It is most likely a political move and one that will only help him. The conservative republican who was going to vote for him before certainly isn't going to turn around now and vote for any of the democrats that are running even if they are against this move. However, the undecided vote, those who are not really staunchly republican or democrat could very well be swayed by this. This position on immigration is much more in-line with the politics of the Democrat party than the Republican party so many who might be liberal in some areas, but not staunchly a Democrat could choose to vote for him now over an issue like this. It makes him seem more "compassionate."
International Level: Diplomat / Political Participation: 320 32%
There is a lot of discussion about this, especially among the conservative pundits like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.
It appears to be a political move. However, a lot of people think that it is a reaction to the idea that we can't/don't enforce current immigration law, and that this is mostly a reaction to that idea.
I think it is extremely dangerous and foolish. I'm sure that most of the illegal aliens in the US are basically good, decent people. But there are a lot of them who aren't. It is documented that people, young men in their 20s, from places such as Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Libya have crossed the borders illegaly. There can be no national security policy without border security.
Another point to consider is that by continuing to allow a flood of low-wage labor into the country, wages for all continue to languish. According to basic economic theory, when there is an overabundance of a resource, that price for that resource stays low. When that resource becomes scarce, the price rises, and eventually causes innovation to be implemented to replace the scarce resource.
What this means is that (IMO) this move will slow down economic recovery, and actually increase unemployment.
There are a lot of other arguments both pro and con. But to answer your question, it is much more of a Democrat position, but mainly because the Democrats have successfully used it to swell the ranks of voters which benefits them in elections.
NightHawk
International Level: International Guru / Political Participation: 854 85.4%
NY Times Article
By RICHARD W. STEVENSON and STEVEN GREENHOUSE
Published: January 8, 2004
Announcing the plan in a ceremony in the East Room of the White House, Mr. Bush said it made economic sense to allow employers to find willing workers for jobs that Americans did not want. He cast the proposal as part of a tradition of welcoming immigration. The United States has an estimated eight million or more illegal immigrants.
"Reform must begin by confronting a basic fact of life and economics - some of the jobs being generated in America's growing economy are jobs American citizens are not filling," Mr. Bush said to cheers from an audience that included cabinet members and representatives of Hispanic groups. "Out of common sense and fairness, our laws should allow willing workers to enter our country and fill jobs that Americans are not filling. We must make our immigration laws more rational and more humane, and I believe we can do so without jeopardizing the livelihoods of American citizens."
==========end snip===========
While it looks simple enough and basically a good idea at first, I can foresee problems with this on a number of different fronts.
1. Where is the money going to come from to process the illegals? Californians already pay for education and health care for illegals.
2. What already overworked fed.gov agency is supposed to handle the paperwork? Or will they expect each state to shoulder the burden of paper and cost?
3. Can they track illegals with fake identities??
4. It's impossible to keep track of all the immigrants to this country who sneak over the borders.
5. Some employers WANT to keep their employees illegal -- that way they don't have to obey any labor laws.
While I agree that there are jobs out there that most Americans wouldn't take, some of those jobs are being taken by illegals that a citizen could have had a chance at.
W has his work cut out for him on this one.
Roz
(this is sort of a different topic maybe...)
International Level: Ambassador / Political Participation: 595 59.5%
... is he trying to be the next Kennedy? I really do not understand the benefit of spending billions to go into space and not solve issues at home because of 'budget' or 'lack of funds'?
BUSH TO PROPOSE MANNED MISSIONS TO MOON, MARS
President Bush next week will lay out his "vision for expanding the space
program," which is expected to include long-term proposals for manned missions
to the moon and an eventual manned mission to Mars, senior administration
officials say.
https://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/01/09/b...pace/index.html
International Level: International Guru / Political Participation: 3231 100%
QUOTE (JB@Trinidad @ 9-Jan 04, 6:47 AM) |
... is he trying to be the next Kennedy? I really do not understand the benefit of spending billions to go into space and not solve issues at home because of 'budget' or 'lack of funds'? |
International Level: International Guru / Political Participation: 854 85.4%
QUOTE |
Space exploration produces incredible benefits. |
International Level: International Guru / Political Participation: 3231 100%
I once heard a figure that for every $1 spent on space exploration, over $8 in benefits accrue. Since space work is very high tech, a lot of jobs come from it. Also, there is always a lot of technological advancement from space exploration, just from the engineering required. For example, a huge amount of the research and development in computers came from the requirement for small, powerful computers on spacecraft.
NightHawk
International Level: International Guru / Political Participation: 854 85.4%
Okay that is fine, but as a leader of a country the question for Bush to answer still remains...
Are those benefits greater than solving issues at home?
International Level: International Guru / Political Participation: 3231 100%