|
Bush's Illegal Immigrant Plan (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by rizen
id be all up for this but it has some problems, as i will describe next... either way its just to get more votes.
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.
|
Yes perhaps it would be a bracero program, EXCEPT the immigrants are afforded the SAME labor standards that a citizen is. It's pretty hard to be a 2nd class citizen when you are given the same rights a regular citizen has.
| quote: |
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. |
Well of course immigrants who have ILLEGALLY entered the country shouldn't be afforded MORE of an opportunity to obtain a green card over a person who has LEGALLY gone through the process. What kind of ed up thinking is that? The law essentially translates to this: Look, I KNOW you're in the country illegally and I know I can't get rid of you. Just pay your taxes, work and contribute to the economy, and then you won't have to face the fears of deportation so long as you are working ... which is NO different than before except NOW you get at least minimum wage and similar worker benefits. Wtf? I'm fighting both liberals and conservatives with respect to my support for this policy? That tells me I must be doing something right.
Edit: And it also tells me why moderates typically never win :rolleyes: |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: |
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.
|
Oops I meant liquidX based upon his opinions on this thread:
http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...egal+immigrants |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by 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 ;).[QUOTE]
The fact that there was a bipartisan effort doesn't necessarily make it a strong law by all accounts (just bear with me here). To a lesser degree it kinda reminds me of the recent Medicare Bill - less bipartisan but still bipartisan and heavily influenced by the public's desire for reform. This was a bipartisan effort because of politics, period. The public outcry would have been so incredibly loud if ANY politician decided to either stall or vote against any corporate reform, given the events of Enron/WorldCom at that present time, and every person in the Legislative branch new that. Would anything have occured in Congress had there not been an public need of beheading corporate behemoths (say those last 3 words 10 times fast, kinda fun really)? No way.
That's not to say at all that the Sarbanes-Oxley Act was a good and necessary bill needed to be passed. It most certainly was, and no it wasn't a "miserable failure" (did I call it that?). I'm not debating that here. But it was merely a start, and yes there are loopholes that didn't get addressed, or rather got successfully lobbied down by Bush and mostly big tech corporations (International Employees Stock Option Coalition).
[QUOTE]Now, going into your arguments:
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:
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 |
Well we caught our companies redhanded with their collective hands in the cookie jars. So our country has a responsibility to do something about that (and it partially did). The argument of "well other countries don't do it" sounds like the grade school argument of "so and so can get away with it, why can't I?". We have a responsibility to our shareholders and workers. Screw the other countries who don't follow such a responsibility. If other countries' corporations show no accountability, is that a rightful excuse for ours to do the same?
As one editorial writer wrote:
"Accounting should provide a realistic picture of a business. If a company trades stock options for inputs such as labor, then failing to reflect the options' value understates the costs to the company of buying the inputs and thus overstates earnings. Period."
http://www.cei.org/gencon/019,02425.cfm
This is about accountability. If companies want to inflate their stocks with these options, they are in the wrong - it's simply unethical.
The story you posted seems to sum up well the arguments against stock options. Let's go over some of these arguments:
a. You can't value stock options, thus introducing unnecessary inaccuracies in the corporate financial books.
- This is somewhat true, however just because there's no precise measure of value doesn't mean they have no real value, does it? If options were put on the market they would most certainly have a value. If options didn't have any value, corporate execs. wouldn't be so darned eager to receive them (considering that's where the majority of options value go). Besides, businesses have seemingly found a way of valuing options when they take the tax deductions for expenses now haven't they? If these options are accounted for during tax deductions, why wouldn't they share the same equal value when they are given? This is a faulty argument simply based on the companies' (and politicians for that matter) unwillingness to give an objective value on the options. It can and should be done, and we need more than the Black-Scholes model, esp. during times of volatility. Do I know of any way to do this? Hell no! I'm already talking out my ass a little bit, but it seems logical that an objective value can be placed on options in the future.
b. Rank-and-file employees will be hit hardest if expensing is considered, hurting those who are attempting to "climb the corporate ladder."
