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.
Basically similar to the Presidents. First get them out of the shadows so we know they are here. That should cut down on crime right there. Illegal aliens often remind me of guys I knew that had bench warrents for some minor stuff and they never took care of it. It seemed to fact that spent all there time trying to avoid some bench warrent for DWI for instance or some silly battery just got them into more trouble.
Second have some guest worker program that can be reviewed on a bi annual or quarterly basis. That way the numbers can be increased or reduced in antcipation of economic forcast so not to hurt the American worker. This also should cut down on the migration of entire families here if they can be assured they can come back for these seasonal jobs. Therefore the pattern of circular migrationwill be reestablished.
As to citizenship. The Criminal with serious records get deported. The rest if they keep there nose clean pay fines taxes learn English etc, keep steady employment can apply for citizenship if they want in twelve years or so. If people want to restrict this to people that have wives or children here I am fine with that. Those are the people I am most concerned with anyway. The rest can apply for it just like anyone else in the World
Of course none of this will work unless we have some proper and tamper proof ID and controls. I don't have a problem with that and heavy fines to employers that go outside this system.
I am not talking about the current situation. I mean to refernce this as to the proposed bills in the congress. Of course, the current situation is intolerable.
Another Excellent Comment and Observation.
I want the House to hold strong.
ENFORCEMENT first.
The invasion has to be first stopped.
If the Mexican election goes the wrong way, we'll be inundated.
There are 5 billion "lesser ones" that are "lesser" than the nation of Mexico. Are you going to let all of them - ALL of them - into the United States too? Where do you draw the line? I draw it at the established border.
I remember when Reagan passed an amnesty bill...it was a disaster and is responsible for the mess today. We can not pass any sort of amnesty bill without enforcement. The Senate refused to put in severe penalties against employers of illegals thus proving they have no intention of enforcing border security. It is all window dressing...the guards on the border who do nothing by the way. If the Senate and/or house was serious about this issue, they could put an end to it. Penalize employers-no jobs the issue goes away.
And all I am saying is this: Replacing the truly pro-life Santorum with the nominally-prolife-but-will-support-Schumer Casey will be a setback for the prolife cause, no ifs, ands, or buts. Casey already waffled on whether he'd support conservative judges.
At least you admit you don't care about the sovereignty of the United States or that illegal immigrants mean more to you then the sovereignty of the United States. Are you Mexican per chance?
Excellent point. We have done this before which is how we got here.
However, I am getting a feeling from many Hispanic Republicans that they are getting a tad tired of not having their views heard. Including the head of the Texas Hispanic Assembly chapter that in comments he has made over the weekend, after he and others attended the Texas Republican Convention. This is a guy that supports getting rid of Birth Right Citizenship I believe and is no radical. Of course I think you were there and can give greater insight into that perhaps than what I read in the Sat and Sun Texas media."
The Republican *base* is a tad tired of not having their views heard. That's what I heard when I was there.
The media never gets their coverage right, so you cant rely on that.
Unintentional use of words or not, I don't want a "compromised" bill. There are some things that cannot be compromised. Do we grant amnesty or not?
Do you have a better plan to satisfy the whole country?
See my post #64. We need to delink immigration reform from border security, which includes tracking down visa overstays. Until we can control the flow of illegals into the US, it is virtually impossible to implement comprehensive immigration reform. When you have a water pipe break in the basement, the first thing you do is shut the water off. Then you figure out ways to handle the water damage.
The first thing we need to do is secure our borders (including creating the administrative apparatus to track down and deport visa overstays) and cut off the supply of illegals to a trickle.
Second, we need to identify the scope of the problem. Estimates on the numbers of illegals here ranges from 9 to 20 million. We must have better information on which to base any any comprehensive immigration reform. We can enlist state and local governments in this effort along with hospitals, schools, prisons etc. Once we have the data, then we can develp the public policy to solve the problem.
I see no sense of urgency or desire to deport millions of people. I also see no rush to give them permanent legal status and all that entails, e.g., eligibility for Medicaid, EITC, Medicare, sponsorship of family members for entry into the US, welfare, etc. Those that are trying to link border security to comprehensive immigration reform are just trying to stampede us into making a hurried decision on a complex issue that deserves greater deliberation and further study. The are also holding hostage immediate action on securing our borders.
Personally, I am not in favor of rewarding people with citizenship who violated our laws. It is unfair to the millions now waiting overseas in line for years to come in leglly. Anyone who was over 18 when he entered the US illegally would never be granted citizenship, but rather, at the very most, a green card with no possibility of applying for citizenship. But that remains to be decided once we have a real handle on the problem.
Amnesty is wrong in so many ways. It makes a mockery of our laws and sends the wrong signal to the rest of the world. The message is just get here and you can stay with the eventual possibility of citizenship. We made this mistake in 1986 and as Ed Meese says, we shouldn't repeat it.
The Senate Bill was passed by 40+ Dems and aprox 20 Pubs.
What you two want is as close to open borders as possible, which the Senate bill does in spades.
You, and others like you, know that, and don't care. And don't bother making fun of me again, because I will not respond.
"He lied about his Term Limit Pledge and claimed he was "mentally unfit" to avoid Vietnam.
Talk about faux. I'm not surprised you "support" him"
Why don't you debate his take on immigration instead of tearing him down personally. Defend this administrations policy for open borders, instead of personal attacks.
I call them the 29%er's.
You and sinkspur are in the minority. The line in the sand is now drawn.
I don't like Pense's solution either...but you are right about the Senate's response to it. I hope the House continues to dig in their heels. There is no way to "compromise" with the Senate.
Seal the borders first, show us that you have, then we'll talk.
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.