Plan has 'fatal flaw,' congressman says

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.

"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.

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."

Because huge numbers of businesses would go under rather immediately.

Deservedly so. They are part of the problem. I would rather deal with that than with the continuing endless wave of more illegals, once they see that for over 25 years now, their illegality is ultimately ignored, and indeed rewarded.

Do you have access to a Spanish newspaper? Can you read Spanish? I guarantee that you will have an instant epiphany when you see the extent of the problem in their own words. The are continually outraged and more incensed than the average citizen at the continuing failings of the system providing them what they want. This, mind you, in the context of real estate loans for home purchases that the government (our government) is presently offering, as well as social security benefits and lower college tuition that American citizens cannot claim.

Your (optimistic) blanket assesment of the illegal mindset, however, is contradicted in my real life experience. Right here. Right now. Where I am living.

Illegals can't be integrated at all which is why they don't have an "integration-oriented" mindset. Make them legal in any way and that would change.

Yep, I'm in L.A. too, I've seen it all myself. It could be that I'm too optimistic, but maybe that is a better guide than pessimism.

Fining the pants off of their employers will self extract illegals from the nation. Refusing their kids into public schools and refusing them welfare will self extract illegals, telling them to go home will self extract many illegals.

Offering them a free train ride to the border is not a bad idea either. And certainly boots on the ground at our borders will go a long way in cutting the flood to a trickle. D.C. sits around and does nadda, zip, about inforcing the laws on the books.

If they can't enforce our immigration laws with the same zeal with which they inforce their unconstitutional gun laws then to heck with their guest worker program.

why would it be good to do what you suggest, assuming it was possible? would we really be better off without those people? is a closed society the best possible one?

No one has suggested a closed society. Just one where laws mean something. This is a red herring. The choices are not simply a closed society or a mindlessly open one.
I have yet to see anyone argue to eliminate legal immigration. Why must you insist on arguing or implying that this is now or has ever been the goal of the overwhelming mahority of American citizens?

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.

I agree 100%. He sidesteps those, because they are very dangerous politically. However, how the heck do you address them while those people are still illegal? That has to happen first.

I suspect what will happen is the social sevices drain will be solved through some combination of getting more taxes from work-permit holders than we get from illegals now, and by not providing some kinds of services to them.

As for the other one, it requires a constitutional ammendment, I wouldn't hold my breath. Maybe you lose your permit as soon as you're pregnant? ;) Or maybe the INS just doesn't give family of those babies visas, ever, thus removing most of the incentive for it? I dunno.

DingDingDingDingDingDing!!!!!!

Give that lady a cigar (or perhaps a more gender-appropriate prize ;-)

All of this whining about illegal immigration, and why doesn't the W and the gubmit do something about it ... why not just solve these two problems instead?

The second item -- schools and welfare -- is something that's happening in the states (California being the biggest violator). I'm pretty sure the Feds have the Constitutional authority to slap California down on this.

But the first item -- the demand-side of illegal immigration -- is far and away the biggest reason people stream across our borders.

If the jack-asses like Tancredo really want to be pissed at somebody, perhaps they should stop flapping their gums, and focus on the Americans who are financing the problem.

Make them legal in any way and that would change.

That statement is the triumph of wishful thinking opinion over reality. The original Reagan was supposed to solve the problem forever and to accomplish exactly that, and it did no such thing. It simply disproportionaltely increased our "legal" native population of criminals. Why have 400,000 illegals already slated for deportation for serious criminal activity not been deported?
"Not realistic" is simply an unacceptable answer to the overwhelming majority of citizens.

It is already illegal to hire illegal immigrants and has been for some time. The problem is there are all kinds of ways to become "legal" and most illegal immigrants know exactly how to do it. Many come with pregnant wives, have a baby here and presto, they are "legal" residents. Or if not this way, the necessary documents are readily available to them from counterfeiters, and even some employers, both of whom produce fake licenses, birth certificates and SS cards--all are available for cash or for free. Many employers of the illegals claim they have no way to check the documents for legality and go ahead and hire them.

It's all a big scam and many pols know it. Not even the INS has a good, consistent way to check the authenticity of the documents, hence it will never work until we have a un-duplicatable ID card for all immigrants. If that does not happen, look for millions more invading America until Aztlan takes over the Western states as they claim they will soon do. Adios America-- Bienvenido Aztlan!