- Sounds like a familiar corporate threat that's often given whenever there's a regulation that would effect their profit - it will hurt the "common worker." This, however, is pretty slanted view, because the rank-and-file employees do not receive much options in the first place. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, only 1.7% of non-executive employees get options. The vast majority of options are concentrated among executives and CEOs. Business Week also noted that 80% of the stock options value goes to the most senior executives (no direct link to article, sorry). According to the Economist, stock options accounted for 58% of the pay of U.S. CEOs in 2001. That same year, the average CEO earned an outrageous $10.83 million - or 411 times the average worker. If corporations want to keep attracting talented employees, they will find a way to offer incentives, even if they have to account for the costs honestly.
Consider how many other companies have decided (or will soon decide) to expense stock options (quite a few big names here):
http://enzi.senate.gov/current.htm
Now granted, many of these companies that decided to expense stock options are of the low stock price volatility and good cash flow kind. But with a better model of pricing options, this could eliminate those concerns of stocks that are more succeptable to market volatility.
c. Stock options help start-up companies attract employees and invest them in the company's future.
-Is this to say that companies would stop issuing options if they had to be expensed? Hardly. It also seems to suggest that the only way that start-up companies can take off in this country is if we loosen our accounting standards and allow companies to issue misleading financial statements. For those against expensing options, do you really think that entrepreneurship and innovation should depend on maintaining devious accounting standards?
Besides, allowing footnote expenses is still something pretty big in my view. By allowing this what's to prevent the dilution of shareholder value and continuance of overstating company earnings? You can't dismiss that part off - it needs to be more than just a mere footnote. Jesus, Anderson Consulting lived and died by footnote accounting (among other bad practices, of course), we really want this to continue?
Bottom line - I don't agree with the options based on these arguments. It may certainly hurt small businesses, and to a lesser degree large businesses in the short term, but long-term it would help keep accounting practices honest. The Sarbanes-Oxley act was a good start, but failing to address this issue missed the boat on one of the biggest concerns with Enron/Worldcom/etc.
2. Offshore corporate tax shelters-
| quote: | 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 |
The first article was a little informative, but seemed a little more than a "boo hoo the media is out to get us" type attitude. Must have been another liberal media conspiracy thing. The second article gives more detail, specifically about the tax shelters, which states:
| quote: | Tax Shelters:
In Sarbanes-Oxley, Congress specifically allowed auditors to provide tax services for their clients, provided that the client's board audit committee approved in advance. When the SEC drafted its consulting rules, it asked for comments on whether aggressive tax planning -- such as selling tax shelters to a client -- compromised an auditor's independence.
That was widely interpreted as a bid to ban auditors from advising clients on tax shelters. But SEC officials say they never intended such a ban. The final rule requires audit committees to subject aggressive tax strategies to strict scrutiny, and that's a tougher standard than anything in force today or proposed in Sarbanes-Oxley. |
The only sentence that addressed tax shelters was the last one. How much strict scrutiny is required? What are the objective standards of "strict scrutiny"? Doesn't say. It may be a tougher standard than anything in force today or proposed in Sarbanes-Oxley, but if those are the standards of comparison, that doesn't say much at all for strict regulations, does it? That's like saying we should punish murderers harsher by giving them a good spanking, rather than by our old standards of telling them they're just "bad people." (pretty bad analogy, but you get my point).
No, Sarbanes-Oxley wasn't about tax havens, but what is wrong with addressing this issue? Why couldn't it have? The fact is we're losing revenue because profitable U.S. companies are using fancy footwork to avoid paying taxes. Say a company moves to Bermuda - by incorporating itself there, a U.S.-based corporation can (without moving its headquarters or anything else) shelter its overseas profits from taxation. Better yet, the company can then establish "legal residence" in a low-tax jurisdiction like Barbados, and arrange things so that its U.S. operations are mysteriously unprofitable, while the mail drop in Barbados earns money hand over fist. This is tax evasion, plain and simple.
