|
Bush's Illegal Immigrant Plan
|
View this Thread in Original format
| occrider |
I'm surprised DaveSaenz hasn't posted this yet ;)
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS...tion/index.html
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush will outline an immigration reform proposal Wednesday that would allow workers in the United States illegally to join a new temporary worker program and not lose their jobs, administration officials said.
Those immigrants could then apply for permanent residency, although those in the temporary worker program would get no preference over other "Green Card" applicants, the officials said.
About 150 guests will be invited to the White House East Room to hear the address, including members of immigration groups and others interested in such policy, said White House press secretary Scott McClellan.
Allowing those who illegally entered the United States to come forward and keep their jobs is the most controversial aspect of the plan.
Administration officials rejected the notion that it would amount to amnesty for illegal immigrants.
They said there is no guarantee those who join the new temporary worker program would qualify for Green Cards.
The workers would have no advantages if they do apply, the officials said, and they would be expected to return to their country of origin when their temporary visa expired.
Officials said the measure was designed largely for economic reasons -- to match "willing workers with willing employers," as administration officials put it.
The officials said the employers would have to show they cannot find U.S. citizens to fill their jobs.
They said getting undocumented workers to come forward would bring them into the tax system and "out of the shadows," as one official put it, and guarantee them wage and employment rights.
One of Bush's goals, the officials said, was to "promote compassion" and get Congress and the country to "understand the broken system" that now includes an estimated 8 million undocumented immigrants, most of them from Mexico.
The initiative will be unveiled days before Bush's visit next week to Mexico for a regional summit and talks with Mexican President Vicente Fox.
Immigration policy has been a source of frequent tension between the two leaders.
"We have discussed for a long time with Mexico the need for a more humane, safe, orderly migration policy," McClellan said.
But he said the September 11 attacks forced a shift in focus to border security.
According to several senior administration officials, Bush's initiative includes such highlights as:
• The new temporary worker program would include a three-year temporary visa, and Bush will ask Congress to allow one renewal -- for six years in all. Officials said they were open to allowing additional terms, subject to congressional negotiation.
• The program would be open to both legal and illegal immigrants, so long as those without papers could prove they were working in the United States as of the date the new policy becomes law.
Officials said that requirement would discourage a flood of new illegal immigration.
• Those who qualify as new legal temporary workers could apply for permanent residency under existing laws but would not receive favorable treatment. But the administration will urge Congress to increase the limit of 140,000 Green Cards issued each year.
The White House initiative is modeled after several pending proposals in Congress.
Arizona Republican Rep. Jim Kolbe, for example, has called for a temporary worker program if employers first posted jobs on the Internet for 14 days to give U.S. citizens first crack at the positions.
It also tracks many proposals advocated by Democrats, who suspect that Bush's true goal is to court the growing Latino population.
In 2000, 7 percent of all voters were Hispanic, but Bush garnered only 35 percent of that vote to former Vice President Al Gore's 65 percent.
"I certainly hope the administration's long-awaited re-involvement in this fundamental debate is genuine, and not because of election year conversion," said Democratic Sen. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts.
Among Bush's allies in the debate is the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Randel Johnson, a chamber vice president who deals with immigration issues, said including workers who illegally entered the United States is perhaps controversial but in his view, necessary.
"The reality of it is we are not going to deport all these people," Johnson said. "So we have to come up with something to deal with the situation. Or we can continue to put our head in the sand."
But Colorado Republican Rep. Thomas Tancredo is among the congressional conservatives who promise to fight provisions they view as rewarding lawbreakers.
"People who are here illegally -- they need to be deported," Tancredo said. "People who hire them need to be fined. If they keep doing it they need to be sent to jail. It's against the law." |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | | Officials said the measure was designed largely for economic reasons -- to match "willing workers with willing employers," as administration officials put it. |
The Walmartization continues. This is union-busting politics at it's finest. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
The Walmartization continues. This is union-busting politics at it's finest. |
| quote: |
The officials said the employers would have to show they cannot find U.S. citizens to fill their jobs.
|
I don't get it ... this is exactly what most of the dems want. If dean were to put this plan in place he's resolving the nation's huge immigration problems. If Bush is doing it he's pandering to big business. :conf:
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. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | | The officials said the employers would have to show they cannot find U.S. citizens to fill their jobs. |
And this would be enforced how? Would they enforce this the same way they told companies to enforce themselves with Bush's Corporate policies after the Enron/Worldcom fiascos? Sorry, but I'm just a little skeptical.
