One Guest Worker Program An Insult To Us...

[Red Clay]

[This message has been edited by Red Clay]

Get a load of this particular idea mentioned in a Wall St. Journal article---

..."Guest-worker legislation offered by Republican Sens. Jon Kyl of Arizona and John Cornyn of Texas is even stricter: Immigrants could receive three two-year visas, but would have to return home for a year between visas. To prevent temporary workers from putting down roots, the bill would allow family members to visit only 30 days a year"...

How nice! Guest workers, mostly former illegals, could have VISITS FROM THEIR FAMILY MEMBERS while here! Meanwhile my wife and I live a legitimate, happy, loving, productive life together as a married couple, both US citizens, and as it stands can NEVER enjoy a visit from ANY of her family, for probably THE REST OF OUR LIVES, considering how unlikely it is that her family could receive tourist visas. This would even pizz me off more if we had kids.

The unfair nature of a proposal like this should be reason enough for all of us here to oppose a guest worker program, what a terrible INSULT!!!!!! SO AMNESTY FOR THE ILLEGAL IS NOT ENOUGH, HE ALSO DESERVES FAMILY VISITS??! And the article implies that a 30 day visit period is NOT GENEROUS ENOUGH???!!!!

Please contact your rep/senator and just say HELL NO to any Guest Worker RACE TO THE BOTTOM!!!

Here is a link to the complete article:

http://www.immigrationforum.org/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabid=598

[Ray]

... in response to One Guest Worker Program An Insult To Us..., posted by Red Clay on Dec 17, 2005

Us Californians (excluding San Francisco) are sick and tired of paying for this crap! A few years ago the voters in California voted overwhelmingly to cut off the free education to illegal children, among other things. So, some stupid liberal judge throws the law out because he doesn’t like it and the stupid liberal California government decided not to fight the judge’s decision because they didn’t like it either. The taxpayers take it in the ass again. Why even vote?

-----
Illegal aliens cost California billions

12/7/04
By Jerry Seper
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Illegal immigration costs the taxpayers of California — which has the highest number of illegal aliens nationwide — $10.5 billion a year for education, health care and incarceration, according to a study released yesterday.

A key finding of the report by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) said the state's already struggling kindergarten-through-12th-grade education system spends $7.7 billion a year on children of illegal aliens, who constitute 15 percent of the student body.

The report also said the incarceration of convicted illegal aliens in state prisons and jails and uncompensated medical outlays for health care provided to illegal aliens each amounted to about $1.4 billion annually. The incarceration costs did not include judicial expenditures or the monetary costs of the crimes committed by illegal aliens that led to their incarceration.

"California's addiction to 'cheap' illegal-alien labor is bankrupting the state and posing enormous burdens on the state's shrinking middle-class tax base," said FAIR President Dan Stein.

"Most Californians, who have seen their taxes increase while public services deteriorate, already know the impact that mass illegal immigration is having on their communities, but even they may be shocked when they learn just how much of a drain illegal immigration has become," he said.

California is estimated to be home to nearly 3 million illegal aliens.

Mr. Stein noted that state and local taxes paid by the unauthorized immigrant population go toward offsetting these costs, but do not match expenses. The total of such payments was estimated in the report to be about $1.6 billion per year.

He also said the total cost of illegal immigration to the state's taxpayers would be considerably higher if other cost areas, such as special English instruction, school meal programs or welfare benefits for American workers displaced by illegal-alien workers were added into the equation.

Gerardo Gonzalez, director of the National Latino Research Center at California State at San Marcos, which compiles data on Hispanics, was critical of FAIR's report yesterday. He said FAIR's estimates did not measure some of the contributions that illegal aliens make to the state's economy.

"Beyond taxes, these workers' production and spending contribute to California's economy, especially the agricultural sector," he said, adding that both legal and illegal aliens are the "backbone" of the state's $28 billion-a-year agricultural industry.

In August, a similar study by the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington, said U.S. households headed by illegal aliens used $26.3 billion in government services during 2002, but paid $16 billion in taxes, an annual cost to taxpayers of $10 billion.

The FAIR report focused on three specific program areas because those were the costs examined by researchers from the Urban Institute in 1994, Mr. Stein said. Looking at the costs of education, health care and incarceration for illegal aliens in 1994, the Urban Institute estimated that California was subsidizing illegal immigrants at about $1.1 billion a year.