Bush himself has pushed this. With a series of little-noticed executive orders, he has "provided corporations with billions of dollars in tax relief without the consent of Congress." (article from The Hill - no link again, sorry). Thanks again, Bush.
The IRS estimates that offshore tax havens are siphoning off at least $70 billion each year from the U.S. Treasury. And that number doesn't include the billions in taxes that corporations avoid paying by creating offshore subsidiaries. Now realistically even if laws were created to curtail this practice, not all of that $70 billion would be seen. But Jesus, $70 F$CKING BILLION? Unreal.
Sidenote: The ultimate irony story on an offshore company: Accenture. That company has over $1 billion in federal contracts, which relocated to Bermuda in 2001. Guess what one of those contracts entails: a five year deal to redesign the IRS web site.
My question is, why do we not have an obligation to do something about this?
You may counter that tax breaks are not offered to companies as needed here in the U.S. I actually see this in my hometown - we have a conflict in our city commission with interested companies that want to move in our city. The problem: the city commission, for a variety of sound reasons, doesn't want to continue giving tax breaks for businesses to move in. Look, if the corporation doesn't want to pay taxes, why the f$ck does it feel it has the right to fly the US flag and say it's from our country? I'm sick and tired of hearing about companies not willing to pay taxes. If that forces short-term hardships on the company/economy, so be it. It needs to be done. Skipping out on $70/year is inexcusable. Something must be done, at least something needs to be started.
| quote: | 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. |
Why do we keep doing this? Are we both too lazy to start another damn thread, rather than continually hijacking others? We're pathetic.
| quote: | 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.
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? |
Honestly I don't know enough about the Union's stance on the matter -it was pure speculation on my part, so I'll reserve comment on that for the future.
I just heard an NPR Fresh Air report on this subject this morning. Have to say it argued much of what you were saying. I honestly am not too terribly passionate about this as much as I thought I would be. I'll still hold some very guarded optimism, but provided all provisions are properly regulated. If it's loosely regulated, it could potentially become a mutant version of bracero. For now, I'll side with Bush and agree it's a good measure (*cringes*).
| quote: | | Oh my God the world is going to end tomorrow :p |
I told you I use to be more of a Centrist. I occasionally share views on the other side of the aisle. Old thoughts/habits die hard.:D
| quote: | | 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. |
Truly the first I heard about this possibility. Though I wouldn't dismiss it - you're probably right.
| quote: | 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 |
Bush WREAKS of attempts to please everyone he can right before the election. This WREAKS of political maneuvering to buy votes. It's funny because he does seem to WREAK of a few liberal notions - big ass spending bills, kissing hispanic ass, and so on. However, he still WREAKS of the majority of Republican and neo-con agenda. I seriously doubt he'll lose any border state votes in the South over this. Them thar Southerners luuuuuv that WREAKIN' Bush booy!
Is "wreak" really spelled wrong? Where's my dictionary, damnit? |
|
|
| Shakka |
Take your pick--I think you meant the second one.
WREAK: v. To inflict (vengeance or punishment) upon a person.
To expres or gratify (anger, malevolence or resentment); vent.
To bring about; cause, wreak havoc.
{archaic} To take vengeance for; avenge.
REEK: v. To smoke, steam or fume.
To be pervaded by something unpleasant. "This document...reeks of self-pity and self-deception." (Christopher Hitchens).
To give off or become permeated with a strong unpleasant odor. "Grandma, who reeks of face powder and lilac water." (Garrison Keillor)
v. To emit or exude(smoke for example)
To process or treat by exposing to the action of smoke.
n. A strong offensive odor; a stench; vapor; steam. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Take your pick--I think you meant the second one.
WREAK: v. To inflict (vengeance or punishment) upon a person.
To expres or gratify (anger, malevolence or resentment); vent.
To bring about; cause, wreak havoc.
{archaic} To take vengeance for; avenge.
REEK: v. To smoke, steam or fume.
To be pervaded by something unpleasant. "This document...reeks of self-pity and self-deception." (Christopher Hitchens).
