ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION: It's Baaaaaaaccck! S.T.R.I.V.E. Act - Security Through Regularized Immigration and a Vibrant Economy - One More Misnomer! - RI10

ILLEGAL

IMMIGRATION:

It’s Baaaaaaaccck!

S.T.R.I.V.E. Act -

Security Through

Regularized

Immigration and a

Vibrant Economy -

One More Misnomer!

- RI10

 
 

DOBBS: Kitty, thank you -- that report coming up.

Also, pro-illegal-alien members of Congress try to reintroduce the failed amnesty legislation piece by piece. We will have the report.

And rising protests at the Bush administration's plan to allow Mexican trucks to travel freely in this country without the consent of either Congress or, of course, the American people.

Stay with us. We will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: Trucks from Mexico could soon have unlimited access to American highways under a new NAFTA-related program driven by the Bush administration.

Critics say that that plan would make our roads more dangerous and further open our already porous borders to more drug smuggling, illegal aliens and possibly terrorists.

And, as Casey Wian now reports, American truckers say it may cost them as well their livelihoods.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CASEY WIAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): More Mexican trucks will soon be allowed unrestricted access to U.S. highways under a program required by the North American Free Trade Agreement. Teamsters gathered at the San Diego commercial truck crossing to protest a decision they say endangers American lives and jobs.

JIM SANTANGELO, VICE PRESIDENT, TEAMSTERS: The president has allowed cross-border trucking in America. And the Teamsters Union are here to show Americans that we are against these truck drivers coming on American highways.

WIAN: Currently, Mexican trucking companies not operating in the United States before 1982 are prohibited from carrying cargo beyond a 25-mile border-crossing zone.

The Bush administration's one-year pilot program will open up all U.S. highways to as many as 100 additional Mexican trucking companies.

REP. PETER DEFAZIO (D), OREGON: The long-term dream here that is someday all the trucks in America will be driven by people who will work for less than the minimum wage in the United States of America and be exempt from it, because they would be Mexican truck drivers, based in Mexico, and paid under Mexican law. WIAN: Critics say Mexican trucks and their drivers are not required to meet the same safety, work rule, or drug testing standards demanded of American trucking companies.

REP. JAMES OBERSTAR (D), MINNESOTA: A Mexican driver could be on the road for 10 hours before coming to the border and then be allowed to drive another 10 hours in the United States.

WIAN: Congress has passed legislation that has slowed, but failed to stop, the Mexican truck program.

REP. NANCY BOYDA (D), KANSAS: Democrats and Republicans are united in protecting America's highways. Only the White House seems out of the loop here.

WIAN: The Transportation Department referred us to a former Bush administration official who helped negotiate the Mexican truck deal.

BRIGHAM MCCOWN, WINSTEAD PC: This really isn't about Mexican trucks. This is about the perceived threat to union jobs. This is about the perceived threat to national security. And this is about people that have been opposed to NAFTA all along. The Bush administration is simply trying to live up to its international obligations.

WIAN: The program will not begin until the Transportation Department corrects any safety problems detailed in a soon-to-be released report from its inspector general.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WIAN: Now, one interesting side note to that Teamsters protest at the border, according to other protesters who were there, union members were passing out flyers to Mexican truck drivers in an attempt to organize them. An international Teamsters spokeswoman says it has no plans to organize Mexican truck drivers, but it says one of its locals could be -- Lou.

DOBBS: This -- this is almost completely, utterly surreal. The very idea that the Bush administration, the Department of Transportation, is referring us, as journalists, to a former Bush official who negotiated the deal, which is the subject of just basically a Department of Transportation directive -- it has no basis in the agreement itself.

WIAN: Absolutely. Yes, it was very curious that the Department of Transportation didn't put out someone who was currently employed by Department of Transportation to defend this pilot program, but they didn't, Lou.

DOBBS: Well, I love the spokesman saying, Casey, perceived threats to national security, perceived loss of jobs, perceived safety standards, without any -- I mean, this is -- this is just "Alice in Wonderland" time. And it is remarkable.

If this Congress sits still for this, you can just simply put, you know, a tail on that particular donkey, not to overwork the metaphor. And I didn't mean the double entendre in symbolism there.

But, I mean, at some point, somebody besides corporate America has got to start making policy in this country. And this administration certainly doesn't seem to have any interest in denying the corporatists their due.

Thank you very much, Casey -- Casey Wian from Los Angeles.

That brings us to the subject of our poll tonight: Do you believe the Bush administration is ignoring the will of Congress and the American people by allowing Mexican trucks to travel freely in the United States, yes, no? Please cast your vote at loudobbs.com. We will have those results coming up here later.

And Congressman Duncan Hunter joins us, a leading opponent of allowing those Mexican trucks to have unlimited access on American highways. He joins us to talk about this issue a great deal more.

Those lawmakers are answering the call of corporate interests by planning to allow even more foreign workers into this country.

