0

TODAY'S TIMES

BORROWED OPINIONS
Family Values, Betrayed

When George W. Bush was running for president in 2000 as a new kind of Republican — the caring kind — he had a ready answer for those skeptical of his moderate views on immigration. “Family values do not stop at the Rio Grande,” he said, again and again. He was standing up for immigrants who come here seeking better lives for their children, and he repeated the message so often that it stuck.

Now, like so much else in Mr. Bush’s tattered slogan file, it’s in danger of coming unstuck. Negotiators struggling to draft an immigration bill in Washington are being pressured by the White House and Republican leaders to gut the provisions of the law that promote the unity of immigrant families in favor of strictly employment-based programs.

Details are still being sweated out in private, but a draft proposal circulated by the White House and the G.O.P. would eliminate or severely restrict whole categories of family-based immigration in favor of a system that would assign potential immigrants points based on age, skills, education, income and other factors. Citizens would no longer be able to sponsor siblings and children over 21, and their ability to bring in parents would be severely limited.

Unattached workers with advanced degrees and corporate sponsors could do all right, but not families, not the moms, pops, sons and daughters who open groceries and restaurants, who rebuild desolate neighborhoods and inspire America with their work ethic and commitment to one another. The plan would also shut out hundreds of thousands of people who have applied for family visas under current rules and are patiently waiting because of long backlogs.

The goal seems to be to end what immigration restrictionists call “chain migration,” a tendentious term that recasts in a sinister light one of the fundamental ways America was built, and a decades-old cornerstone of our immigration policy. It’s a cruel distortion that feeds fears of outsiders and fails to acknowledge that healthy immigration levels keep the economy running, particularly in a country with low unemployment and birth rates and workers who shun backbreaking, entry-level jobs.

America needs immigrants. Last year’s bipartisan Senate bill recognized this, and raised quotas for both family and employment-based immigration. Congress should do so again. Closing the door to families would be unjust and unworkable, and a mockery of the values that conservatives profess. It would only encourage illegality by forcing people to choose between their loved ones and the law.

Compromise is necessary with any bill, particularly on an issue as complex as immigration. But if a deal hews so closely to the new harsh line of the White House and G.O.P that it fundamentally distorts America’s pro-immigrant tradition, it would be better to ditch the whole thing and start over.

Vaughn Tolle said:
 
It seems clear to me that it is perceived by the Republican negotiators that the only way that any immigration "reform" can be enacted in a way which will gain support, albeit grudging support, from their base supporters is to tie it to employment criteria. Thus, the apparent focus of the negotiations over the bill.

Put another, more coarse, way; if the ability to immigrate is limited to single workers with desired skills, then there is no need to worry about all those nasty families which will invade the schools, usurp governmental services, etc.
 
posted 932 days ago
Add Comment Reply to: this comment OR this thread
 
Rox said:
 
What good does reform do when we don't enforce what we have now?
 
posted 932 days ago
Add Comment Reply to: this comment OR this thread
 
Vaughn Tolle said:
 
Rox, I agree, but I am of the thought that the current laws are unenforceable to any meaningful degree because: 1) the "illegals" will get here in any way they can to obtain jobs which are available to them; 2) there is a definite underfunding of the enforcement of the immigration laws, especially those as to those employing illegals; 3) outside of the states on the border (particularly the Mexican border), I do not perceive the popular will existing to properly fund the existing laws.

It has been argued that the hiring of illegals for certain positions, e.g., ag work, domestic employment, construction, benefits the consuming public by keeping the prices for items affected by the ability to employ these folks lower than the same would be otherwise. I have heard folks who I would think would be unalterably opposed to illegal immigration say with a straight face that ipso facto, this benefits the economy.

Thus, the perceived need for reform. As stated above, to "sell" this will mean any reform will be by necessity linked to employment. I note that there is no mention in the post by Tracy of increased enforcement against those employers who knowingly employ illegal immigrants which does not surprise me; it saddens me, but again, no surprise.
 
posted 932 days ago
Add Comment Reply to: this comment OR this thread
 
 
My views on this have never varied.
What Lou Dobbs says~DITTO.
The law is the law.
Enforce it.
I'm all for human compassion.
NOT enforcing the law is NOT compassionate,
for quite a few reasons.
 
posted 932 days ago
Add Comment Reply to: this comment OR this thread
 
Rox said:
 
Of course I see your point, VT. So let's fund what needs funding and get serious. Neither side of the political fence seems to be willing to do this. My guess would be because they benefit from it in some way.

What I really wonder is how all this will affect the next generation? Does everyone truly believe that the second generation of illegal immigrants will be happy to work at those lower paying jobs, as their parents have done? According to our laws, they will be citizens, if born in the U.S. (Anchor babies, they're sometimes called. Sorry if that's not a politically correct term. :) ) With our middle class shrinking as it is, just how much harder will finding employment be in another 20 to 25 years?

