Posted on 01/08/2004 5:01:57 AM PST by T-Bird45
President Bush's proposal has thrust Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., back into the national spotlight as one of the most outspoken advocates of tougher measures against illegal immigration.
On Wednesday, Tancredo appeared on numerous national network telecasts, and press secretary Carlos Espinoza said he had the busiest day of his career fielding interview requests.
Tancredo condemned the proposal as dangerous for national security. And he publicly cast doubt on the sincerity of his own party's president: He believes Bush's package may be just an election year ploy to win Hispanic votes.
In Tancredo's view, the measures would reward illegal immigration and do nothing to secure U.S. borders against terrorists lost in the huge numbers crossing into America.
Failure to create secure borders first is the "fatal flaw" in Bush's proposal, he said.
"The president makes two very bad mistakes in this proposal," he said.
"No. 1, he rewards people for having broken the law. That's bad policy," he said, referring to the idea of allowing millions of illegal immigrants to register and work.
"No. 2, he believes it will not hurt him politically."
Tancredo said his office received hundreds of calls Tuesday from Republicans furious with the idea of allowing illegals to work.
Tancredo is not alone in his views. He is chairman of a caucus that counts 68 other members of Congress united behind proposals for secure borders, a halt to illegal immigration and a limited guest-worker program.
Colorado representatives Marilyn Musgrave and Joel Hefley have signed onto the caucus.
Tancredo predicted the president's proposal would die in the House because of opposition by his own party. "It will be a very ugly event," he said.
The president offered only principles, not an actual bill - such a measure will take months to write, he noted. "I think he doesn't even want this."
It's not the first time Tancredo has clashed with the White House over immigration.
Shortly after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Tancredo claimed the Bush administration was promoting amnesty for illegal immigrants to score political points.
Tancredo drew a rebuke from Bush's top political adviser, Karl Rove, for saying that if lax border control contributed to another terrorist attack, then the White House and Congress could have "blood on their hands."
The Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus page is here
http://www.house.gov/tancredo/Immigration/
The list of Members is here
http://www.house.gov/tancredo/Immigration/members.html
>Hmmmmm. Why not? There are other answers beyond this one, but perhaps this one, uncomfortable though it is, may be the best answer.
Because doing so would also force out perhaps hundreds of thousands of American citizens. Many of the illegals are here with families of one sort of another. They have had children. A child born on US soil is a US citizen. If you boot the mother, you condemn a US citizen to life in 3rd world Mexico with 3rd world Mexican medicine and care.
If you just boot the father, who supports the family?
Yeah, it's a problem. Bush's proposal probably isn't perfect, but it is not clear why the bomb throwers don't want to adjust it rather than elect a Democrat.
Wanna bet? All you gotta do is impose severe penalities - huge fines, executive jail time - on people who hire them and there will be no place for them to work. Without jobs, they will go home on their own.
The fruits of the Welfare State look mighty tasty to the invaders.
You are living in fantasy land! What makes you think Mexicans will vote for Republicans in the future? Although Jorge is giving it the old college try when it comes to Hispandering, Dean is promising the illegals full citizenship. Whatever the means, if these people come here in a "guest worker" program, the anchor babies they pop out will vote Dem, you can be sure of it. And Dems will give them full citizenship as soon as they retake power. Dems will hold out all the affimative action goody payoffs, and more White and and Asian kids will be turned away from opportunity. It will be a voting block the likes of which you have never seen, resulting in an exponential socialism that will make Dubya's "free pills for Granny" look like fascism.
Yes, they are huge net consumers of taxes, as I wrote... just go back and read what I wrote about the California budget deficit. There are lots of ways to address that, like for example only providing emergency government services to work-permit holders (e.g. hospital ER yes, welfare or free education no), and of course making them all legal in some way and therefore fully taxed. I actually think Bush is coming out with this proposal now is at least in part at Arnold's urging, because Arnold needs this to fix the state budget.
Many come here "yearning to eat free". We're tired of it.
Actually, that is not the primary reason. Sure, they'll take handouts if we give them handouts, but in my experience the reason they come here is because it is a much better place to live. Mexico, let's face it, doesn't *have* laws and is just generally a pestillential hellhole. Most of the immigrants I know are extremely hard-working and industrious. A $6/hour job in the US (*without* welfare) is basically heaven to them, because they have *hope*.
That is the source of the problem that NO ONE will address, if we are to solve the problem, we must remove the incentives.
My point was booting US citizens, i.e., the babies. How are you going to do that? Some of those babies are 20 now. No one says it's not a difficult problem. The point is why would electing Dean be the solution?
Your point 2 actually suggests that this might actually be better for national security. If these people sign up, then we know who and where they are -- which is a whole lot better than what we've got right now.
The other side of the coin is, this puts an even higher priority on enforcement against those who do not sign up. And it also puts the monkey squarely on the backs of prospective employers -- I can see there being criminal penalties for those who knowingly hire (and perhaps fail to report) undocumented aliens.
Bottom line is this: the INS is not capabable of something on this scale, nor is any other federal government entity. The responsibility for making this, or any deportation scheme, is to place the responsibility on those who hire people.
Let's face it: the illegal immigrant problem is no different from the drug problem. The supply will continue so long as there is a market for it. As long as Americans are willing to hire illegal immigrants, there will be people willing to cross the border to be hired by them.
There's only one way to really put a stop to it: make it illegal to knowingly hire an illegal alien.
There was a time - back in the 60's and 70's - when there were frequent INS/BP raids on businesses that hired illegals. You'd read about them in the newpaper or sometime see coverage on TV news if it was big enough.
The legal ones, perhaps.
What you describe is the theoretical system for immigration we had before the illegals became the problem. Mexico and Latin America have always had numerical preferences and I have absolutely no problem with that. As a matter of fact, I am one of those.
Your (optimistic) blanket assesment of the illegal mindset, however, is contradicted in my real life experience. Right here. Right now. Where I am living.
Bush's proposal does exactly nothing to address the huge social services drain. Bush's proposal does exactly nothing to address the "anchor baby" issue.
These aren't just minor flaws, they're the crux of the problem. Very few people would object to folks simply coming here to work. I have major and severe objections to increasing the number of parasites living off my taxes.
Umm... Rosie, have you actually looked at how immigrants who have been here for a while or their children vote? Have you talked to any? My take is they are mostly moderate to mildly conservative. That is what got Arnold elected, he got a lot of the hispanic vote which surprised almost everybody. Well guess what, I don't have the numbers but I bet you the ones that voted for him were mostly immigrants that had been here for over 10 years or their children that grew up here. Also, consider Bush in Texas... I rest my case. They are not your enemies unless you really really want them to be.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.