The Big Show on the Border

From the 10/13 debate, President Bush (link):

...I believe there ought to be a temporary worker card that allows a willing worker and a willing employer to mate up, so long as there's not an American willing to do the job...

I wonder how many nurses, teachers, or high-tech workers would work for $8 an hour. Wait, you didn't know that Bush's "guest worker" plan would be open to those people too?

That's what they have in mind. And, there would be no wage-related restrictions on it other than the minimum wage. So, employers could offer a teaching job for $8 an hour. American teachers would either take that rate or, more likely, they wouldn't. So, the employer could hire that "guest" worker from Bangladesh. The Bangladeshi would consider that a king's ransom. All the requirements of Bush's plan had been met: there wasn't an American willing to do the job.

Bush's plan would force millions of previously higher-wage jobs down near the minimum wage. What phrase would most Americans use to describe such a plan?

See Analysis: Bush temp worker plan open-ended (link) and Bush "guest worker" program to be "open to any type of employee". Also, "Hutchinson's Remarks Indicate Cheap Labor Bias of Administration" and the links here.

...they're able to go back and forth to see their families... See, the card will have a period of time attached to it.

What exactly does he mean by "families"? Will their immediate family come with them or not? If not, are we going to be able to split up families? Not all people coming here would be Mexicans or from the parts of Mexico near the border. Is Bush going to require men to travel hundreds of miles to see their immediate family?

If, however, they're bringing their immediate family with them, there will no doubt be hundreds of thousands of children born, and those children will be U.S. citizens. Who's going to be able to make them go home after they've had a U.S. citizen child? And, won't most "guest" workers intentionally have children here so it will be harder to make them go home?

And, given that, doesn't this plan consist not just of an amnesty, but as a massive incentive for a huge chunk of Mexico's population to come here? Was any thought put into the consequences of this plan at all?

A Bush assistant addresses those questions in Bush "guest worker" program to be "open to any type of employee". No change to the 14th Amendment is expected to accomodate the "guest worker" plan.

If somebody is coming here to work with a card, it means they're not going to have to sneak across the border.

No, it doesn't. People will sneak across the border for many reasons, but primarily for employment. And, if employers are willing to employ people illegally - under any guest worker plan - people will keep coming here illegally. People don't hire illegals primarily because of a lack of legal workers. They hire illegals because of the cost or to avoid paperwork or safety laws. If those who currently employ illegals want to continue to do so, they will under any guest worker program unless they're stopped. If Bush won't enforce the laws against hiring illegal aliens now, what makes anyone think he'd enforce the laws under his plan? And, note that under the last guest worker program (the Bracero program) illegal immigration went up during and after that program.

See "Employer fines plummet for hiring illegals" (link) and "The Mirage of Mexican Guest Workers".

...I don't believe we ought to have amnesty. I don't think we ought to reward illegal behavior...

His plan is perceived as an amnesty, and it's caused an uptick in those coming here expecting to take part in the amnesty. Whether it's truly an amnesty hinges on how exactly we define amnesty. And, when you get down to the level of minute differences in definition, you might as well be Bill Clinton.

See "Border Agents Warn of Influx" and "[Bush] Immigration plan envisions 'incentives' to illegal aliens" (link).

Well, to say that the borders are not as protected as they were prior to September the 11th shows he doesn't know the borders. They're much better protected today than they were when I was the governor of Texas... We have much more manpower and much more equipment there.

Bush was governor of Texas before 9/11. I'd hope the borders are better protected now than they were before that date. But, are they? What of all the chatter about terrorists attempting to infiltrate the U.S. via Mexico? What of the report of 25 Chechen terrorists possibily having succeeded in that effort? (link)

Once again Bush's rhetoric just doesn't match up to reality. If the administration would take the novel approach of fining those companies that employ illegal aliens, all that manpower and equipment would have a much greater impact. As it is, to a certain extent they're just there for show.

Comments

This program isn't bad, but there are places where it needs to be fixed. First, it should be only cirtain jobs that they can go into. Secondly, these "illegals" have contributed alot into this country.
finally, every one(execpt for native-americans) immigrated from some place.

I notice there are alot of people that feel if this temp.worker program-isnt going to take their job-its cool.Lets make one thing very clear-these so called tenp. workers are not going back home-in other words- nothings going to change.So If you like illegals takeing over your country.You are a anti American NUT.I feel sorry for you because you dont see whats going on.Once your kids have to speak spanish-maybe you well get your head out of your ---.But then it well be to late.

Racist people !!!
Imigration is a Human Right..
The United States has been a nation of immigrants.
"Even if they pay $12x hour, it wont be white people picking fruits in a suny day for 8 hours, 5 days a week or clining your dirty bathroom". Immigrants do...

I beleive those who are living here for a long period of time, lets say more than 10 years ( if they did not do any crime & if they've paid taxes.)should get some kind of amnesty, may be with paying some fine, but shouldn't be deported, its simply is not fair, yes they broke the law, how ever isn't amnesty for those who broke the law but deserve to be forgiven because of the hardship on their family?

[LW comments: Awwwwwwwwwwwwww. Any plan like this will simply lead to millions more illegal aliens who'll come here knowing that all they need to do is wait 10 years before the next last amnesty.]

Come on, this is just corporations finding loopholes in US law or creating their own laws to continually avoid having to pay what is known as a "living wage" meaning that you need to take the worker's ability to actually be able to survive on your crappy wage into consideration.
You can't live on 8 bucks after taxes. That's retarded. So is anyone that thinks this crap is a good idea.

See my comment to the comment of the last commenter. Just click on his comment.

Bush even goaded the Mexicans to move here by means of aggression; saying any that were worth their salt would do so. Sympathy for the foreign aggressor, the foreign criminal in our midst is a strong signal of a traitorous character. Someone who wants the sort of power to regulate and destroy that the government has now, has deep hatred against his countrymen. It only fits that he would sympathize with the invader, and the people of the drug-corrupted polity of the floating excretions.

This plan was designed to subvert minimum wage requirements from the very beginning. The fact that "guest workers" can remain only as long as they can prove employment is nothing more than an incentive for employers to drag down wages. The workers are offered substandard wages, if they refuse, they are threatened with firing and deportation. I agree with Lonewacko's assessment, but I think the implications are far worse than even his dire predictions.

There could also be large-scale unemployment caused by seasonalization of jobs. A lot of positions are year-round which don't need to be, if a foreigner could be hired who would return seasonally. There could be several million positions like that. Any savings to the employer could be negated by expenses to the taxpayers, for providing services to two people where only one was before.

This plan could cause a massive recession. There wouldn't be a lot of skilled people using it, but the incentive to substitute cheap labor for machinery would be overwhelming. The investment in labor-saving machinery is based on the wage structure of the last several decades. Kick the supports from under that, and the methods of the 50's and 60's should be gone back to, in a great many areas of production. The orders for productivity-enhancing equipment should then fall by a large percentage, and this precipitates the economy into a plunge. What a price to pay to appease the druggocracy of Mexico.