Posted on 04/13/2005 3:32:48 PM PDT by Conservative Firster
WASHINGTON, April 12 - Senator Bill Frist, the majority leader, said on Tuesday that he was discouraging efforts to incorporate immigration and border security measures into the Senate version of a supplemental military spending bill, which would set the stage for showdowns among Congressional Republicans over immigration later this year.
Meeting with reporters, Dr. Frist, of Tennessee, said, "I am encouraging my colleagues to defer, to postpone discussions of immigration and to postpone that debate."
He said, however, that he was still negotiating with senators who seek to add immigration provisions to the military spending bill.
The House version of the bill includes provisions to block illegal immigrants from obtaining standard driver's licenses, to make it easier to reject requests for asylum and to override environmental rules blocking construction of a barrier along California's border with Mexico.
Senators from each party seek to add amendments that would make it easier for employers to hire more foreign workers.
The immigration debate reveals a fault line in the Republican Party, pitting cultural conservatives hostile to illegal immigrants against business groups that seek foreign laborers. President Bush has declared his support for a guest-worker program that would be open to currently illegal immigrants.
On Tuesday, Dr. Frist called immigration "a huge issue, an issue that we have to address this year, that the president put a proposal on the table last year - legislatively, we did not address it - I believe we have to address this year."
House Republicans, however, said that negotiators in a conference last year promised that the provisions would be included in some "must-pass" legislation, like the supplemental military spending bill. In negotiations with the Senate, House Republicans added, they were determined to keep the provisions in the final version of the bill.
Senate Democrats want to offer a number of amendments seeking to loosen immigration restrictions or expand foreign-workers programs. Dr. Frist and Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, were in talks on Tuesday night about whether to limit the number of immigration amendments to a handful, with some Democrats seeking assurances that the final bill would not include the House's immigration restrictions, aides said.
Senator Judd Gregg, Republican of New Hampshire, and Senator Barbara A. Mikulski, Democrat of Maryland, said they planned to offer an amendment that would make more visas available for temporary seasonal workers, which they said would be needed by the hotel and fishing industries this summer.
Meanwhile, two Republican senators, John Cornyn of Texas and Jon Kyl of Arizona, advocating the tightening of border security along the lines of the House measures, said they also favored deferring the immigration debate in the Senate and enacting comprehensive measures that would also include some form of Mr. Bush's guest-worker program.
Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform and a conservative strategist working with the White House on its guest-worker proposal, predicted that each side would ultimately succeed only through comprehensive legislation that tightens border security and at the same time adds foreign workers to the labor pool. "Immigration reform and border security are not competitors; they are the same thing," he said.
He said he believed that the House Republican opponents of the guest-worker program would "get boxed out by a bipartisan coalition," and that Mr. Bush could achieve his guest-worker program mostly through strong Democratic support.
Dane, not quite: The Know-Nothing Party was one of several parties that got subsumed by the Republican Party.
It was a flash-in-the-pan but the issue and motivation endured.
This history, and the traditional moralist and non-urban Protestant base of the Republicans that contrasted with the northern urban base of the Democrats helps the question: Why are most Catholics traditionally Democrat?
You just gave away your gender. I never knew. Thanks for sharing.
Must be an election year. Politicians always do what will get them elected.
I would hope that a viable candidate would emerge among
Republicans. Bush has once again shown his colors by
being very hostile to Tancredo who is personna non grata
at the White House. I suppose he'll eventually refer to
him as a "vigilante" too. Pat Buchanan, unfortunately, is
an isolationist and an anti-Semite. Even if he ran again
(which he won't) it would be, to quote Yoge, "deja vu all
over again". Several months ago National Review suggested
that the immigration issue might split the Republicans.
The worst possible scenario is that a Dem would win --
it's hard to believe but they're wrong not only on
immigration but nearly ALL the other issues. The only
hope is that a potential candidate emerges who is right
on immigration BUT not a single issue candidate. So -
right now that doesn't appear likely. The other danger is
that conservatives DON'T vote for the lesser of two evils-
-- they drop out. Voter analysis has confirmed that. Do
you have any other ideas that can offer hope?
Indeed.
In a primary, especially a GOP primary, an issue like immigration can and will catch fire, the only other issue, even remotly close is federal spending (on defence, it would be hard for anyone to stick out of the pack).
I do honestly think you'll have a pretty deep pool of canidates in 2008, and with a couple of guys looking for upsets, you'll have some strong border security canidates.
Even if some of those guys can't win, they naturally force others to drag themselves to the right, if they want the nomination.
Tancredo is almost definatly going to run, in a state like Iowa and New Hampshire, being pro-gun and strong on border security, can get you in the top 3.
There is also the "Dean effect" (or "Buchanan Effect" or as in 2000, "Forbes effect" where Forbes made Bush come up with a big tax cut agenda). Its the effect, where even though the canidate won't win, he forces, and drives others to either adopt his positions, or come as close as possible. Dean screwed Kerry up by forcing him to go left to win the primary, and then become a flip flop in the general election.