To give off or become permeated with a strong unpleasant odor. "Grandma, who reeks of face powder and lilac water." (Garrison Keillor)
v. To emit or exude(smoke for example)
To process or treat by exposing to the action of smoke.
n. A strong offensive odor; a stench; vapor; steam. |
Ahh yes, I stand corrected sir.
Many thanks! |
|
|
| occrider |
You do make some good points opus. Unfortunately I'm not going to have time until Monday to dig into your arguments ... skipping out on work tomorrow (my most productive time to post :p) to go skiing. I think we are just at odds as to the effectivness of Sarbanes-Oxley given the costs associated with it. I feel that while the larger corporations easily have the capability to absorb any industry changes, the smaller firms won't be able to cope:
http://www.nylawyer.com/news/02/12/121902d.html
There is such a thing as TOO much regulation implementation at one time. Therefore while I am all for the corrections Sarbanes-Oxley have made, I'm somewhat hesistant to advocate more reform until we see what kind of impact SOX has in eroding corporate scandals and restoring investor confidence. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
You do make some good points opus. Unfortunately I'm not going to have time until Monday to dig into your arguments ... skipping out on work tomorrow (my most productive time to post :p) to go skiing. I think we are just at odds as to the effectivness of Sarbanes-Oxley given the costs associated with it. I feel that while the larger corporations easily have the capability to absorb any industry changes, the smaller firms won't be able to cope:
http://www.nylawyer.com/news/02/12/121902d.html
There is such a thing as TOO much regulation implementation at one time. Therefore while I am all for the corrections Sarbanes-Oxley have made, I'm somewhat hesistant to advocate more reform until we see what kind of impact SOX has in eroding corporate scandals and restoring investor confidence. |
Yeah, I'll go with that for now too.
Give a good "yodle" for me on the slopes. Damn I miss the mountains. |
|
|
| LiquidX |
- First of all. I only read the first three posts, and the main post. I will not go through the 4 pages, since from what I have read on the first posts, I know that they generated into many branches and such. I will respond probably to all the posts made.
- To me, the initiative of presidents bush's imigration reform plan, is a move to gain hispanic support for the 04 campaign.- Obviously, the hispanic votes are gaining more and more momentum on elections, plus, they are the biggest minority in the US. Anyways. Bush's Plan is a total burocrat crap. There are 12 million+ current illegal inmigrants, while with Expired visas ( tourists,buisness,students etc etc.. ) to those illegal undocumented. Bush's proposal is very inadequate, and so insecure, that it will be a total failure. The plan does not secure, or ensure the inmigrants a citizenship ( wish is what they want ), and/or permanent stay. Bush clearly said that after 3 years, when that temporary visa that it gives, and they are fired from their job, loose their job or whichever the situation, they will have to go back to their countries, or get kicked out by inmigration( Those that apply for this will fully show themselfs to the Inmigration authorities ). So, why are this illegal inmigrants illegal in the first place. << Thats an easy answer. Because they hope that some day they become legal someway or another, and because of the vast opportunitties that the US gives them. With 12 million inmigrants, the US economy does move with that amount of people. Take notice that many illegal inmigrants, I mean many pay their taxes, and those taxes may not fully get back to them as it should. Thats the obvious reason of why the US customs is not kicking out illegal inmigrants massively. - The second point, that Bush did hit the nail with, is that he proposed this plan majorly because of security reasons. By unveiling a plan that favors the inmigrants, they will show their faces, and therefore have authorities know who lives in this country. With that in mind, yes, a plan for helping out making this inmigrants legal is a must. It will indeed help out the economy ( Alen Greenspan had said ), and it will make this country MUSCH secure ( Tom Reidge had said ). And, it will help out those students that DO want to be somebody, and make their ambitious dreams come true ( the students ). So yeah, the Plan that Bush proposed is not adequate, because it does not say that it will give this inmigrants a citizenship or protect them from being deported. A plan like Reagan did in 1986 would be a very good idea, and from then on, place all efforts, as they are becoming now, to stop the illegal inmigration. Another plan that its in congress and sounds much better to me, is to make legal those that pay taxes, and have no criminal background become legal, plus the dream act, that will favor those students that qualify with exellent grades, and that came to this country when they were under 16 yrs of age ( its not even their fault to be illegal ), and therefore, be able to qualify for university's. Overall, yes, Bush's plan is a weak effort to make an adequate inmigration reform for the 12+million illegal inmigrants. Yes, the plan will receive bashings from both conservatives and for those that want the inmigrants legal, because Bush's plan just doesnt do it. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by LiquidX
- First of all. I only read the first three posts, and the main post. I will not go through the 4 pages, since from what I have read on the first posts, I know that they generated into many branches and such. I will respond probably to all the posts made.