And, as Bill Tucker now reports, they're doing it at the expense of our middle-class American families.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BILL TUCKER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Months after dying in the Senate, comprehensive immigration reform is back and this time it's being brought back to life in the Immigration Subcommittee in the House.

REP. STEVE KING (R), IOWA: I'm a bit surprised when I received the notice of the hearing on a piece of immigration legislation. This clearly constitutes amnesty. The American people have spoken so forcefully against amnesty that the Senate was forced to reject it earlier this summer.

REP. SHEILA JACKSON LEE (D), TEXAS: I believe the American people want this body to address this question. I was home in the district, and I can assure you that this whole question of immigration has not left the minds of the American people.

TUCKER: To call the STRIVE Act ambitious is not a stretch. The bill is almost 700 pages long, with tidbits to tempt the most ardent of critics. It calls for an increase in border security, increasing the number of border agents, as well as the use of technology. It strengthens interior enforcement and creates a mandatory employer verification program.

REP. JEFF FLAKE (R), ARIZONA: As I mentioned, it's tough border enforcement. There's interior enforcement with biometric cards, so employers will finally have the tools. And it sets up a new worker program for low-skilled workers.

TUCKER: It also creates a path to what it calls earned legalization, what opponents call amnesty. Among the worker programs it creates is a new H-2C visa with a cap of 400,000. It offers a path to legalization for workers, their spouses, and their children.

JULIE KIRCHNER, FEDERATION FOR AMERICAN IMMIGRATION REFORM: By creating a massive new H2-C guest-worker program and more than doubling the employment-based immigrant visas, the legislation floods the market with foreign workers willing to work for less and eager to compete with U.S. workers.

TUCKER: STRIVE would also expand the H1-B visa program cap from 65,000 to as much as 180,000 and create broader definitions for those who are exempt from the cap.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

TUCKER: Now, today's hearing was said to be for creating dialogue and exploring the issue of comprehensive immigration reform.

Yet, of the 12 witnesses heard from today, nine spoke in support of the STRIVE Act, all of whom openly expressed the desire to kick- start this legislation again in the House -- Lou.

DOBBS: You know, at some point, listening to Jeff Flake, Luis Gutierrez, at some point, are the American people going to inform, in clear, unequivocal terms, this Congress, this president, that by God this country doesn't belong to special interests, ethnocentric interests, the government of Mexico, and Central and South America, but to the American people? It is nuts, what these people keep doing.

TUCKER: They can try, Lou. But the indications today are, they are not interested in hearing that.

DOBBS: And listen to that idiotic remark by the Department of Homeland Security, we -- 145 miles of fence. Six years -- we're coming up on the sixth year anniversary of September 11, and these fools still can't secure our borders or our ports. And the American people, we are abject idiots to put up with this kind of a government. I mean, what in the world is going on?

TUCKER: I don't know.

DOBBS: It is insane.

TUCKER: They have to go home and answer to their constituents, though. That's the good news.

DOBBS: Well, they couldn't answer too soon or be addressed too quickly or harshly, in my opinion, by their constituents. Thank you, Bill Tucker.

The STRIVE Act, what idiotic nonsense.

Time now for some of your thoughts.

Dee in Tennessee said: "Dear Lou, with Mexico driving trucks at will on our highways, I have a question. Who traded democracy for so- called trade and made the Constitution or Congress and our democracy null and void?"

Well, that's a very good question.

And Bobbi in Illinois: "If illegal immigrant supporters can sue employers and cities for enforcing federal immigration laws, why can't we sue the federal government for not enforcing those immigration laws?"

Now, that is a wonderful idea.

And Terry in Michigan: "Dear Lou, you to love it when American companies say they can't find qualified people here to fill jobs. There's no shortage of American workers qualified to fill those jobs. There is a shortage of qualified workers willing to accept low pay and no benefits, though."

We will have more of your thoughts here later in the broadcast.

And up next, Arizona's law punishing employers that hire illegal aliens. Well, you're not going to believe this. The American Civil Liberties Union doesn't like it. Neither do the liberals. Neither do the socioethnic-centric special interest group. We will be talking with the architect of that law and a vocal opponent.

And American companies doing business in China, can they protect American consumers from those dangerous products that they're shipping over here. Do they really care about doing so? We will have that special report and a great deal more.

Stay with us. We're coming right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: A new Arizona state law begins January 1st, requiring all businesses in state to disclose whether they are employing illegal aliens.

Business groups are fighting the law and this week those groups were joined by none other than the American Civil Liberties Union and several other open borders, pro-amnesty groups.

Joining me now from Phoenix, Arizona, the author of the legislation, Republican State Representative Russell Pearce.

Good to have you with us.

RUSSELL PEARCE (R), ARIZONA STATE HOUSE: It's always good to be here.

DOBBS: His most outspoken opponent and critic, the Democratic majority whip of the state legislature, Steve Gallardo. Good to have you with us, sir.

STEVE GALLARDO (D), ARIZONA STATE HOUSE: Thank you.

