|
Bush's Illegal Immigrant Plan (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| rizen |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
The Walmartization continues. This is union-busting politics at it's finest. |
quoted for truth
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
The policy makes good economic sense, and it's what I've been calling for all along. Legalize the immigrants and make them pay taxes. |
illegals already pay taxes. since 1996 the irs gives them a special SS# starting with 9 or 7, called taxpayer identification if i remember correctly. except of course those paid under the table. |
|
|
| Galapidate |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
I don't know, but his Spanish certainly is a lot better than his English! |
You mean his Mexican (it's a Bushism from awhile ago). |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by rizen
illegals already pay taxes. since 1996 the irs gives them a special SS# starting with 9 or 7, called taxpayer identification if i remember correctly. except of course those paid under the table. |
Yes but how many immigrants truly come forward to pay taxes when they have nothing to gain from doing so? They might as well keep using their fake socials. Furthermore I'm sure a lot of businesses do not declare their wages (for obvious reasons). The plan will A) Encourage workers to come forward in order to enjoy fair labor rights / a minimum wage and everybody can now pay taxes B) Bring forth businesses to practice fair accounting and ensure proper labor standards. I can't believe the partisanship here ... the dems have been pushing for this legislation for years (hell it got ted kennedies approval for crying out loud), put a republican stamp on it and it all of a sudden it reeks of evil. This merely reaffirms my hatred for both parties ... |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Are you talking about the Sarbanes-Oxley act? It is being enforced. As a matter of fact many businesses are claiming it is hurting their businesses so badly that they cannot compete. Especially the smaller companies who cannot afford the huge retinue of auditors and accountants that they must now employ:
http://discover.npr.org/features/fe...ml?wfId=1380588
http://discover.npr.org/features/fe...ml?wfId=1380962
http://discover.npr.org/features/fe...ml?wfId=1380960
And the law will likely prevent another Enron type scandal occurring. As for preventing different types corporate standards that is a different matter altogether. The Sarbanes Oxley act closed a huge number of loopholes, however there are always going to be other loopholes that companies will be able to find and take advantage of such as the mutual fund scandal. If you are going to criticize Bush for that you might as well blame Clinton and every other President behind them for not "seeing" these loopholes preventatively. Lastly, it's not Bush who sets these regulations it's the SEC and the FTC ... and guess what, I'm willing to wager a fair amount that the people who were in the SEC and FTC during Clinton's term are still in there today.
Now with regards to how they are going to regulate this standard I don't know. I'm sure that they must have something in mind since it's one of the key policies of the plan. What I do know is that we have a growing immigration problem that is not going to end, so what do you propose? The status quo? |
I was referring to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, and though it was a good start to corporate reform, it by no means addressed some other major issues, those loopholes that many corporations could fit a jetliner through:
1. Stock options won't be treated as a business expense
2. Offshore tax havens are still allowed
3. No pension fund reform
Just to name a few.
And then just a few hours after Bush signed the bill into law, he issued an interpretation of the law undercutting a provision designed to make it easier for employees to expose corporate crooks.
Thanks Bush. Nice.
I also know that Bush proposed a 27% decrease in SEC funding back in 2002, in accordance to a letter Pat Leahy (one of the Sarbanes-Oxley authors) wrote to Harvey Pitt (SEC chairman) back in Oct. 2002. I admit I do not know if Bush's proposal went through, but it seems to undermine the SEC's duties for enforcing the new Act when it gets its funding cut so much.
It's understandable that some businesses are having a tough time, however I feel the current provisions combined with other much needed provisions are absolutely necessary.
But this is getting off topic, so I'll swing it back around. The point I'm making is I question the ability to enforce such corporate reform acts, and I would question in the same token (albeit a different arm of government) how well Bush would require enforcement of the corporations giving priority to American citizens. Seems to me that corporations want the cheapest labor possible, and if they can hire a green-card immigrant at $5.15/hour over an American citizen who likely has other work experience, they would do so if they could.
