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.
I dont particually like the Pence Bill because I think things could be alot simpler. Of course I am the resident FRra ra supporter of President's approach also. But I will swallow the Pence appraoch if I have to. Its a starting point at least where the two sides can meet
Hispanics are the least likely to have abortions BUT don't let facts get in your way.
"No one knows what they will consider in committee."
The only good approach would be to simply report out HR4437.
" For crying out loud. Here is reality. At this point NOTHING will be passed this year."
Well, the Senate RINOs are to blame for the sorry state of affairs we find ourselves in.
Instead of trying to work with the House bill, or pass something that could possibly compromise with it ...
They passed the worst bill in 20 years.
And now they wont give a much better bill the time of day. Their despicable behavior has only depressed the base, encouraged border-crossers, undermined possible real solutions, and made a Democratic Congress more liekly.
Bad all around, and for what? To avoid being tough and right on immigration?!? Shame on them.
"If Bush really wanted to pander he would be shooting Mexicans at the border. "
Of course not. If he is pandering to Vicente Fox, he calls him up *first* to tell him the NG going there wont be shooting or doing anything remotely dangerous to the flow of illegal immigrants.
No bill is better than a bad bill. Moreover, it can be a political plus. The Senate Reps voted AGAINST the bill 32 to 23. The Dems voted 38 [39 if you include Jeffords] to 4 FOR the bill. Thus, almost two Dems voted for the bill for every one Rep. The Senate Reps need to reframe this as a Dem bill.
The House bill is where most Americans are at, i.e., an enforcement first approach. The President, Dems, and RINOs are trying to stampede a bill through, but there is no real sense of urgency for comprehensive immigration reform nor does it have to be linked to border security, including getting visa overstays under control. The idea that voters are demanding immigration reform is nonsense. They want the borders secured and something done about the brazen demands of illegals marching through our streets carrying Mexican flags.
When people like Shays are saying that their constituents want enforcement and no amnesty, it should be clear that this can be a winning issue for the Reps. We will see how Bilbray makes out later today.
And don't kid yourself. Most voters do not distinguish between the House and the Senate. They'll hold the GOP responsible, and the House will go to the Democrats.
All elections are local. Immigration reform may or may not play a role in the election, depending upon the district. The House bill had the overwhelming support of the Reps, 203 to 17 (11 not voting) FOR and interestingly, 36 Dems voted for the bill as well. If the House Reps stand firm and educate the public about its bill and the Senate's, immigration can be a winner in the fall for the GOP.
I find the reactions of McCain, Hagel, Graham, et. al. when they are confronted with the truth that the Senate bill is really amnesty to be very telling. They know the public does not support it or an increase in legal immigration.
Uh Bush won 30% of Hispanics in 2004. That is the largest minority vote the GOP has. If you think we can win without the Hispanic vote you are nuts.
Having some integrity is not such a bad idea, I will have you know, namely sticking to your points/beliefs and risking to upset your base supporters!
Calling him a 2 bit huckster is a little over the edge, I might add.
Standing firm and unwavering, observing your constituents will, should not earn him a "huckster" name.
Speaking of "milking"the issue...which portion of "stop the illegals" issue don't you comprehend?!
Why? he isn't risking anything. He is in hog heaven. He is cock of the walk, he is a CONTENDER. He is as phony as a 3 dollar bill. The last thing he wants is a solution to illegal immigration he would be nothing without it.
I think replacing a white majority in the US is as racist as replacing a black majority in South Africa or a Latino Majority in Mexico. If my beliefs are bannable than so be it, it would be a pointless exercise to post other than that which is important to me anyhow. But I suspect that my position is agreeable to the vast majority of whites, and probably even most Asians and blacks. It's actually those who would like to see the US become the first nation in world history to give up its majority racial status without a fight that are the extremists.
The Census Bureau has already estimated this change will happen by 2050 and that was before all this talk of a new massive immigration policy. It doesn't take a "David Duke", as you referred to me earlier, to be concerned about major changes like this. If discussing a looming historical sea-change is taboo for a society, that society is brainwashed out of its reasoning ability.
Firs,t leave aside your false claim that anti-illegal immigrant mean being anti-immigrant. My legal immigrant wife is more strongly against illegal immigration than I am, and there is a good reason why: Catering to illegal immigration is a slap in the face to legal immigrants who played by the rules and jumped through the hoops to get here. It is unfair and unjust engage in such favoritism to lawbreakers.
"You know I think its pretty clear that in the old testament there is Biblical mandate to take care of the Alien. "
We take care of one million 'Aliens' legally in this country by letting them immigrate, that is more than any other country on earth. Our immigration system is far easier and more generous than other catholic nations, including particularly that hpyocritical nation, Mexico.
There is no biblical mandate nor is it Catholic church teaching to support law-breaking.
What makes you think citizens who are hispanic want illegal immigration. Most that I have met want the borders secured as much as I do.
"Much of the opposition on FR is motivated, at bottom, by a dislike of Mexicans and people who are different. You've got a couple of examples on this very thread."
"You know that's horsefeces, sinkspur. "
Yes, it is.
"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."
Attrition.
Well I am hoping that if Casey in Penn wins at least one good thing that might happen is that there will be more Pro Life Democrats running. It wasnt that long ago that happened. In Louisiana both Louisiana Senators(Johnston and Breaux were prolife as well as every House Dem we have had except I believe William Jefferson. Of course I have about given up on California every being Pro life.
Why? he isn't risking anything. He is in hog heaven. He is cock of the walk, he is a CONTENDER. He is as phony as a 3 dollar bill. The last thing he wants is a solution to illegal immigration he would be nothing without it."
Excellent description of:
John McCain, Chuck Hagel, and all the other RINOs.
Texasforever's speciality is to engage in circular and strawman arguments.
What makes you think that a large percentage of legal Hispanics were not beneficiaries of the 1986 amnesty?
Yep them too. I hold no brief for McCain and especiallly Hagel.
Uh that means 7 out of 10 voted for Kerry. Adding more Hispanics doesn't close the gap but instead adds seven new Democrats for every three new Republicans. Most third graders would understand that.
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.