- To me, the initiative of presidents bush's imigration reform plan, is a move to gain hispanic support for the 04 campaign.- Obviously, the hispanic votes are gaining more and more momentum on elections, plus, they are the biggest minority in the US. Anyways. Bush's Plan is a total burocrat crap. There are 12 million+ current illegal inmigrants, while with Expired visas ( tourists,buisness,students etc etc.. ) to those illegal undocumented. Bush's proposal is very inadequate, and so insecure, that it will be a total failure. The plan does not secure, or ensure the inmigrants a citizenship ( wish is what they want ), and/or permanent stay. Bush clearly said that after 3 years, when that temporary visa that it gives, and they are fired from their job, loose their job or whichever the situation, they will have to go back to their countries, or get kicked out by inmigration( Those that apply for this will fully show themselfs to the Inmigration authorities ). So, why are this illegal inmigrants illegal in the first place. << Thats an easy answer. Because they hope that some day they become legal someway or another, and because of the vast opportunitties that the US gives them. With 12 million inmigrants, the US economy does move with that amount of people. Take notice that many illegal inmigrants, I mean many pay their taxes, and those taxes may not fully get back to them as it should. Thats the obvious reason of why the US customs is not kicking out illegal inmigrants massively. - The second point, that Bush did hit the nail with, is that he proposed this plan majorly because of security reasons. By unveiling a plan that favors the inmigrants, they will show their faces, and therefore have authorities know who lives in this country. With that in mind, yes, a plan for helping out making this inmigrants legal is a must. It will indeed help out the economy ( Alen Greenspan had said ), and it will make this country MUSCH secure ( Tom Reidge had said ). And, it will help out those students that DO want to be somebody, and make their ambitious dreams come true ( the students ). So yeah, the Plan that Bush proposed is not adequate, because it does not say that it will give this inmigrants a citizenship or protect them from being deported. A plan like Reagan did in 1986 would be a very good idea, and from then on, place all efforts, as they are becoming now, to stop the illegal inmigration. Another plan that its in congress and sounds much better to me, is to make legal those that pay taxes, and have no criminal background become legal, plus the dream act, that will favor those students that qualify with exellent grades, and that came to this country when they were under 16 yrs of age ( its not even their fault to be illegal ), and therefore, be able to qualify for university's. Overall, yes, Bush's plan is a weak effort to make an adequate inmigration reform for the 12+million illegal inmigrants. Yes, the plan will receive bashings from both conservatives and for those that want the inmigrants legal, because Bush's plan just doesnt do it. |
He can't give the immigrants green cards. Because that would be tantamount to an amnesty program which wouldn't stand a chance of passing in congress. And furthermore, as I stated in my previous argument, what kind of message are you sending to all immigrants who legally entered the country and have legally applied to become citizens by giving green card priority to illegal immigrants? That plan simply will not fly in any context. Now, whether you think it's political maneuvering or not, the plan has quite a number of positive merits that actually stand half a chance of being passed. Asides from security concerns the plan provides multiple benefits to immigrant workers:
A) Immigrants would be free to travel the country and even LEAVE the country and come back.
B) Immigrants would be provided full worker rights including minimum wage, and social security benefits and retirement benefits that are trasnferable to Mexico.