Okay, maybe I'm reaching a bit on this point.
| quote: | | No, if anything what we'll see a legalization of jobs that Americans were unwilling to take. Furthermore, we'll finally see labor rights given to immigrants, tax paying workers, and tax paying companies. Just because a mexican worker can suddenly now work legally, does that mean he has the abilities and skills to take upon a middle class workers' job? |
I question just how far those labor rights will go to these immigrants. Regardless, the point of receiving taxes from them is a good one. My whole point is I see this more or less as a movement toward a stronger base for corporations (like Wal-Mart) to hire low-paying jobs, which ultimately hurt those other living-wage type jobs that work collectively with unions for the benefit of the worker. I don't want to get into an argument about living-wage vs. base salary stuff, but I do believe this does benefit the corporation at the ultimate expense of the low-paid worker. Thus giving little incentive and less possibilities for the low-wage worker to move up and into the middle class (which I believe ultimately drives and sustains the economy long-term).
| quote: | | Going by your standard of reasoning, if we remove all illegal immigrants we would see a higher standard of living for americans ... something many hardcore republicans are preaching. |
You know, I actually agree with the conservatives on this to a certain extent. Call me weird, but I also see illegial immigration ultimately hurting society to some degree. Like you mentioned - many avoid taxes, and many are already used illegially by corporations (*ahem* Walmart) for cheap labor. In reality, our country would come to a grinding halt if illegial immigrants went on a strike - they compose so much of our corporate businesses. In essence I believe the ultra-Conservatives who want a tightening on the borders are using doublespeak - they believe this is a solution to many of our standard of living problems, yet they know corporations utilize their cheap (and likely illegial) labor.
| quote: | | I can't believe the partisanship here ... the dems have been pushing for this legislation for years (hell it got ted kennedies approval for crying out loud), put a republican stamp on it and it all of a sudden it reeks of evil. This merely reaffirms my hatred for both parties ... |
Okay, then let me just say I've got extremely guarded optimism about this whole thing. Besides, you can't neglect the political aspect of this for Bush. I know you concentrate a great deal on the business/economic aspect of this, but this measure wreaks of political schmoozing to the immigrant minorities.
Face it, you're just biased.:toothless
Still, you've brought up some good points, and I'm willing to bring my guard down a little bit. Time will tell if and how this will be enforced. |
|
|
| rizen |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Yes but how many immigrants truly come forward to pay taxes when they have nothing to gain from doing so? They might as well keep using their fake socials. Furthermore I'm sure a lot of businesses do not declare their wages (for obvious reasons). The plan will A) Encourage workers to come forward in order to enjoy fair labor rights / a minimum wage and everybody can now pay taxes B) Bring forth businesses to practice fair accounting and ensure proper labor standards. I can't believe the partisanship here ... the dems have been pushing for this legislation for years (hell it got ted kennedies approval for crying out loud), put a republican stamp on it and it all of a sudden it reeks of evil. This merely reaffirms my hatred for both parties ... |
how many illegal immigrants come forward to take advantage of the benifits that are offered to them even though they are contributing to it, especially in california, not much. heres something i posted on another forum about davis trying to give illegals drivers license
They [the illegals] actually can and do pay state income tax (540) as well as fedreal tax (1040A), even if they are illegal, the government doesnt care cause they allow them to work with a fake SS# and do taxes with a real SS# that the INS provides them. these are loopholes that are allowed, because they benifit both sides!