Thank you.

DOBBS: Let's -- let's go to the issue.

This law would -- let's put this up. The ACLU says that this -- in a second -- lawsuit against this measure, says that it violates federal immigration law.

Let's see what the director of ACLU says. She says the law also violates constitutional due process, saying -- quote -- and if we've got this, I'd like to have our viewers be able to see it -- "It becomes easier and safer for Arizona business owners to discriminate against anyone they suspect of being foreign rather than risk the fines and penalties associated with the failure to comply with this law."

Let's see start with you, Steve.

What -- Mr. Gallardo, what, how so?

GALLARDO: You know, that's -- this is one of the issues that we're facing with this badly written piece of legislation is the whole discrimination aspect of this particular bill. The bill has such a heavy hammer over employers that they would be very hesitant in terms of hiring someone who may look like me just in fear of me providing false documentation.
Tabacco: If this were a Black issue, every White in earshot would say, “Stop playing the Race Card!” But this isn’t a Black issue, and nobody uses that term. Strange? Not really! Remember this the next time you hear some White say to some Black, “You should stop playing the ‘Race Card!’”

Apparently only Blacks can “play the Race Card”; not Hispanics, and certainly not Whites! That ad by the White Republican candidate against the Black Democrat, Harold Ford, wherein the White prostitute says, “Harold, call me!” was NOT playing the Race Card. How could it be? Only Blacks can “play the Race Card” in America.

And these guys play it so brazenly! Only in America!

I think when we come right down to it, we need real immigration...

DOBBS: Well, wait, wait...

GALLARDO: ...policy that secures our border...

(LAUGHTER)

GALLARDO: ...and have a national employer sanctions bill.

DOBBS: A national employer sanctions bill.

PEARCE: I thought we did.

DOBBS: Russell -- Mr. Pearce, what do you say?

PEARCE: Well...

DOBBS: Are you being heavy- handed against business?

PEARCE: Yes, they've only had since 1986 to comply with the law. It's a felony to hire somebody that's here illegally.

This is the most outrageous -- and the ACLU doesn't surprise me. They take -- they love and practice the suit of suing good citizens on anything that's moral or right.

You know, Steve Gallardo has been a cheerleader for illegal aliens for several years. You know, he helps them with the marches, he's helped them sue Prop 200. He's helped them sue on this. You know, enough is enough. This bill is legal and it's fair. It's called the legal -- Fair Legal Employment Act.

DOBBS: Steve, let me ask you about this...

PEARCE: They have to knowingly hire the illegal alien to be in trouble.

DOBBS: Yes, Steve, let me ask you this. This is the first complaint we hear against every kind of ordinance, state law, whatever it is -- it's, you know, it's unconstitutional because of due process.

GALLARDO: You know what?

DOBBS: Specifically what is in this that is denying due process?

GALLARDO: First of all, let me correct one -- one particular statement. I do not support open borders. I support comprehensive real practical...

PEARCE: Steve...

GALLARDO: ...immigration reform...

PEARCE: ...you've been at every march...

(CROSSTALK)

DOBBS: Mr. Pearce, please.

GALLARDO: I support real immigration reform to secure our border and that deals with every aspect of illegal immigration...

DOBBS: Well, that's super duper. You know, but what I want to know is...

GALLARDO: ...(INAUDIBLE).

DOBBS: My question is this, sir.

What in this bill denies due process?

GALLARDO: There is nothing in this particular bill that deals with the discrimination aspect of this -- of the legislation.

DOBBS: What is discriminatory about...

GALLARDO: There's nothing in there that would...

DOBBS: Then I will change it -- then I will change the question.
What is discriminatory?
 

GALLARDO: There is nothing in this particular bill that would prevent any employer from turning down an applicant for employment because of their fear of this person being perceived as undocumented. Someone who looks like me, someone who may be perceived to be from Mexico, could be denied employment because of this bill. If we were serious about this bill, let's have a discriminatory aspect to this bill. Let's have some language that deals with the discrimination part of this particular bill.

But there's (INAUDIBLE)...

DOBBS: But, again, I'm asking you what is discriminatory...

GALLARDO: (INAUDIBLE).

DOBBS: ...about it, is what I'm trying to zero in, Mr. Gallardo.

GALLARDO: Someone...

DOBBS: What is the discriminatory aspect of it?

GALLARDO: Someone who's qualified...

DOBBS: It punishes people for hiring illegal aliens once they're...

GALLARDO: Not at all. Not at all. Not at all. What it does, it forces employers to keep records and to keep applicants to a higher standard. It forces employers to really think twice of -- in regards to hiring anyone...

DOBBS: Well, why in the world...

GALLARDO: ...who is perceived to be (INAUDIBLE)...

DOBBS: ...shouldn't they think twice about hiring an illegal alien, for crying out loud?

GALLARDO: So, Mr. Dobbs, you don't think that -- that if there's anything wrong with me being held to a higher standard in applying for a job because of the color of my skin, is that what you're telling me?

