations on illegal immigration, so that continuous residence for a certain number of years both automatically starts the citizenship clock running and creates protection from La Migra?
Bush’s proposal either creates that second class, or means that immigration laws will simply no longer be enforced. Otherwise he’s leaving enforcement as a sporadic, essentially random action, which is largely what it is now. Or else the plan just needs more thought.
Actually, I agree with this statement. I’m afraid I also agree that deporting all illegal immigrants in this country is impractical. On the other hand, there are plenty of legal, resident aliens in the US who have to wait at least 7 years before they can start the process of becoming US citizens. That process has taken members of my family anywhere from a few months to over a year. It seems a bit unfair to grant automatic full citizenship to people who came to this country illegally, while those who came here legally still have to wait.
As for the status of people who’ve started the naturalization process, as it happens, I applied to several government agencies for work while I was being naturalized (I was fresh out of college). In their eyes, I was still a resident alien, thus not eligible for a job for them. Also, just because one starts the process of naturalization, that doesn’t mean he or she will necessarily finish it. When I was naturalized, at my naturalization ceremony, they announce they had X number of petitions for citizenship to be accepted “and 3 to be denied.” Not everyone who applies will become one. My brother also started the naturalization process after he graduated from college. Midway through, he got a job offer which meant he’d have to move out of state. Rather than start over again from square one, which he was told was his only alternative, he abandoned the proceedings and became a citizen several years later.
You know, this is one of the very few policies that Bush has proposed that actually makes sense. We can’t deport all of those who are here illegally, so let’s allow them to come out of the underground economy w/o fear of deportation, but don’t let them jump ahead in line for citizenship. Yes, it is a virtual line-- the order in which their application is received.
Is it so hard for the OP to acknowledge that Bush mght have gotten something right? Or is it so important to disagree with Bush that we must reduce this important debate to a semantic quibble about Bush’s use of the term “line”?
It’s a legitimate question - is Bush proposing to immunize some illegal immigrants from deportation or isn’t he? What IS the proposal?
Not every issue on this board is Bush-bashing, nor is it helpful to look at everything through that single filter, nor is it helpful to raise that strawman - like you just have, again.
I think it’s entirely possible that, at least partially because of this vast number of people that want to be here and will go through any method to do so, we need to tweak the system. I see absolutely nothing wrong with letting more people into the country, regardless if they speak Spanish, Arabic, English, or Esperanto.
Usually Ted Kennedy is a bit off, but he’s right about this. We can’t just kick out 11 million people and build a giant wall. That’s impractical and a giant waste of money. You show me an 11 foot wall, I’ll show you a 12 foot ladder.
If it’s a problem, and I believe that under the current situation, it is, then something must be changed in the current system to change it. Exactly what it is remains to be unseen.
Unpopular Opinion Alert
We should open up the southern border for a couple months. It’s entirely possible that the entire country of Mexico won’t just jump into the country ,believe it or not. Stand at the border, have whoever wants to come in fill out the paperwork (or abridged paperwork, or at least let their presence be legally known). If someone wants to come in, let them. Mark my words, though. The political party that grows a pair big enough to propose this bill will stay in power for a VERY long time.
You can’t guard an entire border, especially as large as this one. The problem is that, when talking about national security, you have to staunchly enforce borders or else you lose credibility (as the current administration and other previous tough-on-illegals have been as well).
strange about all those heated debates in USA about immigrants the laste 2-3 years
I remember i debated the issue about non-western immigration in Europa som 5-6 years ago on another forum where all American said that we Europeans had just to let those immigrants pour inn if we wanted our economy grow
USA is unlike Europe since the USA is buildt upon immigration
The “heated debates” exist in large part due to demagoguery, by the party which has made it an issue. Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wisconsin), the chairman of the House committee responsible for the issue, is pushing a bill to make being an illegal immigrant a felony (for what purpose is not obvious), and has gone so far as to call it the US’s foremost *security * issue. That was inspired on Bush’s own get-tough-on-them approach he advocated in both elections, despite his recent moderation, after no doubt some considerable persuasion by President Fox.
Then, too, fear of losing jobs to people who will work for less is naturally far more easily demagoguable in times of recession, when many people are losing their jobs or at least fear it. Somebody needs to be feared and blamed, somebody else, and it’s just easy.
Is that so different from European experience?
John, could you (or anyone else who cares to) help explain this to me?