i will however agree with you on your plan A and B :)
edit: also this is only politics to get the hispanic vote. unless it gets passed before 2004 elections, which i doubt, it wont get passed if bush is elected (remember not relected, since he never got elected in the first place :p ) |
|
|
| NYCTrancefan |
| IDRM - It doesn't really matter what Bush says because people often break into two camps those who support him and those who loathe him. I have seen so many people on this issue say election ploys, benefit for big businesses, blah, blah, maybe we should round up all the illegals and send them back across the Rio Grande then, if that will make people happy. They should be lucky that they get a three year temporary status after all they shouldn't be here in the first place. There is a legal path to enter America and stay, its called Permanent Residency followed by Citizenship (I did it). Illegal means illegal, if a Democratic president had proposed this policy people would have hailed it as a great humanitarian feat, Bush did it its a political ploy, c'mon people at least try to be fair and see past the usual anti-Bush feelings. By the way if this is a ploy by Bush and Congress will never pass it, might I ask the naysayers what should be done about the countless number of illegal immigrants currently residing in America. I'll be waiting for that answer from the fervent Bush bashers. |
|
|
| PhloTron |
| quote: | Originally posted by rizen
(remember not relected, since he never got elected in the first place :p ) |
neither did lincoln...what a disaster that was too :D |
|
|
| occrider |
Ok first of all, even assuming that the Sarbanes-Oxley act was a miserable failure that failed to accomplish anything (which is false) it was not "Bush's corporate policies" as you stated. The bill was drawn up by Senator Paul Sarbanes (D) and Rep. Michael Oxley (R). Second of all, the bill passed the house of Representatives by a vote of 423-3 and passed the senate by 99-0. Bush merely put his John Hanon the bill. So if you're going to point a finger at somebody because of it, you should point it at a bipartisan effort by the legislative branch ;). Now, going into your arguments:
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
I was referring to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, and though it was a good start to corporate reform, it by no means addressed some other major issues, those loopholes that many corporations could fit a jetliner through:
1. Stock options won't be treated as a business expense
|
Of course there are loopholes. However, this whole jetliner thing I disagree. Just like there are loopholes in the criminal justice system where criminals sometimes go free. Shall we shred the bill of rights in order to perfect the capture of criminals? Or perhaps rid ourselves of "beyond a reasonable doubt" in favor of "with absolute certainty"? Come now, I know you're not too deep in the liberal drowning pool to know there are certain tradeoffs in life and there's typically a reason for most things :). So with that said, the tradeoff with expensing stock options is this:
| quote: |
In the U.S. and at the international level, proposed accounting standards would force all businesses to expense stock options provided to employees. The rule change comes in the wake of the big corporate scandals last year. Yet small businesses may end up paying the price for this controversial "reform" enacted to clean up the actions of a few bad players.
Stock options are used by businesses to attract and retain talented employees. They're an important tool for many small firms, particularly in the high-tech sector. Though bigger corporations can offer substantial benefit packages, they also find stock options to be a key incentive in attracting quality talent. But small firms contend they help to level the playing field for recruiting the best and the brightest.
"High-tech companies like ours need stock options for attracting and retaining the most capable workers. Stock options, given to the vast majority of our employees, provide our companies with a competitive edge for keeping skilled workers," said Dick Cook, President and CEO of MAPICS, an enterprise software developer, and chairman of the American Electronic Association (AEA), whose membership is largely made up of small companies.
With escalating health insurance costs and high expenses associated with establishing and administering pension plans, will small businesses find themselves down another benefit option to attract and keep quality employees? If the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) moves forward with its proposal to mandate expensing the answer is a resounding "yes," according to those who offer options to employees.
Mandated expensing makes little accounting sense: it will not give investors accurate or reliable information; it would incorporate flawed models for valuating options; and it will destroy broad-based plans, according to those who say there's a better way to financially capture stock option activity.
FASB is the organization that establishes standards of financial accounting and reporting in the United States. Their proposal has not been popular with the business community.
Cook and scores of other high-tech executives visited Capitol Hill recently to educate Congress about the FASB proposal and advocate for bipartisan legislation that would improve financial transparency and reporting without harming the future of stock options, or the businesses that provide them.
"We're here to let Congress know that the Financial Accounting Standards Board proposal to expense stock options will hurt rank-and-file employees' ability to participate in the ownership of their own company," expressed Cook.
Expensing doesn't make accounting sense. There is no cost incurred by companies when they issue stock options to employees. Rather, they represent "capital income" and not compensation. Therefore, the basic expensing precept is misguided.
"Options remain a good deal for average workers, even today. For one thing, most companies grant them over and above the market wage they pay. They do so because options represent a share of the firm's future wealth; they're a form of profit sharing, which means they're capital income, not labor income," according to the findings of Rutgers University professors Joseph Blasi and Douglas Kruse.
Their book, "In the Company of Owners: The Truth About Stock Options (And Why Every Employee Should Have Them)," defines stock options as "risk sharing based on joint property ownership." This "partnership capitalism" boosts corporate productivity, enhances shareholder returns and spurs innovation.
Employee stock options are already accounted for and disclosed through "diluted earnings per share." Valuating stock options is complex and unreliable. Existing models for valuating options can yield very different results depending upon the assumptions that companies use. The current models were created to value short-term, freely tradable options, which are different from employee options.
Beyond incompatible models, a company can't accurately guess when an option, or options, will be exercised. Still, they would be required to estimate the "costs" up front, recognize them, but not be given the opportunity to correct those estimates if they were wrong. The roller coaster ride of the stock market over the past several years demonstrates the complexity, not to mention the financial hazards, a company faces if forced to expense stock options during volatile market periods.
