Posted on 06/05/2006 4:51:21 PM PDT by Spiff
House Republicans vs. Senator Frist’s amnesty plan.
By Rep. Tom Tancredo
The United States Congress stands at a historic crossroads on immigration policy. Two roads diverge. Will the nation get another amnesty program or will it get secure borders to halt illegal entry into our country? House Republicans must choose, because they can’t have both.
The recently passed Senate bill giving amnesty to 12-15 million illegal aliens presents a challenge to House Republicans, but it also presents an opportunity. The House should respond with a strong reaffirmation of the enforcement-first strategy for border control and immigration-law enforcement, an approach strongly favored by a large majority of the American people. If House Republicans abandon that path, they will invite the desertion of their conservative base and the certain loss of the House in the November elections.
Senate Democrats voted 38 to 4 for the amnesty bill, while a majority of Senate Republicans rejected it. The amnesty bill is clearly a Democrat bill that passed with Republican support, thanks to Sen. Frist’s machinations. House Republicans must refuse to drink Bill Frist’s Kool Aid concoction—not even a tiny spoonful labeled “amnesty lite.”
Last December, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 4437, a bill that embodies the enforcement-first strategy for border control and immigration enforcement. The Senate bill takes the exact opposite approach. The two bills are polar opposites not only in text but also in spirit and in purpose. For this reason it is impractical and delusional to try to marry one to the other. Despite the advances of modern science, we do not yet have the capacity to marry a snake to a hawk and produce an eagle.
The crux of the problem is that in the deceptively packaged Senate bill, border control is there as a promise but amnesty is guaranteed, immediate, and irreversible. That is the formula that failed in the 1986 amnesty program, and the House must not buy that pig-in-a-poke again. In such omnibus plans, enforcement can be delayed, diluted, and sabotaged in numerous ways. That is why “enforcement first” is not a slogan—it is an urgent necessity.
The American people expect more from the “People’s House” than joining the Senate’s sellout to the cheap-labor lobby and the American Immigration Lawyers Association. If House Republicans do not answer that call to duty, we will deserve neither our citizens’ respect nor their votes.
There is one sure way to derail the Senate’s amnesty bill: The House Republican leadership should tell the Senate we will not go to conference on the Senate bill. The House should simply challenge the Senate to act on H.R. 4437. Until the Senate sends the House an enforcement-only bill, we have nothing to conference about.
A few Republicans in the House have called for compromise by suggesting clever plans that amount to “amnesty lite.” Down that path lies disaster because “enforcement first” cannot be compromised: Either Congress secures the borders before considering new guest-worker plans or we create a guest-worker program on the mere promise of border security. Genuine enforcement cannot be a mere part of a “comprehensive bill,” it must precede any other reform. House Republicans who break ranks with HR 4437 are choosing a path of certain catastrophe—for the nation in the long run and for our party in November.
If House Republicans take the enforcement first platform to the American people in November, they can win. There is no advantage whatsoever for Republicans in agreeing to write a bad bill in conference on the premise that even a bad bill is better than no bill at all. That is the argument we hear from the White House and it is sheer nonsense. The president does not have to face the voters in November, we do. The president lost all credibility on immigration reform in March 2005 when he called the Minutemen “vigilantes” with Vicente Fox standing at his side. It is time for the president to put his attack dogs on a short leash and let House Republicans chart their own course.
Fate has given the House of Representatives the task of rescuing our national sovereignty and our children’s futures from the Senate’s folly. There are signs we may be up to the challenge, but if we are not, neither history nor the voters will forgive us.
—Rep. Tom Tancredo represents Colorado’s 6th district and is chairman of the 97-member Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus.
"She's too dumb to hold elective office."
So are the majority of the Democrat caucus, Maria Cantwell and John Conyers inclusive, and more than a few Republicans as well ... but there they are, making our laws.
Godspeed Bill Bilbray.
Call it a plea deal, a preference, or even affirmative action. Americans have negative views of those words too so I don't gain anything debate wise on that point. However, an Amnesty is a full pardon and forgiveness. That is not whats happening here. I guess my problem is that I view the word "Amnesty" is very factually incorrect as applied to this situation.
" You want the House to conferee with the AMNESTY Senate bill, but you don't want the Senate to take up the House bill.
Just like RINOs who want conservatives to hold their noses and support them, but when conservatives run, feh, they can't win let 'em die."
one-way compromise stinks, doesnt it?