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
I don't get it ... this is exactly what most of the dems want. If dean were to put this plan in place he's resolving the nation's huge immigration problems. If Bush is doing it he's pandering to big business. :conf: |
I can't speak for other Dems, and I certainly won't speak for Dean, but I believe overall this is not good for the middle class overall. With this policy in place we'll have a marked increase in more low-paying jobs, thus increasing the lower class. How can that be good?
| quote: | | 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. |
Okay, I digress a little bit - this is certainly a good thing. However I still see more or less a legalization of lower paying jobs, primarily for immigrants. Sure, they say they will give it to US citizens first, but I somehow don't see this occurring. I'm just damn skeptical, but I'll be happy to be proven wrong if they actually follow and ENFORCE this policy. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
And this would be enforced how? Would they enforce this the same way they told companies to enforce themselves with Bush's Corporate policies after the Enron/Worldcom fiascos? Sorry, but I'm just a little skeptical.
|
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:
| quote: |
Honesty Is A Pricey Policy
Execs are grumbling about the steep costs of complying with new financial controls
Starting next year, manufacturers will have to prove that they can trace their products from assembly line to customer. Temp agencies will have to show that the hours they bill match those worked by their employees. And public companies in all industries will have to document that they have similar systems to keep their books in order.
The thought is giving companies the heebie-jeebies. Execs grumble that proposed new rules will be costly, cumbersome, and often redundant. What's more, the new system could put company directors into awkward relationships with their external auditors, who have been handed a fat new source of fees as well as a much-enlarged oversight role. Shareholders could also be in for some surprises: They could find that the auditors approve a company's overall numbers but give it a failing grade on internal controls.
Welcome to the brave new world of Section 404 of the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which requires executives and auditors to evaluate companies' internal financial controls. On Oct. 7, the accounting profession's new overseer, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB), proposed standards to guide auditors and companies in how to do that. The aim is to prevent the kind of financial shenanigans that caused meltdowns at WorldCom, Enron, and a host of other former highfliers.
STERN OVERSEER
Section 404 isn't the only part of Sarbanes-Oxley that irks Corporate America. Requirements to add more independent directors, especially those with financial expertise, have set off a scramble for talent at scores of companies. Executives also chafe at the law's ban on loans to cover their own relocation and housing costs as well as a confusing ban on other services auditors can provide.
But the internal control rules are by far the most contentious and potentially onerous provisions. Industry experts say that as a result of these rules, auditing costs are likely to double, while the total tab for compliance could top $7 billion in the first year. Although most big companies can afford to pay, the costs could push some smaller companies into the red. Says Dennis R. Beresford, accounting professor at the University of Georgia: "This is going to be very, very expensive."
What's worse, the bulk of the extra expenses won't be one-shot outlays -- say, for auditing templates -- but will be incurred annually. For instance, the rules call for auditors to test systems every year, even if they haven't been changed.
Unless the PCAOB makes major concessions before finalizing the rules at yearend, investors will receive up to four separate notices each year vouching for a company's numbers. Says Dixie L. Johnson, a corporate lawyer at Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson: "This is a massive change in the way companies have to do business."
Congress figured that improved controls could have prevented WorldCom from labeling telephone-line and other operating expenses as capital investments. Indeed, Beresford, who is also a director of WorldCom's successor, MCI Group, says: "Our controls were awful. Now, we are spending millions and millions to ameliorate them."
Still, the new rules strike many executives as overkill. "This idea that a CEO doesn't know what's going on in his company is ridiculous," says George David, chairman and CEO of United Technologies Corp. "It's belt and suspenders," says Brian P. Anderson, chief financial officer of Baxter International Inc. This year, he expects to pay nearly $10 million for auditing, twice what he spent last year. And many execs suspect they won't gain much benefit. Says Brian V. Turner, CFO of Coinstar Inc., a Bellevue (Wash.) company that operates coin-counting machines: "We know our internal controls pretty well, and any [extra] information I get will be marginal."
Companies may also face some potential conflicts of interest. The PCAOB's draft rule will require company auditors to judge how well the board's audit committee oversees the auditing of the company. In short, audit committees and auditors will be evaluating one another.