Mr. Stein said an enormous rise in the costs of illegal immigrants in 10 years is because of the rapid growth of the illegal population. He said it is reasonable to expect those costs to continue to soar if action is not taken to turn the tide.

"1994 was the same year that California voters rebelled and overwhelmingly passed Proposition 187, which sought to limit liability for mass illegal immigration," he said. "Since then, state and local governments have blatantly ignored the wishes of the voters and continued to shell out publicly financed benefits on illegal aliens.

"Predictably, the costs of illegal immigration have grown geometrically, while the state has spiraled into a fiscal crisis that has brought it near bankruptcy," he said.

Mr. Stein said that the state must adopt measures to systematically collect information on illegal-alien use of taxpayer-funded services and on where they are employed, and that policies need to be pursued to hold employers financially accountable.
-----

[Gary Bala]

... in response to What it costs..., posted by Ray on Dec 18, 2005

http://www.azstarnet.com/dailystar/relatedarticles/36662.php

[Ray]

... in response to Re: What they (illegals) pay...$376 bill..., posted by Gary Bala on Dec 18, 2005

I guess they don’t teach math in law school? Read it again Gary. You are off by more than a factor of 10. And the “study” is nothing but a bunch of assumptions. ASS-U-ME :-)

[Gary Bala]

... in response to Bad Math, posted by Ray on Dec 18, 2005

.

[EbonyPrince]

... in response to Re: What they (illegals) pay...$376 bill..., posted by Gary Bala on Dec 18, 2005

I can see arguments from both sides, but the fact remains that is the cost of doing business.  This money is estimated and no one knows exactly how much of this money is from foreigners as opposed to other Americans.

Everyone loses...the money should be used to reimburse the American taxpayers for the billions that they lose in support of non-citizens over the number of years that we have been paying for example incarceration, medical expenses, border patrol, etc. etc.

[Gary Bala]

... in response to One Guest Worker Program An Insult To Us..., posted by Red Clay on Dec 17, 2005

[This message has been edited by Gary Bala]

The 30 day visit by "family members" for a qualified temporary guest worker under the Kyl/Cornyn bill is LIMITED TO SPOUSES AND CHILDREN ONLY, AND ONLY IF THE SPOUSE OR CHILD OTHERWISE QUALIFIES FOR SUCH A 30 DAY VISIT.

Nothing in the bill allows OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS SUCH AS PARENTS, PARENTS-IN-LAW, SIBLINGS, COUSINS, NIECES AND NEPHEWS, ETC. to visit at all under any kind of visa, period.

The reason the bill only allows SPOUSES AND CHILDREN, IF THEY QUALIFY, to visit the qualified temporary guest worker for a MAXIMUM of 30 days only, as opposed to longer periods, is precisely to PREVENT the worker from laying a foundation or making a claim later to a "path to citizenship", "earned legalization" or "blanket amnesty". It is also an incentive to the worker, NOT to try and smuggle his wife and kids into the country permanently.

One reason it is better to read the actual bill proposal itself, as opposed to a journalist trying to summarize the bill in an article (even one as good as the WSJ), is that sometimes ambiguity and confusion can otherwise result.

Read the Kyl/Coryn bill itself here:
http://thomas.loc.gov
Type in S. 1438.
Title V, Section 218A, Letter (l) as in Larry,
Temporary Worker Program, Proposed "W" Visa, Family Members

Kyl and Coryn are both respected and very "immigration-knowledegable" Republican Senators who are from border states with significant immigration issues.

[Red Clay]

... in response to Take it easy, guys..., posted by Gary Bala on Dec 17, 2005

Take it easy, huh? Easy to say if your job/profession/wages have not yet been threatened by "guest workers".

As one of the few blue-collar pros on the forum (maybe the only one?) here is the blue-collar perspective.