The end of broad-based stock options?
If expensing is mandated, all-employee plans would be more "expensive" from an accounting perspective. Such broad-based programs would go by the wayside while executive plans prevail. Blasi sees the law of unintended consequences taking hold as expensing leads to stock option concentration.
"Expensing will make the problem worse. It will concentrate more stock options in the hands of executives. It's an ironic Greek tragedy if our solution for corporate reform is to exterminate employee ownership for the rest of the country and keep if for top executives," writes Blasi.
Bipartisan legislation has been introduced that would preclude the need for mandatory expensing. The Broad-Based Stock Option Transparency Act of 2003, introduced by Reps. David Dreier (R-CA) and Anna Eshoo (D-CA) in the House, and Senators John Ensign (R-NV) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA) in the Senate, directs the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) to establish new financial disclosure rules for stock option plans. Under the proposal, the SEC would monitor the effectiveness of the enhanced disclosure and reporting requirement for three years, and report their findings to Congress.
During the three-year period, the SEC would not recognize the FASB stock option accounting standard. "The SEC needs to examine the broader impact of this decision before unaccountable officials create rules that will destroy incentives and rewards to rank-and-file employees," remarked Senator Boxer. The FASB proposal, she added, is "bad for workers, bad for the economy, and bad for investors."
Not to mention small businesses, which are increasingly using stock options to innovate, grow and survive in our competitive economy.
|
With all the burden being placed upon businesses as it is, you would further like to crimp small business growth by eliminating this business tool? Yes it is succeptible to abuse however, the rest of the Sarbanes-Oxley act is designed to prevent the abuse and corporate mishandling of companies such that executives don't even have the opportunity to exploit the options loophole. With that said, Sarbanes-Oxley DID place some restrictions on stock options. While stock options are still acceptable as a form of compensation post-Sarbanes-Oxley, and reporting stock option grants by footnote is still permitted, a corporation's financing of an option's strike price for executives is now illegal. Specifically, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act prohibits all personal loans by public corporations to their executive officers. Meaning, the act makes it unlawful for a public company to, directly or indirectly, extend or arrange for credit in the form of a personal loan to any of its directors or executive officers. The prohibition applies to all loans not merely loans extended by the cashless exercise feature of stock options.
One last note on this issue, if my research is correct, the only country that HAS expensed stock options, which it did ON January 1st, 2004, is Canada. And they loovvvee sending us their mad beef so what do they know? :p
| quote: |
2. Offshore tax havens are still allowed
|
Sarbanes-Oxley was not about rewriting the IRS's tax laws. It was about compromising an auditor's independance in performing tax planning and selling tax shelters to clients. In itself there is nothing wrong with the concept of tax planning. If certain states have enacted cheaper corporate tax laws in order to attract business, it is hardly illegal to structure a company's organization in order to take advantage of tax breaks. It's no worse than consumers going to Deleware to take advantage of tax free shopping, or citizens moving to oregon/new hampshire in order to have no state income tax. What was at stake was an auditor's impartiality in performing company audits. What Sarbanes Oxley did was to allow tax services to be provided only at the approval of the client's board audit committee. Get enough people involved in order limit corporate malfeanse. Whether this is enough is debatable, however, the SEC (which is populated by bues right ... his tentacles stop at nowhere!! ;)) went beyond even the provisions established by Sarbanes-Oxley and recquired audit committees to subject aggressive tax strategies to stricter scrutiny than anything in place today.
As a matter of fact, the SEC has done an excellent job in enhancing requirements above and beyond Sarbanes-Oxley if you care to read:
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily...030130_7942.htm
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily...030130_1614.htm
| quote: |
3. No pension fund reform
|
I'm gonna save this one for later ;) ... this post is rapidly approaching critical ingore length and considering the topic at hand it's probably already gone too far :(. Plus I need some beers.
Just to name a few.
| quote: |
And then just a few hours after Bush signed the bill into law, he issued an interpretation of the law undercutting a provision designed to make it easier for employees to expose corporate crooks.
