Friday, June 02, 2006

Mike Pence - a sensible immigration policy

Indiana Congressman Mike Pence once again shows why there is a Draft Pence movement among conservatives. He crafted an immigration policy which is a much better alternative to the McCain/Kennedy amnesty package which our joke of a senator Carl Levin supported (And Stabenow tried to have it both ways).

I see the solution as a four-step process. Securing our border is the first step. The second step is to make the decision, once and for all, to deny amnesty to people whose first act in the United States was a violation of the law. The third step is to put in place a guest worker program, without amnesty, that will efficiently provide American employers with willing guest workers who come to America legally. The final step is tough employer sanctions that ensure a full partnership between American business and the American government in the enforcement of our laws on immigration and guest workers.


And here's the bottom line about the Pence Bill:

1. The House Bill which passed (And senate opposed) was a good first step. Pence supports removing the felony portion but keeps the rest as is.

2. It adds a security fence.

3. No Amnesty in any form. Any guest worker policy requires an illegal to go home first.

4. Mass deportation isn't fesible, so Pence is encouraging illegals to self-deport. Private businesses (many support amnesty) are enouraged to set up Ellis Island centers to match "guest workers" with jobs unable to be filled with American workers. All workers are required to go through background checks. Visas will be issued outside the US. Pence emphasises that point to illegals who want to become citizens are forced to leave first.

5. Number of guest workers will be limited.

6. After 6 years, guest workers must apply for citizenship or go home. They must learn English to renew their visa.

7. Employment taxes must be paid. Workers will be allowed to change jobs so they aren't trapped.

8. Employers must hire Americans first.

9. There will be strict enforcement of employers.

I could support this.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

I heard Mike Pence on the Sean Hannity show about a week or two ago and he got into an intense discussion with Hannity about immigration. Pence seemed to be arguing in favor of amnesty while Hannity was clearly arguing against it. Pence did not clearly state his position and vacilated whenever Hannity tried to nail him down on details.

I've been watching Pence closely as a potential candidate but the discussion on Hannity left me with a bad impression of him.

Perhaps negative fallout from the Hannity interview conviced Pence to release this statement. In the end the thing that matters most will be how he votes on the issue.

But it is also possible that the House and Senate will fail to reach a compromise and no legislation will be passed which leaves legislators free to stake out any position they want on the issue for political purposes.

Republican Michigander said...

Two things have to be considered here. \

1. Is the status quo acceptable? Obviously not.

2. What can get past the Senate and Bush that is something that we can live with. MAYBE Pence's bill can. I even doubt that.

We'll see what happens

Anonymous said...

We need to keep in mind that there are reall three issues involved here:

1) Border security, which is controlling who enters the U.S.;
2) Setting a policy to deal with future illegal aliens;
3) Dealing with illegal aliens already here in the U.S.

Believe it or not, we already have laws on the books which authorize our government to control the borders and to evict illegal aliens. The REAL problem is that our government has only provided token funds for token enforcement since the 1986 illegal alien amnesty.

The deliberate decision of our government to not enforce our laws and to ignore the flood of illegals into the U.S. is a very serious breech of public trust by both major political parties. Unfortunately there is no easy way to hold anyone accountable for this offence since so many people have participated. Many of these people are now involved in the process of trying to create new laws to deal with these issues. My question is, if these people refused to enforce our laws before, how can we trust them to enforce our laws in the future?

This attempt at new legislation focuses primarily on the third issue. Why? Again, because we already have laws to deal with the first two issues. They are already pretty tough if only the government would enforce them.

Without getting into the issue of whether it is right or wrong to give amnesty to illegals, we do need to realize that granting easy amnesty would send the message to all the poor people south of the U.S. border that we are not serious about enforcing our laws here in the U.S. A new amnesty program will have the same effect as the 1986 amnesty did: it will create an even bigger flow of illegals into the U.S.

Consider that at this time politicians from both parties are afraid to enforce our laws against illegals because they are worried it will cause a backlash from hispanic voters. So I must ask: If we allow as many as 20 million hispanic illegals to eventually gain U.S. citizenship and the right to vote, will not these same politicians be even more afraid to enforce our immigration laws?

So perhaps the first step is to increase funds for boder enforcement to realistic levels, to stop providing illegals with freebie government benefits (except for emergency needs), and to begin a major crackdown on U.S. employers for hiring illegals. If illegals in the U.S. get the message that the free ride is over many of them will go home voluntarily and border enforcement will become much less difficult.

Incidently, removing the incentives for them to stay in the U.S. will also do much to reduce the number of illegals in the U.S. without having to undertake a major deportation program.

If we do decide (as a nation) that some of these uneducated and unskilled workers are REALLY needed here in the U.S., we can talk about setting up a guest worker program later. In any case, we should require guest workers to apply for work permits from outside the U.S., and not reward illegals by allowing them to move to the front of the line.

So when I look at the legislation as it is now being proposed, it looks to me like it is doing everything to give illegals amnesty while do very little that is new to address the long term problem. As it is currently being presented I do not believe that the legislation should be acceptable to conservatives.

Anonymous said...

Illegals need to go through the normal process to apply for U.S. citizenship, with the waiting period beginning from the time they are first granted a legal green card. Illegals should NOT be given credit for time spent here illegally. They should be required to apply from outside the U.S. Also, they should NOT be given credit for social security paid under false pretenses while working here illegally. Illegals convicted of any crime while here should not be allowed to get a green card.

Beyond that I have no problem with creating a guest worker program.

It would be better to have no new laws at all than to put the Senate version into law.

I sure would like to see the President step up enforcement of existing laws with or without the passage of new legislation. This is a REAL sore point for me. All over the U.S. police departments are using up considerable resources to enforce seat belt laws and such, yet nobody has the resources to go after employers that hire illegals?

Anonymous said...

I looked at the list of Senators who supported giving social security benefits to illegal aliens yesterday. Most of the Senators on the list were liberal Democrats (including both of Michigan's Senators) and Northeastern Republicans.

John McCain was on the list. This would not be a surprise except for the fact that he is running for the Republican Presidential nomination in '08. This comes after many months of hard work spent trying to win conservatives over to his side. Since McCain frequently angers 2nd amendment and pro-life voters in addition to conservatives he should seriously consider running as a Democrat if he really wants to be president.

Also on the list is Republican Senator Brownback of Kansas. No real surprise since his views on the issue are well known, but this will seriously injure his already foundering bid for the Republican nomination in '08.

The big surprise for me was Republican Richard Lugar of Indiana. He is one of the longest serving conservative Republican Senators in Washington. He usually avoids political controversy and rarely makes the news these days and I'm not sure why he supported this measure.