DOBBS: Oh, you know...

GALLARDO: (INAUDIBLE) set the standards...

DOBBS: ...Mr. Gallardo you were doing really good until right then. And you know that's a...

GALLARDO: No. No...

DOBBS: ...nonsensical, absurd question.

PEARCE: (INAUDIBLE).

DOBBS: So let me answer it for you... GALLARDO: That's exactly what you said.

DOBBS: ...as straightforwardly as I can.

GALLARDO: That's exactly what you said.

DOBBS: No, it's not exactly what I said. And if you're intellect doesn't carry you farther than that, we're going to have a very short conversation, aren't we?

GALLARDO: Hey, you're asking the questions. I'm (INAUDIBLE)...

DOBBS: Yes, I am. But I did not ask anything approximating what you're suggesting.

GALLARDO: You're asking...

DOBBS: What I'm asking you is straightforward.

Why should the employers not have a heavy burden and a responsibility to follow the law and not hire illegal aliens of any color?

GALLARDO: I agree with you. I agree with you. I agree with (INAUDIBLE)...

DOBBS: Well, thank you.

That's all we're trying to get to. And you're trying to make it a racial issue...

GALLARDO: No. No. That was -- that was not (INAUDIBLE)...

DOBBS: ...Mr. Gallardo. And that is beneath you...

GALLARDO: That was not the question.

DOBBS: ...and it's beneath contempt. And it has no place...

GALLARDO: No.

DOBBS: ...in this discussion or this debate.

PEARCE: Amen.

GALLARDO: And I agree with you. I agree with you. We should be looking at the real issues of illegal immigration.

DOBBS: The real issue is...

GALLARDO: We should be talking about border (INAUDIBLE)...

DOBBS: ...that if illegal employers...

(CROSSTALK)

DOBBS: ...weren't hiring illegal aliens, we wouldn't have a crisis in this country in illegal immigration, correct?

GALLARDO: That (INAUDIBLE)...

DOBBS: Mr. Gallardo, is that correct or is that wrong?

GALLARDO: That is correct. But we need to do other things...

DOBBS: Then why in the world don't you get...

GALLARDO: We need to...

DOBBS: ...behind this bill and let's get to some sense.

GALLARDO: No. No.

Why don't you come to the table and work on a comprehensive immigration reform instead...

DOBBS: Because that comprehensive immigration reform...

GALLARDO: (INAUDIBLE)...

DOBBS: ...that you're talking about, Mr. Gallardo, since you don't want to talk about the Arizona law, let me tell you about this idiotic bill pushed by this president and the Democratic leadership. The Congressional Budget Office declared that it would only deal with 25 percent of the illegal immigration in this country. It would leave 75 percent of the problem remaining. It would leave our borders wide open. It is a travesty and a sham.

PEARCE: (INAUDIBLE).

DOBBS: And I can't imagine that you, as an intelligent legislator interested in the people of the State of Arizona, would subscribe to it.

I'm just astonished.

PEARCE: Amen.

GALLARDO: I totally support the idea of securing our border. I am not...

DOBBS: Well, happy days.

GALLARDO: (INAUDIBLE) of the president's (INAUDIBLE)...

DOBBS: How could any American not want to secure our borders?

GALLARDO: Mr. Dobbs, are you going to let me speak?

DOBBS: Sure.

GALLARDO: Are you going to let me speak?

DOBBS: Go for it.

GALLARDO: OK. I do not support the bill that was introduced in Congress. I do support the idea that Congress and our president is actually discussing the issue. I support securing our border, having national employer sanctions at every state, where every employer who hires someone who is unlegal should be punished. I support securing everything in terms of illegal immigration. I believe we should go out to the root cause of the issue. We should attack every aspect of illegal immigration. We should not do it as a Band-Aid approach.

DOBBS: Oh, for crying out loud...

PEARCE: Lou, can I respond to some of that?

DOBBS: Mr. Pearce, you get the last word.

PEARCE: Thank you.

You know, Lou, that is so silly. Steve has voted against 16 bills. Several of his cohorts -- this bill passed by a two-thirds -- over a two-thirds majority in the house and senate. Many Democrats joined it, you know. And they fought hard on this, against this issue.

But this business of discrimination, you're right, it's -- this race issue has absolutely got to stop.

Now, Steve does this all the time. This bill is on documentation. The county attorneys must prove you knowingly hired an illegal alien. And it's based on documentation, the I-9 process, and using the basic (INAUDIBLE) verification process. And it also says you cannot discrimination in violation of federal or state law in here.

You know, and we already have laws against that. This bill specifically goes after employers...

GALLARDO: Wait. (INAUDIBLE) Russell...

PEARCE: Hey, hang on.

(CROSSTALK)

PEARCE: This bill goes specifically after employers...

DOBBS: Please, Mr. Gallardo.

You've had your shot.