Thanks Bush. Nice.
|
Haven't heard much about this.
| quote: |
I also know that Bush proposed a 27% decrease in SEC funding back in 2002, in accordance to a letter Pat Leahy (one of the Sarbanes-Oxley authors) wrote to Harvey Pitt (SEC chairman) back in Oct. 2002. I admit I do not know if Bush's proposal went through, but it seems to undermine the SEC's duties for enforcing the new Act when it gets its funding cut so much.
|
First I heard of this.
| quote: |
It's understandable that some businesses are having a tough time, however I feel the current provisions combined with other much needed provisions are absolutely necessary.
|
I agree on current provisions. Time will tell about others ...
| quote: |
But this is getting off topic, so I'll swing it back around. The point I'm making is I question the ability to enforce such corporate reform acts, and I would question in the same token (albeit a different arm of government) how well Bush would require enforcement of the corporations giving priority to American citizens. Seems to me that corporations want the cheapest labor possible, and if they can hire a green-card immigrant at $5.15/hour over an American citizen who likely has other work experience, they would do so if they could.
Okay, maybe I'm reaching a bit on this point.
|
But the point is, is that if Americans are unwilling to wash dishes at the minimum wage of $5.15 an hour, why not give it to an immigrant? The reason why they are giving the job to immigrants is largely because no educated/uppity/whatever American wants it ... or they can take advantage of teh fact that they are illegal and can pay $2.15 an hour or whatever. If you have to pay 2 guys the same pay and provide the same benefits why does it matter to the employer who you give the job to? It only matters to the citizen and that's why teh government are telling employers to give priority to citizens. And from what I hear one idea is to allow companies to hire immigrants something like 30 days after the job is posted. Therefore any american who wants it can have it. I'm not sure that's what they're going to do ... they're taking a bunch of advice from dems and everyone alike.
| quote: |
I question just how far those labor rights will go to these immigrants. Regardless, the point of receiving taxes from them is a good one. My whole point is I see this more or less as a movement toward a stronger base for corporations (like Wal-Mart) to hire low-paying jobs, which ultimately hurt those other living-wage type jobs that work collectively with unions for the benefit of the worker. I don't want to get into an argument about living-wage vs. base salary stuff, but I do believe this does benefit the corporation at the ultimate expense of the low-paid worker. Thus giving little incentive and less possibilities for the low-wage worker to move up and into the middle class (which I believe ultimately drives and sustains the economy long-term).
|
From what I read, they get the same labor rights. Therefore they get the same pay. If corporations were to hire them in order to "crowd out" union members why couldn't they do that right now? What's preventing them from hiring citizens on the basis that they don't join a union?
| quote: |
You know, I actually agree with the conservatives on this to a certain extent.
|
Oh my God the world is going to end tomorrow :p
| quote: |
Call me weird, but I also see illegial immigration ultimately hurting society to some degree. Like you mentioned - many avoid taxes, and many are already used illegially by corporations (*ahem* Walmart) for cheap labor. In reality, our country would come to a grinding halt if illegial immigrants went on a strike - they compose so much of our corporate businesses. In essence I believe the ultra-Conservatives who want a tightening on the borders are using doublespeak - they believe this is a solution to many of our standard of living problems, yet they know corporations utilize their cheap (and likely illegial) labor.
|
I think of them as a problem too. There was a thread a while back where I said as much. I said something like "if they don't pay taxes, deport the bastards" :). But I said a good solution to the problem is to legalize them and then CLAMP DOWN on the borders. Then impose strict fines on companies in violation of hiring aliens. So Bush almost has it right ;) ... u gotta give him credit for being as bold as this. All the arch-conservatives are probably smoting him with bibles as we speak.
| quote: |
Okay, then let me just say I've got extremely guarded optimism about this whole thing. Besides, you can't neglect the political aspect of this for Bush. I know you concentrate a great deal on the business/economic aspect of this, but this measure wreaks of political schmoozing to the immigrant minorities.
Face it, you're just biased.:toothless
|
Of course I am :). I'm grand dragon cheney. And yess it does wreak (reek?) of political schmoozing but I'm not entirely sure how effective it is. On the one hand he kisses hispanic ass, but on the other hand hispanics are poor and Bush isn't looked kindly upon by the poor. Additionally he's got all the racist "moral" bible thumpers and all the border states turning on him.
