U.S. Representative Tom Tancredo is the only outspoken Republican who seems just as angry and puzzled by President Bush’s amnesty plan for illegal aliens as I am. He asks:
1. The president says his plan does not offer amnesty to lawbreakers, but if an unlawful act is forgiven and not penalized, is that not the same as amnesty? Isn’t it amnesty if people who entered our country illegally are not required to go home before applying for a work permit?2. Why is it not reasonable to believe that offering a “legal route to employment” for people who entered the country illegally will only encourage millions more to follow the same path in the expectation that they, too, will eventually be offered legal status? Is The White House aware that the National Border Patrol Council, which represents rank and file Border Patrol agents, says the president’s plan will produce another surge in illegal alien traffic?
Surge in illegal alien traffic? In my opinion, the president, a wealthy, insulated man, isn’t too affected by the overrun of illegal aliens like regular people are, who sit in emergency rooms for hours while doctors treat uninsured illegal aliens.
And public schools, especially in California, are overwhelmed with non or poor English speakers who are burdening the system. People like Bush can afford private schools. Remember Steve Sailer’s article from yesterday’s post? Insulation, insulation, insulation! It’s easy to be “for” something when it doesn’t negatively impact you.
On national security, Tancredo asks:
3. The president says that his plan will free up the Border Patrol to catch drug smugglers and terrorists. In view of the very real terrorist threat facing our nation and the certainty that terrorists are well aware of how easy it is to cross our open borders, would it not be more sensible and much safer for the country to first make our borders secure and then experiment with new guest worker programs, rather than the other way around?
See my previous response.
On Jobs, Tancredo asks:
5. The president says his temporary worker plan will be limited to “jobs Americans won’t do.” But since willingness to do any job is always relative to the wages being offered for that job, isn’t it true that millions of jobs will be lost by Americans to foreign labor willing to work at a lower wage? When an employer lowers the wage of a job so only a foreign worker will take the job, as is already happening in construction trades and many other occupations, how can anyone say this is not taking jobs away from Americans?
I’ll bet plenty of high profile people who say they’re against illegal immigration employ illegal aliens “under the table.” Bernard Kerik comes to mind. I’m only assuming he’s against lawbreaking, as he was a cop.
Also see California’s $9 Billion Albatross.