My industry, trucking, has been saying for 10 years or more that it has a driver shortage. Wages have increased significantly over that period because of demand. Drivers at the top of the industry pay scale earn in the 70K-85K range annually. (company drivers, not owner-ops.) Companies have done more to try to give drivers more frequent home time. This was unheard of 23 years ago when I started. I have been thankful over the years that I picked a profession that I have greatly enjoyed and one that has had a big demand for workers throughout my career. (yes, I am aware of the stereotype, lol)

In the last few years, large companies have begun to publish ads in Spanish seeking drivers. The ads even point out that the companies have bilingual office staffers to "help you become acquainted with your new position", i.e., no need to try to learn fluent English. But do you think these companies plan to pay the same or better wages in the long-term future? Why should they? The "guest worker" can learn my job. Obviously it's not a profession that takes alot of formal education to learn, mostly common sense, desire, practice, a few theories of physics. Tell the guest worker he's going to make 30K annually, he'll jump on that, it's 10 TIMES what he  made in Mexico!Home time? He won't care about that, he's not "home" anyway! Benefits? Not necessary, he can just continue to use the free health care services that he has been using before he was legal. Wages and benefits in the industry will plummet.

If a guest worker plan is implemented, expect industry lobbyists to push for allowing the Commercial Driver License tests to be given in Spanish. Why not, we already do it for regular passenger car licensing?

I am just thankful that I am hopefully old enough to be retired before things in my profession deteriorate, although I probably have 10-15 years left to work. Oh, it won't just be my profession either. Take health care for another example. RN's making six-figure salaries in some areas, able to pick the work schedules that they want. You think a poor Mexicana wouldn't do that job for 1/4 of that salary? Heck, the hospitals could PAY FOR HER SCHOOLING/TRAINING and still come out cheaper over time.

Bottom line, trying to combine poor economies with wealthier ones depresses wages/working conditions for the rank-and-file. The typical business owner/employer in a service industry who seeks cheap labor doesn't pass those savings on to the consumer and doesn't care about the broad, overall affect to the standard of living of those who previously made higher wages in the same field.

Guest worker program advocates think it's a harmless idea because they themselves, or their jobs have not yet been threatened. So far, it's just "jobs that Americans won't do". I promise you that will change with a guest worker program. Maybe not overnight, but it will change. Given enough time, you too can be a target, no matter what you do for a living.

Thanks Hoda for your patience

-

[WS244]

... in response to Re: Take it easy, guys..., posted by Red Clay on Dec 18, 2005

Yes Globalization in reality is finding the cheapest labor worldwide for services rendered, to then satisfy stockholders and the bottom line.  These Globalizations proponets could care less about the well being of Americans, but rather say we need to lower our standard of living in all fairness to the rest of the world.  Good thing in our countrys history this was not the ways of the past. As manufacturing jobs go to China, so go the blue collars and the middle class with it.  Lawyers, accountants, business managers, or what one would call the "educated ones" can not maintain or support a middle class America.  The only way midlle class America can survive is with manufacturing blue collar jobs.

Though this board is not a political board per say, let us not forget most on this board are interested in foreign woman precisely due to politics.

[EbonyPrince]

... in response to Re: Re: Take it easy, guys..., posted by WS244 on Dec 18, 2005

Well said and I agree on everything. Stock holders and the people running the country don't give a damn about America. If they did how could you manufacture something for the fraction of the cost of making it here, but resell it for the same price when it gets here.

Eventually countries like China and India are going to run into the same fate as their standard of living increases.  

I think that the current middle class can and is supporting America with service sector and technology jobs.  We need to keep innovating which brings along more brain power and new jobs.

[Ray]

... in response to Take it easy, guys..., posted by Gary Bala on Dec 17, 2005

Gary,

What do you mean “…SOMETIMES ambiguity and confusion can otherwise result.” Hell, just about EVERYTHING that a lawyer touches becomes ambiguous and confusing to the rest of us… LOL! Trying to read the bill itself is a waste of time. I don’t see anything that says who pays for medical expenses for these people while they are working here. What if their families are here now? Do they get to stay or are they sent home? Are the temporary workers eligible for any government assistance? Do they qualify for "free" education?

You aren’t going to convince a group of guys who virtually all at one time or another had, have, or will have a fiancée or spouse overseas waiting to get in LEGALLY. And now, some ILLEGAL alien who sneaked across our border will be allowed to have his wife and kids come on in for a visit, but OUR loved ones aren’t eligible for a 30-day pass? Bull crap! And then we have to wait even longer because the CIS is even more backlogged processing ILLEGAL alien work permits and visitor visas for their spouses and children?