PEARCE: ...who knowingly and intentionally hire illegal aliens. In fact, we give them a rebuttable presumption, if they use the I-9 process and they use the (INAUDIBLE), which is now the e verification.

DOBBS: All right, Mr. Pearce...

PEARCE: ...they get a rebuttal presumption.

DOBBS: We've got to wrap it...

PEARCE: This is a fair bill.

Tabacco: If you didn’t know it before, you know it now – this Pearce guy is also the ENEMY! Now that you’ve read what he had to say, wipe it out of your memory. He is spouting Sophistry, not Truth or helpful information. “A fair bill”? Fair to whom? Certainly not fair to Americans!

DOBBS: I apologize, but we're out of time, gentlemen.

PEARCE: Thank you.

Thanks, Lou.

DOBBS: You know, this will be interesting. Your Democratic governor signed it, Republicans and Democrats alike. It's going to be interesting to see how this transpires with the ACLU and, of course, the federal district court...

PEARCE: You bet you.

DOBBS: ...which we know will be challenged vigorously.

PEARCE: No business has the right to break the law.

DOBBS: Gentlemen, we thank you very much for being here.

PEARCE: Lou, thank you very much.

GALLARDO: Thank you.

DOBBS: Thank you.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: Coming up next, the results of our poll.

We'll have more of your thoughts.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: Wow!

The results of tonight's poll overwhelming -- 99 percent of you -- and there were tons of votes -- saying the Bush administration is ignoring the will of Congress and the American people by allowing Mexican trucks to travel freely in the United States.

Time now for some of your thoughts.

Janis in Alabama: "Dear Lou, your Labor Day show just infuriated me. The AFL-CIO thinks illegal workers deserve a union. And they do -- are they too stupid to realize illegals are driving down wages and forcing Americans out of certain industry? Apparently so. As you say, apparently so."

Elaine in South Carolina: "Thank you for staying on top of the idiots in Washington."

You're welcome.

And Kim in South Carolina: "Lou, saying China is not a communist country is like saying the United States is a modified monarchy."

We don't want to examine that too closely.

And Chris in Nevada: "Lou, I am genuinely frightened. I feel like our government has become so obsessed with political correctness that I, as a citizen of the United States, matter less than illegal immigrants. Has America lost its mind? We've had illegal aliens marching in our nation's capital for rights they have no right to. We have foreign governments dictating our immigration policies. We're letting Mexican truck drivers cross our borders unchecked. What's going to happen to us?"

Thanks for being with us tonight.

Join us here tomorrow.

Thanks for watching.

Good night from New York.

"THE SITUATION ROOM" begins right now with Wolf Blitzer -- Wolf.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0709/06/ldt.01.html

Politicos hear you; but they ignore your wishes! Here’s why.

Tabacco: There is this Myth that Politicians represent people. That is a totally false assumption! Politicians, particularly those in Capitalist countries, represent themselves 1st and foremost. This is the 21st Century, and one would think that “We the people” would have caught on by now – but we haven’t.

People still worship Politicians as if they were some god-like creatures, who come to rescue humanity from evil. WRONG! Politicians are EVIL! And Politicians are self-centered!

Now there are a few exceptions. But make no mistake; an honest politician is as rare as a “Compassionate Conservative”. It is time that people woke up and stopped buying into the hype. One of the definitions of INSANITY is “doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result”.

Criticism without Solutions is worthless; Tabacco has Solutions. Maybe it’s time that those Readers, who realize I am right in my assessment of Politicians, should begin to support Real Change and not buy into the “political pacifiers” these selfish Sophists perpetrate on the American public.

Switching back and forth between Democrats and Republicans will NOT CUT IT! Or haven’t you figured that out yet? We need to make our elected officials accountable to the people, not the Corporatists! Here’s how!

1 – End Lobbying

2 – End Earmarks

3 - Institute Public Financing of all Elections

4 – Televise all Wars & all Executions on a publicly financed “War Channel”, which is not subject to control, supervision or financial support of White House or Congress, but the people.

Once we institute those 4 Solutions, we can reverse “Outsourcing”, Free Trade Agreements, “Eminent Domain” and perhaps – I realize this idea is heresy – make Political Parties in America UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

FDR had the right idea: if you have a problem, try something new and different. If that doesn’t work, scrap it and try something else. But applying Band-Aids to cancer sores does not work!

Most importantly: This corrupt system benefits Big Business and Politicos. If you expect Politicos to change the System in a way, which will benefit the people and end the “Gravy Train” for the Rich and Privileged, then you are smoking or drinking something you cannot tell your clergyman about.

Only the electorate can change the System; the elected officials will never change that, which benefits them. Would you?


The STRIVE Act Is a False Promise

    By Lillian Galedo
    t r u t h o u t | Guest Columnist

    Tuesday 17 April 2007

    Oakland, California - On the street, true immigration reform means: fixing the family reunification system so families won't be separated; legalization for the undocumented without incremental phases that stretch out for years; due process and equal rights for immigrants; immigrant worker freedom from exploitation and employer abuse, and an end to criminalization of immigrants on the border and in the interior.