I swear to god ... asides from the tax cuts and the whole war thing (except the Iraq reconstruction ... those dems loooovvveee their nation building :D ) Bush is a damned democrat in disguise. And he's leading all the republicans away from core republican beliefs! Are you SURE you guys didn't have something to do with his election??? :p |
|
|
| NYCTrancefan |
| I actually hope this policy stalls in Congress and never gets anywhere, I believe that it will only contribute to encouraging more people to stream in across the border as long as they can get a low wage job in the orchards of Cali and Florida or slaughterhouses of the MidWest and the borders remain as porous as ever in the Southwest. I was for it until I realised this sad reality. way to encourage the smugglers aka coyotes. Come to America the right way like legal immigrants do, it wouldn't hurt to learn the English language as well. I'll be sure to make my mom vote Clark for President. Something about this guy(he has that Presidential look) that resonates with me more than Dean ever will. Clark even looks more (Republican). Wish he was more visible but now that he is moving up the polls, hope he runs over Dean and leaves him for roadkill in the primaries. |
|
|
| DaveSaenz |
| quote: | Originally posted by PhloTron
neither did lincoln... |
Heh, no I don’t think so…
http://www.multied.com/elections/1860.html
Lincoln won the popular vote and electoral votes by a large margin despite not garnering any votes in the South (he probably was not even on the ballot in those states with zero votes). The Southern Democrats had threatened to secede from the union if a Republican candidate won, but the Republicans and Lincoln felt they were bluffing. Within 90 days of his election however, most Southern states had seceded. PBS has a cool series running about Honest Abe, Mary Lincoln, and the Civil War. The next episode is about Reconstruction.
;)
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
I'm surprised DaveSaenz hasn't posted this yet ;)
|
I haven’t had as much time to post on TA lately, and I'm still forming an opinion about this new plan as I read more about it. Since many of my ancestors have lived in Texas for over 200 years (when it was Spain), I don't really understand your comment since it wouldn’t affect me much personally.
It’s obvious we do need immigration reform though, and I think from a homeland security standpoint, it’s better to know who the people are that come across the border. Most of them are good and decent people that are only trying to help their families, but there will always be troublemakers. Many of those same people that have in the past been in the drug smuggling business are now getting into the people smuggling business. It’s often more lucrative than drug smuggling, and I believe there is also less of a penalty if caught. In Arizona they are even having shootouts on the highway between rival smuggling gangs, and the problem seems much worse than in Texas.
http://www.azcentral.com/specials/s...ecutions06.html
Of course, it’s doubtful that any Al Queda operatives that come across the Mexican border will stand up to be counted by our government.
Oftentimes, I can’t help but feel that some who oppose immigration from Mexico and South America are often racist in their sentiments based on some of their comments. Take this guy from a random message board for example:
| quote: | | Anyone crosing the border into the USA illeaglly should be shot on sight. |
|
|
|
| rizen |
| quote: | Originally posted by NYCTrancefan
IDRM - It doesn't really matter what Bush says because people often break into two camps those who support him and those who loathe him. |
id be all up for this but it has some problems, as i will describe next... either way its just to get more votes.
| quote: | Originally posted by NYCTrancefan
There is a legal path to enter America and stay, its called Permanent Residency followed by Citizenship (I did it). Illegal means illegal, if a Democratic president had proposed this policy people would have hailed it as a great humanitarian feat, Bush did it its a political ploy, c'mon people at least try to be fair and see past the usual anti-Bush feelings. |
if i was in the illegal's situation, id rather pay the fine and become legal or join the military  and at least have more rights. remember its only a 3 year work permit.
This new immigration reform isn’t an amnesty at all—no matter what the opponents say. What it really is is a new bracero program. In the 40’s immigrants from Mexico could come into the country and work very hard to earn the right to stay here. The employers exploited the employees constantly, and it was a mess from front to back. Deportations, intimidation, everything—just a bit better than slavery.
Most of the details of the program Bush is proposing haven’t been released yet (typical); and one of the points being missed by everyone is that immigrants can renew in the work program if they have no green card yet—but they will have no guarantee of ever getting a green card. There aren’t any plans for citizenship worked in—no concrete plans, anyway. It’s creating a permanent third (lower) class of citizens. And all of this is just an attempt to woo Hispanic voters in the first place. Read the conflicting reaction here. |
|
|
| rizen |
| quote: | Originally posted by PhloTron
neither did lincoln...what a disaster that was too :D |
damn him, freeing the slaves and not letting the south create their own country, wtf was he thinking |
|
|
|
|
