Posted on 06/19/2006 9:30:58 AM PDT by conservativepunditinohio
Prominent Conservatives, Civic Leaders Urge President Bush and Congress to Back Enforcement First on Immigration
WASHINGTON, June 19 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Leading conservatives and civic leaders have signed an "open letter" on immigration declaring that "border and interior enforcement must be funded, operational, implemented, and proven successful¾and only then can we debate the status of current illegal immigrants, or the need for new guest worker programs."
The signers include William Bennett, Robert Bork, William F Buckley, Ward Connerly, Newt Gingrich, David Horowitz, David Keene, John Leo, Herbert London, Rich Lowry, Daniel Pipes, Phyllis Schlafly, and Thomas Sowell among others.
Hudson Senior Fellow John Fonte, who organized the letter, said:
"We want to commend the members of Congress who have supported enforcement first including 85 percent of all Congressional Republicans, 36 Democrats in the House and 4 in the Senate.
"We particularly want to thank Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) and House chairmen Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) and Peter King (R-N.Y.) for their leadership role in putting America's national interests in border and interior enforcement first."
As a matter of organizational policy, Hudson Institute does not take stances on pending legislation.
Following is the text of the letter:
"First Things First on Immigration: An Open Letter to President Bush, Senate Majority Leader Frist, and Speaker of the House, Hastert"
Recently, columnist Thomas Sowell wrote: "It will take time to see how various new border control methods work out in practice and there is no reason to rush ahead to deal with people already illegally in this country before the facts are in on how well the borders have been secured."
We the undersigned agree with this statement. In 1986, Congress passed "comprehensive" immigration reform that included amnesty for around 3 million illegal immigrants, border enforcement, and interior enforcement (employer sanctions). Amnesty came, but enforcement was never seriously implemented either at the border or in the interior.
Let us not make this mistake again. We favor what Newt Gingrich has described as "sequencing." First border and interior enforcement must be funded, operational, implemented, and proven successful¾and only then can we debate the status of current illegal immigrants, or the need for new guest worker programs. We are in the middle of a global war on terror. 2006 is not 1986. Today, we need proof that enforcement (both at the border and in the interior) is successful before anything else happens. As Ronald Reagan used to say "trust, but verify."
The majority of Republicans in the Senate opposed the recently passed Hagel-Martinez bill. Senator Vitter (R-La.) said that because border enforcement will not be in place, "this (bill) will in fact make the illegal immigration problem much bigger." The No. 3 Republican in the Senate, Senator Rick Santorum (Pa.) said, "We need a border-security bill first." Senator Vitter, Senator Santorum, the majority of Senate Republicans, and the majority of House Republicans are right¾we need proven enforcement before we do anything else. Adopting cosmetic legislation to appear to be "doing something" about enforcement, but which actually makes the situation worse, is not statesmanship, it is demagogy.
We thank the majority of the Senate Republicans (33 in all) and the seven Democrats who supported the Isakson amendment, which insists upon verifiable benchmarks for border security before considering other issues. Moreover, we say "Thank You" to Jim Sensenbrenner, Peter King, and the bi-partisan House majority including 36 Democrats, that passed HR 4437. We may quibble with a clause here and there, but you in the House and the majority of Senate Republicans are right to emphasize that the Congress and the President must deal with enforcement first and other issues later. Stand fast; the American people are overwhelmingly with you.
Signed,
William B. Allen, Professor of Political Science at Michigan State University
William J. Bennett, former Secretary of Education under President Reagan, former Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy under former President George H.W. Bush
Thomas L. Bock, National Commander of the American Legion
Robert H. Bork, Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute, former Solicitor General, acting Attorney General, Supreme Court nominee, U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge
William F. Buckley, Jr., founder and Editor-at-Large of National Review
Peter Collier, founding Publisher of Encounter Books, cofounder of Center for the Study of Popular Culture
Ward Connerly, former Regent at the University of California, founder and Chairman of the American Civil Rights Institute (ACRI), winner of the 2005 Bradley Prize for Outstanding Intellectual Achievement
T. Kenneth Cribb, former domestic policy advisor for President Ronald Reagan
Glynn Custred, Professor of Anthropology at California State University, Hayward, and coauthor of the California Civil Rights Initiative, Proposition 209
John C. Eastman, Professor of Law at Chapman University School of Law, Director of the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence
John Fonte, Senior Fellow and Director of the Center of American Common Culture at the Hudson Institute
David Frum, former speechwriter for George W. Bush, Resident Fellow at American Enterprise Institute
Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., founder and President of the Center for Security Policy
Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House of Representatives, Chairman of the Gingrich Group, Senior Fellow at American Enterprise Institute
Jonah Goldberg, Editor-at-Large of the National Review Online, national syndicated columnist
Victor Davis Hanson, Martin and Illie Anderson Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, recipient of the 1991 American Philological Association Excellence in Teaching Award