    We also need a serious investigation of immigration's root causes - economic, military or environmental - which cause the dislocation of people from countries of origin. What role do our country's policies play in that dislocation? Our national blind spot is that we see immigration one-dimensionally - only from our side of the border.

    Unfortunately, we're getting none of these things from Congress in 2007. Congress continues to view immigrants through a national security and disposable-worker lens, proposing harsh enforcement while it moves away from permanent, family-based immigration toward temporary worker programs. For the aspiring millions who spoke out for immigrant rights last year, this is not the response we wanted.

    STRIVE (Security Through Regularized Immigration and a Vibrant Economy Act of 2007), introduced by Congressmen Luis Gutierrez and Jeff Flake, continues to mistakenly frame immigration policy as a national security issue. In STRIVE, "comprehensive immigration reform" means trading some improvements in the family reunification system for greater numbers of temporary workers, and continued criminalization of immigrants. Advocates for immigrant rights will not find a human rights perspective in this bill.

    STRIVE ramps up the militarization of the border and interior enforcement. An electronic employment-verification system and reporting regulations will lead to increased racial profiling, more detentions and deportations, and the spending of precious resources on more jails.

    STRIVE increases employer sanctions. While sanctions don't prevent employers from hiring the undocumented, they are a hammer over the heads of immigrants - used to fire immigrant workers who organize or protest mistreatment.

    Thousands of families are waiting for an end to the backlogs that have separated members for as many as 20 years. STRIVE does not increase the current cap of 480,000 visas, so the reunification of separated families will still take years. (In her very different bill, Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Texas) has proposed to double family visas, which would go a long way towards ending these terrible backlogs.)

    STRIVE offers a "path to citizenship" that could take two decades if an applicant is able to satisfy excessive criteria. Applicants must first endure a temporary status for six years. An immigrant can then apply for permanent residence, but this won't kick in until other applicants, already in the pipeline for visas, have received theirs. Given current backlogs, that could take five to ten years, since STRIVE doesn't increase the number of available visas. Also, Homeland Security must put in place a document-verification system and new border-surveillance technology before legalization can even start. That also could take years. Once legalized, people would still have to wait at least five years more before gaining eligibility for citizenship, pushing that goal to nearly two decades. Throughout those years, applicants must remain employed to keep their application alive - a sure formula for employer abuse.

    If STRIVE becomes law, the number of temporary visas (400,000-plus) will begin to exceed the number of permanent resident visas, a trend supported by President Bush. STRIVE increases temporary worker visas in spite of the system's documented abuse. The Southern Poverty Law Center's recent report, "Close to Slavery," exposed yet again that intractable abuses are inherent in temporary worker programs. With increased job competition, temporary workers would jeopardize the already fragile place immigrants have in the economy.

    We have no need for temporary workers if we legalize the more than ten million undocumenteds, and make visas available for the four million family members whose applications are already approved.

    STRIVE does include provisions like the DREAM Act, the AgJOBS Act, the Strengthening American Citizenship Act, and would provide visas for the sons and daughters of Filipino WWII veterans. These are all positive measures that should be passed as separate bills.

    We should not support a bill that: does not offer a viable plan to legalize the undocumented, shifts immigration policy away from uniting families to provide employers with temporary workers, increases the likelihood of raids and treats immigrants like criminals.

    The STRIVE Act is a false promise when we desperately need real solutions.

    --------

    Lillian Galedo is the executive director of Filipinos for Affirmative Action.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/041707P.shtml



 

What’s wrong with the STRIVE immigration bill

April 13, 2007 | Page 3

JUSTIN AKERS CHACÓN, coauthor with Mike Davis of No One Is Illegal: Racism and State Violence on the U.S.-Mexico Border, examines a bipartisan proposal that some in the immigrant rights movement have placed their hopes in.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
ONE YEAR after the mass marches for immigrant rights that challenged repressive legislation proposed by congressional Republicans, the Bush administration is set to unveil harsh new proposals to supply Corporate America with cheap and vulnerable immigrant labor, ratchet up enforcement, and make it extremely difficult for undocumented workers to become U.S. citizens.

According to Ben Feller of the Associated Press, Bush’s plan “would grant work visas to undocumented immigrants, but require them to return home and pay hefty fines to become legal U.S. residents. They could apply for three-year work visas, dubbed ‘Z’ visas, which would be renewable indefinitely but cost $3,500 each time...

“The undocumented workers would have legal status with the visas, but to become legal permanent residents with a green card, they'd have to return to their home country, apply at a U.S. embassy or consulate to re-enter legally and pay a $10,000 fine. That's far more restrictive than the bipartisan bill the Senate approved last year.”

Tabacco: Duh, that Bill failed, you jerk! (Aside to my Readers, “I’m just trying to give constructive criticism and be helpful!”)

