The real reason is this:
The politician will get more votes from the Latin-American populace if they take a pro-immigration stance.
In states where politicians stand to win from latin-American voters, they will be pro-immigration. In states where there is little latin-American voters, they will tend to be pro-FENCES.
In one sense, this seems duplicitous, but in fact we have a representative democracy. Whatever gets a politician elected is supposed to represent the politician's constituency.
Politicians want guest-worker programs to be elected. Politicians want fences so they can be elected.
Politicians also represent unions - so they have to weigh a balance - and the balance usually means money from PACs.
When the Union's PAC gives more money than the Latin-American PAC, then the representative can be elected - so they go pro-Union. The contrary is obvious.
If American's really voted the issues, this wouldn't be true. But, Americans are a fickle bunch, and they tend to vote for the side with the most, brightest, loudest, most-offensive ads.
Remember Willy Horton. The guy who came up with that ad apologized on his deathbed.
2006-06-21 10:17:48
·
answer #1
·
answered by Blim 5
·
1⤊
2⤋
Because that means legally controlled temporary immigation, cheap labor and the fact that those workers will get sent back to Mexico at the end of the agreed term.
It shows goodwill towards solving a problem that is decades old, and has reached a point where you need to do something.
Immigrants are needed to take over those jobs that Americans do not want. That's a fact. You need them and you don't.
Politicians need to do this because they ignored the problem for an extremely long time, they are looking for the middle ground, a solution that will keep both countries and governments happy. Maybe that works for Mexico and the USA, but not all immigrants are Mexican, there are plenty of other countries, will America also work on guest-worker programs with them?
This program may help weed out the honest, hardworking Mexicans from the criminals.
Hop this helps.
2006-06-27 17:47:54
·
answer #2
·
answered by Karan 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
I am TOTALLY against a guest worker program.
HOWEVER, if they will be used to weaken unions and prevent union organizing, I am MORE THAN WILLING to give a guest worker program a second look.
* Unions - and their "protect the worker at all costs even if he is wrong" syndrom - are the reason many American products are now more expensive and inferior to many imports.
* Unions - and the ridiculously inflated salaries they coerce out of companies - are the reason our jobs are moving overseas.
* Unions - and the higher costs they force companies to pass on to the consumer - are the reason the cost of living is so high in the industrial belt. Just ask any Southerner who ventures North how expensive it is compared to the South. It is RIDICULOUS how much more things are up here.
* Unions - and their ridiculous demands - are the reason you pay 20 grand or more for a car. Recently, the UAW demanded free, paid cell phones and paid abortions on demand for its worker. THAT would be enough for me to NEVER buy an American car again.
* Unions - and the tariffs they support - are the reason many American products are inferior. If American products had TRUE competition, we would produce the best of everything because NO ONE can compete with the American worker ... unless we allow them to.
Glad you brought that up! Unions are the bane of American society.
2006-06-22 08:38:16
·
answer #3
·
answered by Outlaw 1-3 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes. Just like illegal immigration. I cynically believe that was their trade. "We'll agree to screen going forward if you give us some OTHER subservient class of workers that won't ask for decent wages or working conditions the way these uppity Americans do."
Except the guest worker program in the Senate Bill would not have been a real guest worker program but a huge permanent immigration increase without employer funding of schools or other services used by the new 'guest' work force.
2006-06-21 10:53:35
·
answer #4
·
answered by DAR 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
I tend to disagree with your reasoning. I think that if Illegals get guest worker status they will be able to demand higher wages. In fact they will have too when they are forced to pay taxes.
From a political stand point I think it's 3 fold.
1) They do not want to tackle the issue of trying to remove large numbers of people from the country.
2) They have their eye on a large potential future voting block.
3) They believe with extra workers suddenly paying into the system that they will not have to address the issue of a social security system which is going bankrupt as more baby boomers reach retirement age.
2006-06-21 10:18:56
·
answer #5
·
answered by Bryan 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
the politicians who want a guest worker program have other motives, like they can pay their employees less, make a bigger profit. the politicians do not care at all about you, remember that. remember that in november, they do not care about you, they only care how fat their wallet is.
a guest worker program is treasonous to americans, they are selling us out, cheap too.
2006-06-21 10:19:24
·
answer #6
·
answered by NONAME 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Good points! In reality though, the MIDDLE CLASS have quickly become second-class in many cities across this great nation of ours.
Guest workers with amnesty will be the "FINAL NAIL" in the coffin for MILLIONS of MIDDLE CLASS americans!
Peace........FreeBird/Andrew
2006-06-21 10:15:17
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
And all this time I thought it was because most of their constituents were originally immigrants with family in Mexico or illegally in the country and they wanted to get re-elected...
2006-06-21 10:12:35
·
answer #8
·
answered by ? 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
you mean we still have unions?
2006-06-21 10:13:02
·
answer #9
·
answered by fartman 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
to make money
2006-06-21 10:15:53
·
answer #10
·
answered by saleem k 3
·
0⤊
0⤋