I admit to having strong feelings on illegal immigration, but I also have some that are conflicting. It's just too bad that those with the cajones to sneak across the border don't have quite enough of those cajones to unite and make changes in their own countries. The reform that needs to be made isn't so much in OUR country, but in THEIRS.
 
posted 932 days ago
Add Comment Reply to: this comment OR this thread
 
 
I truly feel for those people. I do.
If I were in their position and didn't try to better my family's welfare, I wouldn't be much of a man.

On the other hand, seems our gov't is more concerned with dirt cheap labor (worldwide) than actually helping families.
 
posted 932 days ago
Add Comment Reply to: this comment OR this thread
 
Vaughn Tolle said:
 
One could draw that conclusion, Tracy.
 
posted 932 days ago
Add Comment Reply to: this comment OR this thread
 
Vaughn Tolle said:
 
Rox, you are correct about the changes that need to be made in the countries from which they emigrate. Given the way the governments of such countries are chosen and choose to function, absent an overwhelming number acting in concert, the "reformers" might just end up disappearing or dead.

I'm sure the second generation won't be as willing, leading to another cycle unless the cost of knowing employment of illegals is raised to the point that "getting caught" far outweighs the savings, combined with the need to allocate and spend resources such that the likelihood of getting caught increases substantially from the current level.

Fourteenth Amendment, Rox, is what grants the "anchor babies" citizenship.

Finding suitable employment in the next 20 to 25 years will be more difficult for everyone, thus illustrating the need for additional education for adults in the workforce, and the teaching of students in school now and in the future the skills to take advantage of the additional education, together with the students "learning how to learn".
 
posted 932 days ago
Add Comment Reply to: this comment OR this thread
 
lindainks55 said:
 
You said a mouthful in that last paragraph and I agree it would sure be better if they could work towards improving things in their country.

I am not well enough informed to have any good ideas on immigration problems. I don't know what the laws are today. Aren't there quotas and those quotas are different depending on the originating country? i.e., 20 people annually from the U.K., 30 from Japan...? I am really torn and conflicted. Legal is legal, illegal isn't; people are people and should be treated with dignity always. See, I can't even settle on a path within my own head.

As totally racist as this will sound I will still tell you I don't want America to be majority Mexican or majority Asian or majority anything except the mongrels we have called Americans and include most of our ancestors from diverse countries. Until we ALL become purple I like a wide diversity and think it is healthiest. But I understand due to current trends in birth rates those who are coming in (many illegally) from the south are projected to be the majority in America if something doesn't change.

Right here in Wichita the students who need to learn English as a second language are putting undue strain on our schools and contributing to USD 259 becoming an inner-city school system. Too often those who can afford it are moving out and leaving an imbalance in social norms.

Did you know that certain core subjects (math, reading) are taught at exactly the same pace, exactly the same time of day at every grade school in 259? This is mainly because of the HIGH number of students who move in the middle of the night because they have unpaid rent they will never catch up on -- so it's on to another place for another fresh start, hoping to outrun the bill collectors (THIS one will work they hope). The children make the needed progress toward the goals of NCLB (PASS the test!) if they can pick up at the new school with ease. So if they were learning to add in the old school yesterday they will be learning the exact same lesson in the new school tomorrow.

This isn't all due to immigrants -- many are the working poor, the uninsured who get behind so easily with just one round to the doctor and medicine (they do not have any extra for anything), the children of addicts and drunks. It is a serious problem.

So with these serious problems in our American population going unaddressed, ignored -- how can we be thinking of taking care of the children of people here illegally?

What a conundrum!


 
posted 932 days ago
Add Comment Reply to: this comment OR this thread
 
 
And this is quite complicated, for me anyway!
I whole-heartedly agree with Lou Dobbs.

At the same time, there are some obvious illegals who are fixing up an old house in my neighborhood.
Not only will I NOT call the law, I'll welcome them.
They are just people.
 
posted 932 days ago
Add Comment Reply to: this comment OR this thread
 
Rox said:
 
Speaking of 20 to 25 years down the line, I read something a couple of years ago about how the Baby Boomer retirement will free up a heck of a lot of jobs. Maybe in the end we can sustain a status quo?

VT, thanks on the 14th ammendment. (It's Friday, and I can barely COUNT to THREE, much less remember the number 14.) I should know that. I HAD a copy of the Constitution on my desktop, but I reformatted and... I think I can quote the 1st by heart though. :)
 
posted 932 days ago
Add Comment Reply to: this comment OR this thread
 
Vaughn Tolle said:
 
On the retirement of us boomers down the road; this will cause a lot of vacancies. The issue is beginning to effect the federal government now, as many of the senior staffs at a variety of the agencies are nearing retirement, and there's not sufficient folks with appropriate education/experience in the "pipeline" to replace them.
 
posted 931 days ago
Add Comment Reply to: this comment OR this thread
 

Search