FORGET IT! We aren’t that stupid! :-)

Ray

[Gary Bala]

... in response to Sorry, we ain’t buying it…, posted by Ray on Dec 18, 2005

[This message has been edited by Gary Bala]

Read the law again Ray.
Also, read all the immigration proposals now in the Senate.

Any temporary guest worker petition and any 30 day visit visa for spouse or children for temp. workers are in the back the line, in effect BEHIND all the immigration and visa petitions now in line. Under all the plans, the "illegals" (and only those who actually qualify) pay a hefty fine and go to the back of the process line. The "illegals" don't get any advantage over the legals in line. That argument is always raised by people who don't want to face up to the fact we have 11 to 15 million "illegal" undocumented workers living here in the shadows, millions who have been here for many years, pay taxes and have kids born here, and really don't know what to do with them, other than rail "kick them all out!". Physically and realistically, they won't be deported. That just won't happen.

Also, you forget that I myself am "one of you guys" who "had, have, or will have a fiancée or spouse overseas waiting to get in LEGALLY."

If the House proposal become law, what exactly becomes of the 11 to 15 million "illegals" who have become criminal felons under the House bill? The immigration restrictionists will have to summon up the political will to enforce the law and prosecute and jail and deport and kick them out. Where is the money and resources for new detention and jail space for 11 to 15 million new felons? What about the courts, judges, prosecutors, and law enforcement people to kick out 11 million people? What will happen to all the businesses that employed them, and what is the impact on the economy? What about the priest or padre who helps an "illegal" with emergency food or shelter, is he aiding and abetting a felon and himself a criminal? Why is the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Catholic and religious groups and most businesses against the House bill? Why do President Bush and his Administration and leaders in the Senate think something more than getting Mexico mad at us is important to solve the immigration problem in the long run?

By the way, if there had been a temporary guest worker plan without amnesty in the House bill, the conventional wisdom is that it would have actually passed, with the votes of nearly all Democrats and a group of border state Republicans who actually wanted it as part of the comprehensive solution. (In any case, you and I won't resolve the immigration issue here on this forum.)

Sorry, but I don't think that the Senate or the Administration, or, at the end of the day, the American public and the moderate "sensible center", will "buy" the enforcement-only bill.

However, I do think that we should all "buy" (or at least find) some time to enjoy our holidays...

Have a happy!

[Ray]

... in response to Re: Sorry, we ain’t buying it…, posted by Gary Bala on Dec 18, 2005

Gary, you claimed that the American Public won't support border enforcement? Better read this. I guess that "sensible center" you mentioned is just out of touch with reality.

-----
INVASION USA
Zogby poll: Americans
fed up with illegal aliens

Majority against Bush plan for workers, 81% think local police should help feds

Posted: May 6, 2005
7:44 p.m. Eastern
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

A new opinion poll by Zogby International indicates Americans are hardly pleased with the Bush administration on the subject of illegal immigration.

The poll, cited on CNN's "Lou Dobbs Tonight" program yesterday, noted a huge majority – 81 percent – believes local and state police should help federal authorities enforce laws against illegal immigration. Only 14 percent disagreed.

Voters were also asked, "Do you support or oppose the Bush administration's proposal to give millions of illegal aliens guest worker status and the opportunity to become citizens?" Only 35 percent gave their support, and 56 percent said no.

"A majority opposed illegal immigration," pollster John Zogby told CNN. "In fact, when you combine those two terms, 'illegal and immigration,' it really conjures up a considerable amount of negatives. And, in fact, we find that it's really across the board."

According to the report, the greatest opponents of illegal immigration are Democrats, African-Americans, women and people with household income below $75,000, those with the most to lose in the job market.

When it came to the status of the nation's borders, respondents were asked, "Do you agree or disagree that the federal government should deploy troops on the Mexican border as a temporary measure to control illegal immigration?" A clear majority – 53 percent – agree, while 40 percent disagree.

"The Minuteman program highlighted the fact that we need more tighter border security," Phil Kent of American Immigration Control Foundation told the network. "So I think these numbers again are good. It's a good civics lesson for the American people. It shows our elected leaders that we want action."