The Bush proposals would break up of immigrant families, too, according to the Washington Post: “In a new twist, more green cards would be made available to skilled workers by limiting visas for parents, children and siblings of U.S. citizens. Temporary workers could not bring their families into the country.”

Many in the immigrant rights movement have looked to the new Democratic Congress to provide an alternative to Bush and the hardliners. Instead, the Democrats are seeking a compromise palatable to the ultra-conservatives in the Republican Party.

The result is a bill--co-authored by two House members, liberal Democrat Luis Gutiérrez and conservative Republican Jeff Flake--known as the Security Through Regularized Immigration and a Vibrant Economy, or STRIVE Act. It combines a guest-worker program with resuscitated elements from last year’s effort to criminalize undocumented workers led by Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.)

Top-heavy with punitive measures, the STRIVE Act is designed to be an offer the right wing can’t refuse. That’s why it’s urgent that the immigrant rights movement separates the myths about the STRIVE Act from the reality.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
MYTH
The STRIVE Act would give undocumented immigrants amnesty.

REALITY
Despite the right wing’s overheated rhetoric decrying the act’s “amnesty clause”, its architects ensured that the path to legalization is constricted, tenuous and subject to forces beyond the control of the immigrant population.

First, the majority of the nation’s 11-13 million undocumented people (those between ages 21 to 65, and not in the military, disabled or a single head of household) will have to leave the country within 90 days of the application process.

Second, they must pay a minimum $2,000 fine and back taxes, and show proof of presence and consistent employment before and since June 1, 2006. Current law makes those who use fraudulent documents for employment (roughly 75 percent of all current undocumented workers) inadmissible for legalization.

While the STRIVE Act would grant immigration officials the right to override this provision, it doesn’t make this mandatory. It further precludes any legalization for those convicted of a felony or three misdemeanors.

These measures would undoubtedly exclude a significant portion of undocumented workers, including those who fear losing their job while undertaking the process. Many would be unable to afford lost pay and the thousands of dollars of fees and transportation and housing costs in order to “touch back” to their country of origin.

Also ineligible would be those who entered the country after the June 1 deadline, or who temporarily left the country after that period, or were unemployed (or unable to prove employment) during that period.

Ultimately, individual immigration agents, who are trained to find reasons for denial of application, would have the authority to determine compliance.

Those able to satisfy the bill’s requirements would not get a green card (permanent residence). Instead, they would receive “conditional non-immigrant status,” a six-year waiting period during which time they would have to maintain consistent employment, learn fluent English and be placed in “the back of the line” behind millions of existing backlogged petitions (Waiting lists today are estimated at 5 to 7 years, although the STRIVE Act does contain clauses to expedite the process. Current law requires at least a five-year residency before attaining citizenship).

If an undocumented immigrant worker does manage to complete all steps in the STRIVE Act, she or he can become a citizen only after at least 15 years--a fact that bill co-sponsor Jeff Flake has used as a selling point to conservatives.

While some of the undocumented could gain legal status over time, many--perhaps millions--would fall by the wayside.

Moreover, “conditional non-immigrant” status will make workers dependent on their jobs--and thus more compliant with poor working conditions and lower wages, as employers could hold the threat of termination over their heads.

Coupled with the annual infusions of immigrants in a “new worker” program, the process will create a large and permanent tier of non-citizen workers bound to and dependent on employers.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
MYTH
The STRIVE Act’s “new worker” program gives more protections than traditional guest-worker programs.

REALITY
The “new worker” program in the STRIVE Act repackages the discredited guest-worker programs of the past and present.

Under the proposal, migrant laborers could find temporary employment in the U.S. for two three-year terms. Each year, 400,000 (up to a cap of 600,000 in succeeding years) potential workers would be selected after paying a contracting fee of up to $1,500 and passing a health exam.

While these workers would be entitled to “prevailing wages,” the proposal is suspiciously vague about enforcement mechanisms to prevent employer abuse, the hallmark of previous guest-worker proposals.

Guest workers would be bound to a single employer and required to work for the duration of the contract. Any cessation of employment could be determined a breach of contract, allowing the employer to have the worker ejected from the country.

While workers would be able to leave an abusive employer, they could do so only if they can secure another job in advance with another employer, who must officially offer them work and be registered with the government to participate in the program.

If a worker were to leave a worksite without notification, they would be deemed “illegal” and subject to deportation if they are not reintegrated into a registered worksite within 60 days. All temporary workers would be tracked through an “Alien Employment Management System”, so they will be identifiable if they leave a worksite.

Furthermore, the proposal doesn’t expressly guarantee the right to join a union or engage in collective bargaining. This, too, would leave workers vulnerable to employers that violate the provisions of the agreement.

It is this denial of the freedom of movement and assembly, and the right to engage in genuine collective bargaining by immigrant guest workers that make this proposal so appealing for employers.

Unlike the old bracero system and current guest-worker programs, the STRIVE Act would deliver workers into virtually every sector of the economy. Employers hope to leverage their control over guest workers to lower wages across the economy--and to reduce the presence of unions in their worksites.