David Horowitz, cofounder of the Center for the Study of Popular Culture, Editor of FrontPageMag.com
Fred C. Iklé, former Undersecretary of Defense under Reagan, former Director of U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency
David Keene, Chairman of the American Conservative Union
Brian Kennedy, President of the Claremont Institute, Publisher of the Claremont Review of Books
Roger Kimball, Managing Editor of The New Criterion
Alan Charles Kors, Professor of History at the University of Pennsylvania
Mark Krikorian, Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies
Bevery LaHaye, Founder and Chairman of the Concerned Women for America
Michael A. Ledeen, Resident Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute
Seth Leibsohn, Fellow at the Claremont Institute
John Leo, columnist and Contributing Editor to U.S. News and World Report
Herbert London, President of the Hudson Institute
Kathryn Jean Lopez, Editor of National Review Online
Rich Lowry, Editor of National Review
Heather Mac Donald, John M. Olin Fellow at the Manhattan Institute, winner of the 2005 Bradley Prize for Outstanding Intellectual Achievement
John O-Sullivan, Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute, Editor-at- Large of National Review
Juliana Pilon, Research Professor at the Institute for World Politics
Daniel Pipes, founder and Director of the Middle East Forum and Campus Watch, former member of the board of the U.S. Institute of Peace
Andrew "Andy" Ramirez, Chairman of the Friends of Border Patrol
Phyllis Schlafly, founder and President of Eagle Forum
Thomas Sowell, Rose and Milton Friedman Senior Fellow on Public Policy at the Hoover Institution, winner of the 2003 Bradley Prize for Outstanding Intellectual Achievement
Shelby Steele, Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution, winner of the 2006 Bradley Prize for Outstanding Intellectual Achievement
Stephen Steinlight, Fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies, former National Affairs Director of the American Jewish Committee, and Vice President of the National Conference of Christians and Jews
Thomas G. West, Director and Senior Fellow of the Claremont Institute, Professor of Politics at the University of Dallas
Wendy Wright, President, Concerned Women for America
That's a pretty solid roster of names.
If President Bush would come about on this issue, I believe he could be the anchor for a November rout! It is the right thing to do.
Let us not make this mistake again. We favor what Newt Gingrich has described as "sequencing." First border and interior enforcement must be funded, operational, implemented, and proven successful¾and only then can we debate the status of current illegal immigrants, or the need for new guest worker programs. We are in the middle of a global war on terror. 2006 is not 1986. Today, we need proof that enforcement (both at the border and in the interior) is successful before anything else happens. As Ronald Reagan used to say "trust, but verify."
Amen to common sense!
The media and both parties saw the results of the California 50th congressional election. The issue did not decrease the vote for the Democrat, nor did it increase the votes for the Republican.
So both the media and the two parties are now pretty much ingoring the issue. The speaker of the house has killed any attempt to change the law. So no law will land on Bush's desk. It will not be on the agenda for the house or the senate. The media will pay no attention to the issue.
There will be no action and the issue will go where all dead issues go. There will be a few people who will try to attract attention to the issue but few if any will pay attention.
The illegal immigration issue is a dead duck.. They sawed its legs off.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1990/roll475.xml
This is what it looks like when a President goes against his party.
This is the Bill which broke the elder Bush's no new taxes pledge. He was only able to get 10 house Republicans to go along with him. Newt Gingrich refused to appear in the Rose Garden when the bill was signed angering Bush.
Of course, this was empowering because in four years time, the Republicans gained control of the house and most Dem leaders were defeated.
The elder Bush had a better excuse for going against his own party in that instance,at least he could claim that his party did not have a majority and appropriations had to be made.
What this Bush is doing on immigration is unprecedented he is going against his party which is in the majority to favor a bill written by Teddy Kennedy's staff.
The conservatives that signed this letter are giving good advice. Stand with your party or stand with Kennedy, McCain, and El Presidente Fox.
I guess they all must have missed Bush's 'immigration' speech and the part about securing the border,
"Second, to secure our border, we MUST create a temporary worker program."
Since one thing has absolutely NOTHING to do with the other, except to blackmail us into a trade off of national security in exchange for rapidly approving amnesty for employers, banks, financial institutions, etc., at risk of RICO prosecution, let's see what Bush's 'logic' is......
"The reality is that there are many people on the other side of our border who will do anything to come to America to work and build a better life. They walk across miles of desert in the summer heat, or hide in the back of 18-wheelers to reach our country. This creates enormous pressure on our border that walls and patrols alone will NOT stop. TO SECURE THE BORDER EFFECTIVELY, WE MUST REDUCE THE NUMBERS OF POEPLE TRYING TO SNEAK ACROSS."
Makes perfect sense to me.../sarc off.
Not sure I agree. The Senate has to be very embarrassed for launching an unconstitutional bill and the prospects are not good for passage of a new Senate bill before summer. My guess is most people view the amnesty portion dead but the security and enforcement still alive. Key conservatives are trying to convince George that it is the politically smart thing to do. Reference the open letter to President Bush from conservatives today on this point.
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.