The rules may have other farcical results. Even the PCAOB foresees that an auditor might certify a company's financial statements and at the same time say its financial controls are lacking. Auditors say this could happen when a company correctly totals its overall revenues and expenses but fails to cross-check individual transactions to stop fraud. "This undercuts a major conceit of internal controls," says Lawrence A. Cunningham, a law professor at Boston College. "It shows that controls become an end in themselves and are not nearly as effective as people think they are."
CONCEDING BENEFITS
Critics admit that tighter internal controls will yield some benefits. Baxter's Anderson, for example, plans to speed up productivity investments, such as centralizing more processing of its global transactions. "I expect to emerge with a much more efficient finance organization with lower costs," he says. The new rules will give law enforcers and plaintiff lawyers a powerful tool to rebut pleas by execs and auditors that they were unaware of fraud. PCAOB Chairman William J. McDonough says the board carefully considered the costs and benefits. "We struck the right balance," he says.
His view isn't widely shared in executive suites. But there isn't much companies can do. The nonstop parade of corporate scandal makes amending Sarbanes-Oxley a political nonstarter. Besides, the safeguards might reassure investors who have tiptoed back into the market. Says Margaret M. Foran, chairman of the American Society of Corporate Secretaries: "If this is the cost of increasing investor confidence, so be it." The real test of the new rules will be whether they prevent another major scandal. And that's a big hurdle.
http://www.businessweek.com/@@[email protected]_mz020.htm
|
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?
| quote: |
I can't speak for other Dems, and I certainly won't speak for Dean, but I believe overall this is not good for the middle class overall. With this policy in place we'll have a marked increase in more low-paying jobs, thus increasing the lower class. How can that be good?
|
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? 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. |
|
|
| Shakka |
I think this amounts to pure 'strategery'--hopefully. I think it's a bad policy idea to start handing out green cards to people who shouldn't be here in the first place. I have a feeling it's just a big political ploy to garner votes, if nothing else to take them away from a Democrat contender. I don't think it could be passed, but by the time it comes up for legislative action it'll probably be beyond the election and it'll get shot down--then again, I'm probably wrong.
I wonder what the reaction would be if this had been a Dean, Lieberman, Clark, or Gephardt idea? |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
I think this amounts to pure 'strategery'--hopefully. I think it's a bad policy idea to start handing out green cards to people who shouldn't be here in the first place. I have a feeling it's just a big political ploy to garner votes, if nothing else to take them away from a Democrat contender. I don't think it could be passed, but by the time it comes up for legislative action it'll probably be beyond the election and it'll get shot down--then again, I'm probably wrong.
I wonder what the reaction would be if this had been a Dean, Lieberman, Clark, or Gephardt idea? |
Wow ... a liberal and a conservative agreeing on something :D (albeit for different reasons) |
|
|
| Shakka |
| Aw c'mon! I thought you were a Libertarian? You make too much sense to be a liberal!:toothless |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Aw c'mon! I thought you were a Libertarian? You make too much sense to be a liberal!:toothless |
Well I was referring to you and MisterOpus. I actually agree with the immigration reform ;). I am coniberal. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Well I was referring to you and MisterOpus. I actually agree with the immigration reform ;). I am coniberal. |
Ahhh...My apologies. Yup, it just strikes me as bad policy that opens too many potentially ugly windows in the future. |
|
|
| anuneventrade |
I just watched his address.... *sigh* Bush really needs to think about returning to school to learn how to speak correctly to the public. So much stuttering!
Overall, I agree that the immigration plan will help America's economy (Omg, I'm agreeing with something the Bush Admin has come up with?!). The question is, will there be enough Green Cards for all the immigrants? The level of second class citizens will be on the rise, however.
Bush is doing a complete turn around with all of his proposals. He's been relatively silent about immigration issues since 9/11, but suddenly with elections coming up, he's doing everything to please American's. With this immigration plan en route, I can't help but wonder if his main goal is perhaps to round up the Latino votes?
*edit* On another note... I wonder how many citizen's Bush royally pissed off when in the middle of his address he claimed that the immigrants would have to learn about the history of the country under God. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| I don't know, but his Spanish certainly is a lot better than his English! |
|
|
|
|