Moreover, the STRIVE Act doesn’t guarantee a path to citizenship for guest workers. They would first have to work continuously for two three-year terms to apply. They would then be required to leave the country, pay a $2,000 fee and provide evidence of a job in order to return to the U.S.

If approved, they would then receive a two-year “conditional nonimmigrant status,” during which they would have to learn fluent English and work consistently in order to petition for legal permanent residence (which could then take several more years, depending on the backlog).

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
MYTH
The STRIVE Act is a humane alternative to the enforcement-only provisions of the Sensenbrenner bill.

REALITY
The text of the STRIVE Act states that the measure would “achieve operational control of the international borders of the United States”. In other words, both external and internal aspects of immigration policy are to be further militarized as a precondition for the legalization of undocumented immigrants.

The plan for external militarization includes doubling the number of Border Patrol agents (to about 24,000) by 2012, emphasizing the recruitment of former military personnel with experience in border enforcement in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill would further add 1,200 Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents to investigate “immigration crimes”.

The STRIVE Act would also provide more equipment to militarize the border--100 more helicopters, 250 additional power boats, unmanned aerial vehicles, tethered aerostat radars, cameras, sensors, satellites and radar coverage. New border control facilities would include monitoring posts, housing for agents and additional vehicle barriers.

The emphasis on militarization would extend into the U.S. The proposal includes the development of a national biometric database to track all immigrants, as well as an “Electronic Employment Verification System” to identify the undocumented.

The legislation would create at least 20 new federal detention facilities with space to house at least an additional 20,000 detainees.

ICE would receive funding for 2,200 agents specifically for “workplace enforcement”, as well as computer databases for each agent, new radios, GPS systems, night-vision equipment, body armor and more patrol vehicles.

Penalties for the undocumented would also become more severe. Those who cross the border without papers will be criminalized and subject to six months in prison for a first offense; two years for a second offense, and five years for a third offense. The use of forged passports or false visas could result in 15 years in jail.

Employers would face greater sanctions, too. Those that knowingly hire an undocumented worker would be subject to a fine of $5,000 and three years in prison.

Local law enforcement would be increasingly enlisted in immigration law enforcement. The STRIVE Act would allow the federal government to “deputize” local law enforcement agencies to work with immigration agents in conducting operations in areas within 100 miles from the border and in “high impact areas”--that is, any community across the nation where immigrants are concentrated.

The bill would also grant state governors in the Southern border regions the right to dispatch state National Guard troops to play a supporting role in border enforcement.

As if this weren’t enough, the STRIVE Act allows local police to act as de facto ICE agents, declaring that the “law enforcement personnel of a state, or a political subdivision of a state, have the inherent authority of a sovereign entity to investigate, apprehend, arrest, detain or transfer to federal custody (including the transportation across state lines to detention centers) an alien for the purpose of assisting in the enforcement of the criminal provisions of the immigration laws of the United States in the normal course of carrying out the law enforcement duties of such personnel”.

The bipartisan support for the STRIVE Act reveals how central “comprehensive immigration reform” is to Corporate America’s goal of disempowering labor in the U.S. While the Republican Party was defeated by the mass immigrant rights movement last spring, the baton has since passed to a Democratic Congress to salvage Corporate America’s vision.

For those committed to a different vision--one based on full legalization for all, democratization of society and the empowerment of working families--the struggle continues in the streets and workplaces across the U.S.
http://www.socialistworker.org/2007-1/627/627_03_STRIVE.shtml


Tabacco: That’s both sides of the issues, and neither side wants this CRAP! And if we bury S.T.R.I.V.E., it will only be reborn as some other misnomer-acronym. There is a lesson to be learned here: The Rich & Powerful didn’t get to be Rich & Powerful by “giving up”. They merely put a different “dress on the pig” and present it as “a new approach”. Watch out for the “Flat Tax” SCAM, which the Sophists have renamed once again “FairTax”.

So you can expect to go through this same exercise ad infinitum unless the Democrats suddenly begin acting like Democrats. And I think we all know that’s not likely to happen. Once a politician has fed at the “Corruption Trough”, there’s no going back!


Tabacco: I consider myself both a funnel and a filter. I funnel information, not readily available on the Mass Media, which is ignored and/or suppressed. I filter out the irrelevancies and trivialities to save both the time and effort of my Readers and bring consternation to the enemies of Truth & Fairness! When you read Tabacco, if you don’t learn something NEW, I’ve wasted your time.


In 1981's 'Body Heat', Kathleen Turner said, "Knowledge is power".

 

T.A.B.A.C.C.O.  (Truth About Business And Congressional Crimes Organization) – Think Tank For Other 95% Of World

tags: knowledge is power  takebackamerica  business  politics  religion  quasicon  bush  richvspoor  disaster capitalism  warpeace  halftruths  hypocrisy  sophistry  illegal immigrants  strive  congress  political corruption