In summing up her report, CNN correspondent Lisa Sylvester noted, "So, while the public wants tougher borders, politicians are pushing to leave them open. A real disconnect."

Dobbs responded to that statement, saying: "The disconnect that you referred to, Lisa, between our elected officials and the people of this country is in no – on no other issue any more dramatic than on the issue of illegal immigration. The Zogby poll is just simply the most recent in a string of polls that show that the American people want their borders secure, they want immigration laws to be enforced, and to clean up what has become an atrocious mess on the part of our elected representatives serving better the interests of U.S. multinationals than the people who are working for a living in this country."
Within a week of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks on the U.S., Zogby polled Americans on border security and immigration issues.

When asked whether the government was doing enough to control the border and screen those allowed into the country, 76 percent said the government was not doing enough.

Regarding future threats to the U.S., 72 percent of likely voters in 2001 said a dramatic increase in resources devoted to border control and enforcement of immigration laws would help reduce the chances of a terrorist attack in the future.
-----

[Gary Bala]

... in response to Re: Re: Sorry, we ain’t buying it…, posted by Ray on Dec 18, 2005

I didn't say that the American public won't support border enforcement. (Everybody supports border enforcement.)

What I said was that the American public won't support a "border enforcement-only" type bill, without anything more comprehesive to solve our immigration problem for the long run.

Ray, you and I both know that poll questions can be asked in a way to support whatever the pollster or the immigration restrictionist wants.

Here is a poll of Republican Voters who say that they support both earned legalization AND border enforcement:

BEGIN QUOTE:
Republican Voters Favor Earned Legalization and Increased Border Security, According to New Poll
Cite as "AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 05101741 (posted Oct. 17, 2005)"

Likely Republican voters do not favor an enforcement-only approach to illegal immigration, according to a new poll of 800 registered “likely” Republican voters conducted by the Tarrance Group for the Manhattan Institute on October 2-5, 2005. On the contrary, Republican voters strongly favor earned legalization for all illegal immigrants, and enacting this reform would have a positive impact on their view of Congress and President Bush. Seventy-eight percent of respondents said they would favor immigration reform legislation that would:

• Provide resources to greatly increase border security,

• Impose much tougher penalties on employers who hire illegal workers,

• Create a system in which illegal immigrants could come forward and register, pay a fine, and receive a temporary worker permit, and

• Provide these temporary workers with a multi-year path to citizenship, if they meet certain requirements like living crime free, learning English, and paying taxes.

Seventy-one percent of respondents said they would be more likely to vote for a Member of Congress who supported such a proposal. In contrast, only 56% said they would support an immigration reform proposal that would create a temporary worker program without a path to citizenship.

This new public opinion data indicates that Republican voters do not think it is possible to deport the illegal immigrants already in the country and do not favor an enforcement-only approach often preached by hard-line conservatives. Instead, the majority of Republican voters want realistic solutions to deal with future immigrants and the millions of undocumented workers already here. For more poll results and key findings, please visit the Manhattan Institute’s website.
http://manhattaninstitute.org/html/immigration_pol_pr.htm#pr
END QUOTE

[Ray]

... in response to Re: Re: Re: Sorry, we ain’t buying it…, posted by Gary Bala on Dec 18, 2005

Gary, if you really believe that the American public is for this latest phony AMNESTY scam, you need to wake up. Even your buddies at CBS News couldn’t spin this one and they certainly wouldn’t fall into your little label of “immigration restrictionists”, now would they? :-)

-----
Poll: Most Want Immigration Curbed

NEW YORK, Aug. 7, 2005

(CBS) One idea under consideration by the Bush Administration and Congress to address U.S. immigration issues is to allow illegal immigrants to apply for work permits in the United States. However, that concept does not find favor with the public. Sixty-three percent say immigrants who are in the country illegally should not be able to apply for a permit that allows them to stay and work.

ALLOW ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS TO APPLY FOR U.S. WORK PERMITS?

Yes
32%
No
63%

Opposition to work permits crosses party and ideological boundaries: most Democrats, Republicans and Independents are opposed, as are most liberals, conservatives and moderates.

You can see the rest of the poll here:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/08/07/opinion/polls/main763687.shtml

-----