No one has suggested a closed society. Just one where laws mean something. This is a red herring.

Ok, so what is wrong with changing the laws so that they mean something?

The people on this board who say "just kick them out", it seems pretty clear, want those 10 million or so to never come back, and for similar people to not come here in the future. That's why it's not a red herring. Legal immigration now is much less than at what it has been in the past. That may not be a completely closed society, but it isn't too far from it. My definition of open is 0.5-1% per year or thereabouts, what's yours?

I tend to agree with you. At the moment we are (a) burying our head in the sand, (b) condoning illegal action. I think what is proposed should only be the first step. Once the 'good illegals' have their temporary work-visas, we can chase all the others out of the country without hurting either those who need their labor or the 'good illegals' themselves.

I agree 100%. He sidesteps those, because they are very dangerous politically. However, how the heck do you address them while those people are still illegal? That has to happen first.

I disagree on legalizing the illegals first. It's a "ready, fire, aim" approach. Were anchor babies and the social services burden solved, I would be in favor of what he's proposing. As it is, it's a dose of cyanide.

As a Libertarian I support open borders. But definitely NOT open borders in the context of a huge welfare industry.

No MEChA just wants "their" country back. They out-populate everyone else in the southwestern states and they can vote their way to power. Simple and workable strategy. Illegals, who become legal for free under Bush's plan help that process along. Isn't it wonderful?

"The second item -- schools and welfare -- is something that's happening in the states (California being the biggest violator). I'm pretty sure the Feds have the Constitutional authority to slap California down on this."

Too bad it's unconstitutional, but I would divide California into two states. California has too much political clout in this nation for my liking. The California delegation has too much influence in Congress.

GWB was trying to do this from the time he entered office, but was interrupted by an event known as 9-11.

Now that it's so close to election time, and we are somewhat distanced from 9-11, I guess he figures it's time to dust it off and ram it through.

What if the outrage is such (and I have no problem believing that it is) that another conservative candidate emerges (Tancredo maybe?) and siphons off votes ala Ross Perot, putting a Demonrat in office? The base is thrown away for a phantom Hispanic vote?

How smart will W feel then?

Who will you vote for, Dean?

No.

But (as posted elsewhere) I walked through the legal immigration process with my wife, from marriage to naturalization. It was a frustrating and exhausting process, but I'm extremely proud that my wife is now a U.S. citizen, and so is she.

So I will not support anyone who violates that honor (including GWB), or who spits on the Oath Of Citizenship.

"I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same."

The base is thrown away for a phantom Hispanic vote?

I belief GWB is doing this out of conviction, not votes. However, if Congress blows the two following stipulations, they are hosed.

"Providing Incentives for Return to Home Country: The program will require the return of temporary workers to their home country after their period of work has concluded. The legal status granted by this program would last three years, be renewable, and would have an end. During the temporary work period, it should allow movement across the U.S. borders so the worker can maintain roots in their home country.

Protecting the Rights of Legal Immigrants: The program should not connect participation to a green card or citizenship. However, it should not preclude a participant from obtaining green card status through the existing process. It should not permit undocumented workers to gain an advantage over those who have followed the rules.

Fact Sheet: Fair and Secure Immigration Reform

Deservedly so. They are part of the problem.

Perhaps you're right, but from the anecdotes I've heard the pool of potential replacement workers is pretty thin. Metalheads, druggies, layabouts, neer-do-wells.

I did a lot of manual labor during college and even high school years, and for the most part everyone followed a normal work ethic, did what they were supposed to do, and generally worked pretty hard (particularly in construction work: digging ditches, operating a pneumatic drill, pulling and stacking concrete forms).

I have heard that this is not the work ethic of today's American youth, though it is exactly that for most of the illegals.

No one is suggesting an end to LEGAL immigration just the securing of our borders and the deportation of the criminal (illegal) aliens.

A few people have said that. I guess I don't understand why that would imply we can't give the majority of those who are here working illegaly and have no criminal record etc temp work permits, and then deport the rest? It's legal immigration if we pass a law that makes it legal, right? Do you think they should be deported (and presumably not allowed back in) because they have broken the law once already?

By the way, welcome to Free Republic.

thanks ;-P I'm a somewhat regular reader, just never posted before.

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.