C) Workers would now have access to the green card application process which they previously did not have access to.
Furthermore, the plan calls for an increasement of the yearly allotment of green card awards and the temporary guest worker visas are renewable. Now if you can tell me that the immigrant worker would be worse off under this plan then I'm simply at a loss for words. Granted many details have to be worked out but on face value to dismiss the the overall benefits of the plan as a whole without seeing the details that have yet to be ironed out seems somewhat obtuse. But even assuming the plan is not beneficial to migrant workers, then can simply REMAIN illegal aliens so what's the big deal? |
|
|
| LiquidX |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
He can't give the immigrants green cards. Because that would be tantamount to an amnesty program which wouldn't stand a chance of passing in congress. And furthermore, as I stated in my previous argument, what kind of message are you sending to all immigrants who legally entered the country and have legally applied to become citizens by giving green card priority to illegal immigrants? That plan simply will not fly in any context. Now, whether you think it's political maneuvering or not, the plan has quite a number of positive merits that actually stand half a chance of being passed. Asides from security concerns the plan provides multiple benefits to immigrant workers:
A) Immigrants would be free to travel the country and even LEAVE the country and come back.
B) Immigrants would be provided full worker rights including minimum wage, and social security benefits and retirement benefits that are trasnferable to Mexico.
C) Workers would now have access to the green card application process which they previously did not have access to.
Furthermore, the plan calls for an increasement of the yearly allotment of green card awards and the temporary guest worker visas are renewable. Now if you can tell me that the immigrant worker would be worse off under this plan then I'm simply at a loss for words. Granted many details have to be worked out but on face value to dismiss the the overall benefits of the plan as a whole without seeing the details that have yet to be ironed out seems somewhat obtuse. But even assuming the plan is not beneficial to migrant workers, then can simply REMAIN illegal aliens so what's the big deal? |
- Yes, you are certainly right, but I look at it through a different perspective. I know that theres many illegal mexican workers, but they dont make up even half the 12 million illegal inmigrants. There are many illegal inmigrants, which, like I said, are not farmworkers. Many are professionals who just happen to have fled their countries for a better opportunitty in this country.- Theres no word also on how are bosses supposed to be monitored that they are following the rules. The downside to this plan, which is probably the critical point, is that this plan does not GUARANTEE this inmigrants a green card, and as you say, that would sound like an anmesty, and congress wont pass it .. true, I would agree to that, and thats why I would go with other plans proposed, where it would separate those inmgrants that HAVE paid their taxes, and have no criminal records, although that would be unfair for those that dont, but that plan seems to me a more acceptable plan that congress would accept on giving green cards, obviously because it wont be an anmesty.. fair trial. As of that green card application, Im still unsure and how that would work, all I understand with this plan is that this illegal inmigrants would surface, get that 3 year temporary visa, and work where they are needed .. and once again, the donwside comes to .. WHat if they are fired, or they loose their job??.. and what would most likely happen when the visa expires?!?!.. well, if they dont renew their visa, or if they loose the job and their visa expires, then they would be forced to go back to their country.. and the cycle begins again.. and thats the chance that this illegal inmigrants are unlikely to take.. be exposed and take the chance to have to get back to their country after 3 years if one of those things I mentioned happens. There are many other plans been proposed on Congress, and they are not anmesty's, and sound much better then this one.. this is just gotten the attetion since the president presented it. I go with the paln that Dick Gephard presented. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by LiquidX
- Yes, you are certainly right, but I look at it through a different perspective. I know that theres many illegal mexican workers, but they dont make up even half the 12 million illegal inmigrants. There are many illegal inmigrants, which, like I said, are not farmworkers. Many are professionals who just happen to have fled their countries for a better opportunitty in this country.