The obvous compromise is so simple:
There is a national consensus that we must secure our borders and enforce the immigration laws better. While we should find a reasonable approach to handle illegal immigrants in the U.S. now, there is no consensus on the answer. The Senate bill is not the answer, it repeats errors of the 1986 massive legalization/amnesty and contains far too many provisions that incite further illegal immigration and undermine the rule of law in immigration.
The conference should write a bill that covers the critical needs in immigration:
Secure the border first
Set up an employment verification system that works
Streamline deportation and immigration law to reduce litigation in deportations
Involve State and local law enforcement in immigration law enforcement
All of that is embodied in the House bill today, HR4437, and should be readily adopted by the conference committee. Such a common-ground bill would be a good ‘down payment’ on immigration reform that deals with the immediate immigration crisis and helps move us forward to address remaining immigration issues.
hahahaha
Well let me clear. I am for full border control. I wasnt big on this wall idea at first but if its needed to stop it in combination with other actions to help stablize Mexico and Central America I am all for it. MY main other concern is how do we deal with folks here now. To be honest I think its going to take a combination of solutions from barriers, deportation, guestworkers, citizenship proposals, and a Foreign policy that engages the Problems south of the border. I pretty much think we have all been out to lunch on whats been going down there since we intervened in Panama
So, I am not some person that wants the whole World marching in here.
It might sound comical but I think it can work. The first thing to do is actually engaging the latino community in a more aggressive way. It is showing signs of working.
Well I agree that the numbers you are citing are too many if true. The problem we are facing is one of demographics. We are rapidly approaching the retirement of 35 million boomers. We already have an unsustainable retirement population and this new influx is going to wreak havoc on the country unless our tax base is somehow expanded and we are just not breding fast enough to make up the difference. As I said earlier on this thread, if we have to import workers then I prefer socially conservative people rather than those that have lived in what amounts to European atheist countries. Hispanics and Asians are the only minority groups that are not a guaranteed liberal voting block but the rhetoric some are using in this debate is making many of them wonder if they are really welcome in conservative circles. Don't think for a moment that legal Hispanics are not watching this debate closely.
"Exactly. The dirty little secret of this entire debate is that a large number of illegal immigration opponents, like FAIR, actually oppose legal immigration as well."
You know better than that. But the technique of liberals like yourself and the rest of the "open borders" crowd is to denigrate a legitimate argument and make it into something extreme.
You can't get away with that. Now go back to your Democrat party registration booth. There is no way what we want will limit legal immigration, and I don't know a soul who's against people playing by the rules and joining our nation.
You, on the other hand, advocate for those who break the law, and as far as I can tell you are happy as a clam to see unlimited illegals flood the place voting for liberals and Democrats. I've never seen you advocate for anything conservative. I've said it before.
As to this number of 20 to 60 million. I dont see any mumbers approaching 60 million in the next 20 years. I have read the Heritage report where alot of these numbers are based on. I find their reasoning a bit flawed. I think the CBO numbers even if a bit low is closer.
I'll bet you are a good Christian too.
Then so be it, better than a bad bill!
We can not surrender our freedom to some mambo jumbo coming out of the Senate/White House and watch the American way of life going down the tubes 20 Years from now, just because we do not want to offend our Southern Neighbors.
The Mexicans can go to hell, if they can not control their internal affairs. We are not Mexico's welfare country.
I am sick and tired to be the point man for the ills of the Mexican society.
"I've never seen you advocate for anything conservative. I've said it before."
Or rational for that matter. Atleast I haven't seen it yet. Miracles do happen....
Well I was always taught that it was real dicey for anyone to speak for God. I am not very religious but it seems to be a bit silly to think God would give a rip about this issue.
Jews EXIST today because of what we did during WW2. "mixed bag at best" he says...
No problem. I suspect we can muddle along for another 40 years. Tancredo gets to run for president and lose and nothing will change.
To hold a Mexican flag in America...lol
You know that's horsefeces, sinkspur. FR has a large number of black and Hispanic posters also. I've got nothing against Mexicans or Hispanics. Illegals are illegals, regardless of what race they are.
Control of the borders is important, and should be done, but something must be done, at the same time, about those who are already here.
Pence's plan addresses that, which your Senate buddies won't consider. So the status quo will continue and the Senate/Bush administration will have all the respect of prostitutes.
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.