No GOP is going to run the same risk, if Tancredo (or Sensebrenner) run hard and to the right on immigration, the others will have to run close to it to. Its a winning issue, even Newt Gingrich is looking into it, and I can guarantee you, if he runs, then you'll see these guys falling over themselves to be the border canidate.
Your # 50 is sweet.
Civilization uses politcs. Politics is compromise. Those who refuse to participate will always lose because there is never "only one deal". If Tancredo won't negotiate, the democrats will. In fact, Tancredo predicted this in his "lipstick on a pig" article 15 months ago.
You, like many here, think Tancredo is the messiah to save western civilization. He is not.
He is Pat Buchanan's protege. Just as Buchanan used culture issues to split the party to elect Clinton, Tancredo hopes to split the party to elect Clinton.
Sometimes I do wish the GOP would play the kind of hardball the democrats always have when in power. But on this we'll have to wait and see, if Sensenbrenner's bill gets dropped after being promised that it would be taken up then I'll agree 100%, we need someone else with a little spine because we can't go on like this much longer with open borders.
Say what you want about Buchanan, if he had ever won the presidency that border would have been closed to illegal traffic in 6 months, no ands, ifs or buts about it. There would also be interior enforcement.
On those points there is no compromise for conservatives and in fact had it been done as it should have been there'd be no need now to sit around and make deals with the likes of Ted Kennedy because there would be no illegals to "compromise" over.
"You, like many here, think Tancredo is the messiah to save western civilization. He is not."
Boy, do you presume too much...
Just one question since you appear to be supporting some form of a guest worker program: who's pays the social costs for these workers? That includes hospital, education, medical and incarceration costs. I can't seem to get a straight answer from anyone who advocates the Bush\Cornyn approach.
Had he been elected, he would have accomplished nothing. He would have been exponentially less effective than Carter.
"there is no compromise for conservatives"
Spoken like the Populist that you are.
Where were you in 1996? Pat won New Hampshire, Louisiana, Alaska and came in second in Iowa. That before the attack dogs began their assault on the man.
"there is no compromise for conservatives"
Taken totally out context. The no compromise referred to closing the border and enforcing the laws. There are times when we compromise, even Reagan was forced to do it. He did it with the democrats in 1986 and look where it got us.
Spoken like the Populist that you are.
Not sure, is a populist supposed to be a bad thing? Teddy Roosevelt would be considered a populist today yet he sits on Mount Rushmore.
Let me commend you on your honesty in admitting your admiration of Populists. I'm sure you read each and everyone of Molly Ivin's columns. Probably twice.
As for Roosevelt being a Populist, not hardly.
As McKinley's Veep, he campaigned against the populist's populist, William Jennings Brian. In his run as president, he defeated the dems because they were to populistic.
Of course there are reasons why Roosevelt is called a populist. As the economy shifted from agriculture to industry, the older systems allowed monopolies and exploitation. These problems would have been taken care of no matter who was president.
Which brings us back to populism. As the economy shifted from agriculture to industry and the nation shrank, the agrarian malcontents/populists wanted to presrve the "old way".
The same thing is happening today. As the economy shifts away from industry and the world shrinks, the populist malcontents want to preseve the old way.
Not a chance.
Again taking something that was said out of context. Nowhere was it stated or admitted I'm a "populist", it was simply asked if that's a bad thing. Hardly a way to have a honest dialogue.
But since we're discussing it let me point out that standing up for the middle class should never be a platform that gets handed off to the Molly Ivins of the world. Conservatives must hammer the point that's their policy and not let the other side get the moral high ground.
Liberals and conservatives may differ on how to proceed along those lines but talking about maintaining our sovereignty, including the prevention of illegal immigration, resisting one-sided free trade agreements, standing up to the losers of the world like Vincent Fox, reducing the trade debt are all positions many conservatives heartily approve. It just so happens Pat Buchanan does as well.
If you want to label him and everyone else a "populist" for believing those things, or at least some of them then I guess that makes millions of conservatives modern day populists in your mind.
I say this because of your name and the fact that it was Reagan who set in motion all of the policies that you oppose.
Aww poor Ben, you just don't know your facts and that's sad. You call people names and insult because they oppose your leftist, open borders agenda.
Reagan for your information was a strong supporter of fair trade who did not hesitate to slap tariffs on Japan and other countries for illegal dumping. He was a conservative Ben, or should I say an evil "populist"?
And despite the anmesty of 1986 due to compromising with the democrats, which you on this board are advocating more of, with Ted Kennedy no less was a strong opponent of illegal immigration and supported employer sanctions.
If you don't like conservatives or what they stand for what are you doing hanging around them and pretending to be one?
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.