- Theres no word also on how are bosses supposed to be monitored that they are following the rules. The downside to this plan, which is probably the critical point, is that this plan does not GUARANTEE this inmigrants a green card, and as you say, that would sound like an anmesty, and congress wont pass it .. true, I would agree to that, and thats why I would go with other plans proposed, where it would separate those inmgrants that HAVE paid their taxes, and have no criminal records, although that would be unfair for those that dont, but that plan seems to me a more acceptable plan that congress would accept on giving green cards, obviously because it wont be an anmesty.. fair trial. As of that green card application, Im still unsure and how that would work, all I understand with this plan is that this illegal inmigrants would surface, get that 3 year temporary visa, and work where they are needed .. and once again, the donwside comes to .. WHat if they are fired, or they loose their job??.. and what would most likely happen when the visa expires?!?!.. well, if they dont renew their visa, or if they loose the job and their visa expires, then they would be forced to go back to their country.. and the cycle begins again.. and thats the chance that this illegal inmigrants are unlikely to take.. be exposed and take the chance to have to get back to their country after 3 years if one of those things I mentioned happens. There are many other plans been proposed on Congress, and they are not anmesty's, and sound much better then this one.. this is just gotten the attetion since the president presented it. I go with the paln that Dick Gephard presented. |
Well as much as I would want to help every immigrant that comes to this country and give them their "streets made out of gold" the fact of the matter is is that we can only do so much to help them. We can't give every immigrant who's working in this country the right to gain citizenship simply because they haven't committed a crime because that would be tantamount to having an open border and allowing anyone who wants to come in, to come in and be a citizen. Even Holland, a bastion of liberal politics, has strict immigration laws in order to control the services a state provides to its citizen. That said, my view has always been that if you are an immigrant working in the US and contributing to the welfare of others, than you have a right to enjoy the social services the state provides. If you aren't working here and are contributing nothing than sorry tough luck. Considering the cons of the plan, where they could get fired and be forced to go back, appears to be no different than what's happening today: They could be caught by INS and deported. Or they could be fired and starve to death or live in slums. And like I said before, if they get fired and face deportation, why can't they simply go underground and run from the law as they are currently doing? |
|
|
| LiquidX |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Well as much as I would want to help every immigrant that comes to this country and give them their "streets made out of gold" the fact of the matter is is that we can only do so much to help them. We can't give every immigrant who's working in this country the right to gain citizenship simply because they haven't committed a crime because that would be tantamount to having an open border and allowing anyone who wants to come in, to come in and be a citizen. Even Holland, a bastion of liberal politics, has strict immigration laws in order to control the services a state provides to its citizen. That said, my view has always been that if you are an immigrant working in the US and contributing to the welfare of others, than you have a right to enjoy the social services the state provides. If you aren't working here and are contributing nothing than sorry tough luck. Considering the cons of the plan, where they could get fired and be forced to go back, appears to be no different than what's happening today: They could be caught by INS and deported. Or they could be fired and starve to death or live in slums. And like I said before, if they get fired and face deportation, why can't they simply go underground and run from the law as they are currently doing? |
- Hehehe.. well, you seem to be remarking some parts of my post but using them as if you are debating it with me. Im saying that yes, inmigrants that have NO criminal records AND pay their taxes and are hardworking, yes give them the chance.. that includes those that have lived in this country for more then five years and have met what I have just said, and thats what Dick Gephards plan is all about. Afterall, there has to be something done with them. After all that its done, all the regulations with inmigrations should be strictly enforced, but as of now, with 12 million+ illegal inmigrants, there has to be something done. And as of them getting caught or facing a risk, there is a difference. They have far more better chances not getting caught then taking the chance of getting out of the underground and giving themselfs to authority's without been guaranteed a stay and a citizenship.If they get fired and starve to death, mm that wont happen, and if it happens, they would go back to their country.. dont u think?.. so far I heavent heard no cases of them starving to death.
As to your last question, if they face deportation, they wont be able to run from the law as easy, or at least live without fear, with that in mind, if they decide to run from the law after they face deportation, chances of them getting caught are greater, because INS will have their full information, know who they are and track them down, and give priority on tracking THEM down instead of wasting their time looking for those that didnt register. |
|
|
|
|
