|
Here’s the
collection of commentary from Center for American Progress on this topic, which
definitely believes it is a Trojan Horse, or institutionalizing the
Wal-Martization of America. I’ve also
since learned that other border municipalities utilize matricula consulars to give Mexican
workers some access to legitimate identification. Blue Links are
live. Italics are mine. - KWC IMMIGRATION The President announced his new temporary guest
worker proposal yesterday in the East Room of the White House, touting the plan
as "more
compassionate and more humane." But the President's proposal, which would allow undocumented
immigrant workers to obtain temporary legal status, falls far short of his
lofty rhetoric. The primary beneficiaries are businesses that employ
undocumented workers, whose
low-wage workforce will now be legitimized. Meanwhile, workers who provide years of labor could be forced to
return to their home countries in as few as three years or face deportation
proceedings. Susan F. Martin, an immigration expert at Georgetown University
and former director of the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, called the
plan "as
troubling an immigration proposal as I've seen in the past 25 years." DANGER OF WORKER ABUSE: According to the President, "Participants who do
not remain employed...will be required to
return to their home." As a result workers are forced "to tie their
fates to employer 'sponsors' who could ship them back home for complaining
about job conditions." Specifically,
there is no reason to believe that workers who report discrimination, labor law
violations or any other abuses would be protected from termination of their
employment and deportation. AFL-CIO president John Sweeney said that as a
result, "the plan deepens the potential for abuse and exploitation of
these workers." In an interview with American Progress, former INS General
Counsel and Georgetown Law Professor Alex Aleinikoff noted the plan fails to
“regularize long-term contributors to the U.S. economy.” Unsurprisingly,
"business groups, made up of some
of Bush's biggest financial backers, welcomed the plan" as a way to fill "low-wage and
dangerous jobs." Professor Martin, said that Bush's plan effectively
created "a large number of basically indentured servants." NO PERMANANT SOLUTION: The President assured his audience that the plan requires
"temporary workers to return
permanently to their home countries after their period of work in the
United States has expired" and that he "opposes amnesty." The White House makes clear that "the program should not connect
participation to a green card or citizenship." Demetrios Papademetriou, co-direction of the Migration Policy
Institute sums up the problem this way: "Why should they show up, pay the
fees that will be required of them, go through all the process...so, what, they
can be thrown
out of the country in six years." Frank Sharry, executive director of the National Immigration
Forum, predicts that "if the offer is a temporary visa with uncertain
prospects for renewal and no path to permanent residency, you won't have a lot
of takers." NEEDED: MORE POLICY, LESS
PANDERING: There is little
evidence the Administration is genuinely committed to advancing a meaningful
immigration reform agenda. The proposal was announced yesterday without accompanying legislation, few details
and no timetable for action. In
fact, the most detailed information on the proposal may be contained in a transcript
of a conference call conducted Tuesday by a
senior Administration official that was posted on the Internet by blogger Josh
Marshall. The LA Times reports, "Bush's supporters hope he will reap a substantial
political dividend just by proposing it." According to a senior Congressional aide the early word from the
White House on the proposal was "not essential for the president that it
be enacted this year." And questions abound on whether the White House
will even expend the political capital to take on conservatives in Congress who
already oppose the plan. As Raj Goyle,
an expert at American Progress, told the NY
Daily News, "If Bush really cared about this policy, he would stand up to
his anti-immigration friends in Congress." Also see Bumiller: Border Politics as Bush Woos 2 Key Groups with
Proposal @ http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/08/politics/08ASSE.html EW
wrote: I've
just read part of Scott McClellan's press briefing. If I understand what
he was saying, the people who are being brought out from the shadows will be
allowed to stay in the US for a time, three years it would seem, but
will then be required to return to their home countries. They will be
paying into Social Security while in the US and it would appear to be the
intention that they get SS benefits when they return home provided that there
is an agreement on SS with the home country. There is no SS agreement
with Mexico, though McClellan said informal talks have been held. If
there were no agreement, or if there were a problem in tracking the legitimized
illegals after they had gone home, whatever they had paid in would stay
in. I agree that illegal immigrants would see this as a threat. It
appears to put a time limit on their stay in the US when many would have
entered the US with the intention of staying. It would require employers
to hire the legitimatised immigrants only if the job had been turned down by
Americans, and it probably would have been turned down because wages offered
were too low or because of the nature of the work. I can see why ever so
many illegal immigrants might not want to come out of the shadows. BW wrote: Ed, I don't think this is about votes at
all. I feel that there are a lot of low income Hispanics who view this as a
threat, first due to increased competition from immigrants, and second, due to
the fact that there will be a lot more police and judicial hassle. What Bush is doing
is to find ways to shore up social security without significantly restructuring
it. Although I see this as another effort to undermine wages, the US will need
to increase the pool of younger workers to support Social Security in the very
near future. On Thu, 8 Jan 2004
10:21:42 -0500 "Ed Weick" writes: It's all part of a grander vision. In the US, working
for a living is no longer as important as it once was. Who does it
matters less and less. Crappy jobs can be done by cheap insourced labour,
while expensive jobs can be outsourced overseas. How are ordinary
Americans going to make a living? Why, by being part of Bush's
"ownership society"! They will own the capital and let others
do the work. |
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