“No way”? How is there no way? What is the major obstacle?
I recently read some news articles about immigration raids in the U.S. I didn’t read about any problems rounding up those illegals and getting them deported. I don’t think deportation means all of the illegal residents must all be rounded up at the very same time and shipped back to their respective countries on the same plane. But I don’t understand why deportation is summarily dismissed as “impossible” by so many Americans.
Logistically, how would you round up 11M people and transport them to their native lands? Don’t forget that as fast as you deport them, more will come across the border to fill the spots they left.
Certainl it’s physically possible to do so, but only in the sense that it’s physically possible to relocate all US citizens to the moon. It’s certainly physically possible to plug the border fairly effectively, too, as long as you’re willing to use shoot to kill tactics as S.O.P.
Open, democratic societies like the US have a hard time with issues like this. If we were a military dicatorship, it might be much easier-- but then, who tries to illegally immigrate into a military dictatorship?
Except that wasn’t the question. The question concerned where the line was.
If you want an answer to your question, it’s pretty easy to find it (emphasis added):
Now, if you want to argue that this program allows those already here to jump in line for a tempory work permit, that might be true. If you want to argue that many illegal aliens might stay underground anyway and not register, there might be a case to made about that, too.
But there isn’t any implication that anyone already here gets to put his or her green card application ahead of anyone else in his or her homeland.
But what is the purpose of having a green card? To be able to work here, legally right.
What’s the purpose of working here legally? To live here and take advantage of the economic and other opportuities without fear that you’ll be arrested and deported tomorrow.
So, Bush’s proposal would allow people to enjoy the practical end benefit of living here while those who are in line legally have to wait back in their own countries.
That doesn’t seem very fair does it? It rewards illegal behavior, thereby punishing those who choose to abide by our laws.
Then again, maybe I’m not understanding you.
You’re right about that, but I respectfully suggest you might have misinterpreted the OP (or maybe not; as I noted above, it seemed a little confusing).
My impression was that the OP’s question about “where the line is” was intended to imply the unfairness of letting illegal immigrants who apply for LPR status do their waiting in the US, while other people who want to come to the US (and have not broken any laws to do so) have to wait out the application process back in their own countries. Even if the illegal immigrants’ applications have to go to the “back of the line”, the fact that they can remain during the application process in the country where they want to be, and where they have more of the job and advancement opportunities that prompted their desire to emigrate in the first place, could be seen as an unfair and undeserved advantage for them.
[In preview: or yeah, what magellan said.]
You don’t have to be a knee-jerk Bush-basher to feel that this situation might be somewhat unjust to the law-abiding applicants waiting in Mexico or wherever. I happen to agree with you that there really is no practical alternative to the proposed solution, at least none that involves deporting millions of people. However, I think it’s reasonable to demand that political leaders honestly acknowledge the flaws in their proposed policies. (It might not be reasonable to expect that they’ll do it, but it’s reasonable and principled to demand it.)
Life isn’t fair. 
Hell, why is it “fair” that some countries have large quotas than others when we’re handing out green cards?
But if you look at Bush’s full proposal, he is saying that anyone already here has to pay a fine in order to register. That might not make it completely fair, but wouldn’t you agree that it makes it more fair? If you insist on a perfectly “fair” system, you will get no change at all except massively increased deportations. If you think that’s a practical solution, you’re entitled to that opinion.
Kinstu: You’re right. In light of Fear Itself’s long history of evenhanded objectivity regarding George Bush, I withdraw my earlier comment about bashing.
Put them on a train, a plane, a bus, or anything else that would be a viable way to transport them humanely back to their native lands.
That sounds a bit defeatist from the “can-do” people, doesn’t it? If you actually do something (and by “something” I mean some sort of actual effort rather than marking the border with the equivalent of a chalk mark) and combine that with criminalizing those who hire illegal aliens, I’m sure the problem will be drastically reduced. Where there is no (or very little) demand, there will be no supply.
Are you shooting for the hyperbole of the century award here? How is moving 11 million people at most a few thousand miles the same as moving 300 million people 200,000+ miles?
No, I don’t think it needs to go that far, but there’s a lot of wiggle room between the current chalk mark and a shoot-to-kill policy.
This has nothing to do with being a democracy or a military dictatorship. I think it has to do with the fact that America cannot get past its addiction to cheap labor.