Wamp: Thompson is close to joining ’08 race

Rep. Zach Wamp (R-Tenn.) said Monday that he expects former Sen. Fred Thompson (R-Tenn.) to soon join the race for the White House.

“My view is that he’ll enter the race at some point just in the coming days,” said Wamp, a key supporter of Thompson.

The lawmaker said the actor turned senator turned actor did not want to join the race too soon but is “doing everything a presidential candidate should do.”

Thompson has long been expected to join the race and the Law & Order star has traveled the country and raised millions. He will take part in a large fundraising event in Washington, D.C. on July 29, but Wamp did not say when a formal announcement would come. The lawmaker said, however, that “a couple dozen members” of the House would publicly support Thompson at the event.

With regard to the race for the Republican nomination, Wamp said he believes it will come down to Thompson and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

With Sen. John McCain’s (R-Ariz.) campaign fading, Wamp believes Thompson, Romney and former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani will become the “big three” in the Republican primary.

“I’ve talked to quite a few of McCain’s supporters in the House of Representatives, a couple in the United States Senate, that are concerned about McCain’s standing right now and the fact that he's lost his momentum,” Wamp said on MSNBC. He added that Thompson is the second choice of many McCain supporters.

The lawmaker also said that, with conservatives determining who will be the GOP candidate, Giuliani’s chances are not as good as those of Thompson and Romney.

“I feel like Giuliani’s running on 9/11 fumes and those fumes are slowly evaporating because there’s got to be the substance and the policy,” Wamp said. “And [Giuliani] doesn’t connect with the base of our party.”

Blush. :) Sorry I’ve taken so long, P-mom! I’m not sure if you have this already, but here’s the background on the incorrect Numbers USA claim that Thompson voted in favor of amnesty for various South- and Central American illegal immigrants. Signed, an ardent Frederalist.

The amendment that Numbers USA refers to was the Mack Amendment, which clarified the tough-on illegals immigration law that passed in 1996 with Fred Thompson’s support.

The background is that the Reagan administration, and then later the Bush administration in a class action suit (American Baptist Churches et al. v. Thornburgh) made agreements with illigal immigrants who fled our wars against communism in central and south America; these agreements laid out the conditions under which these particular illegal immigrants could apply to have their deportations suspended.

The 1996 law changed the criteria by which illegal aliens could have their deportations suspended. The Mack amendment simply clarified that these particular illegal aliens who were subject to the class action agreements made by Reagan and HW Bush, and whose deportation cases were already in the pipeline when the new law was enacted in 1996, would have their deportation cases heard under the old rules. In other words, the amendment did not automatically grant them citizenship or allow them to stay — all it did was cancel out a retroactive change in the agreements for those whose cases were already under consideration. Any illegal immigrants, even from these classes, whose cases were not already in the pipeline at the time of the 1996 immigration bill enactment would have to submit to the new, tougher rules. This is consistent with our Constitutional system, which prohibits retroactive laws.

Here is the link to the vote — 99 senators agreed to it, including Sessions and Thompson:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=105&session=1&vote=00269

And here is more detail, from Mack’s introductory remarks (Congressional Record, Sept. 30, 1997, page S10197):

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, the amendment I have offered simply clarifies the implementation of last year’s immigration legislation in one specific area, the suspension of deportation. Last year’s bill imposed stricter standards to obtain suspension of deportation. While this is fine for future applicants, it is unfair to impose new, harsher standards on cases which were already in the pipeline at the time of passage.

This amendment does two specific things: first of all, it clarifies that certain Central American immigrants who were in the administrative pipeline for suspension of deportation must continue to meet the standards that applied before the immigration reform law took effect. Second, the annual cap on suspensions of deportation would only apply to cases commenced after April 1, 1997.
Without those two changes, we will be changing the rules midstream for a group of people who were attempting to comply with the guidelines for regularizing their immigration status. We encouraged them to come forward and play by the rules and we cannot go back on our word now.
As a way of background, let me lay out some information for the Senate. Starting in the mid-1980’s, Nicaraguans, Salvadorans, and Guatemalans fleeing the civil wars in their home countries started coming to the United States. Many of them made asylum claims, many of which were improperly denied as the U.S. Government acknowledged by ordering them readjudicated. In the case of Nicaraguans, this was done through the Nicaraguan review program established by Ronald Reagan. And in the case of Salvadorans and Guatemalans this was done through settlement of the ABC class lawsuit agreed to by the Bush administration.

A huge backlog of asylum claims, however, then prevented their cases from being reheard for many years. Meanwhile, various temporary statuses allowed the members of this group to avoid deportation. In addition, they received authorization to work legally in the United States. During that time many members of that group established strong roots in this country.

Under immigration law, there has long been available a procedure called `suspension of deportation’ for an individual found to be of good character and who has been here for 7 years to adjust to legal status if deporting that individual would cause `extreme hardship’ to the person or his or her immediate legal present relative. This requires a case-by-case adjudication that the person being granted this benefit meets the legal standard. Because of the asylum backlog and because conditions in the individual’s home country had changed since the filing of their original asylum claims, the Department of Justice under President Clinton encouraged these central Americans to seek suspension of deportation rather than continuing to press their asylum claims or file a new lawsuit.

Again, the point that I am trying to make here in laying out this history is that each step along the way this group of individuals has complied with the rules that existed at the time. In fact, we went to the extent that we encouraged these people to file for suspension of deportation, and it would just be fundamentally unfair at this point if we were to change the rules on these people who in fact have been trying to live by the rules every day that they have been here.

Several other points. The reason why we believe this is important is because we believe that this in essence will deny these people the right to due process under laws with respect to suspension of deportation.
I want to emphasize to my colleagues that this is not amnesty, and there is nothing automatic here. Let us assume for a moment that this amendment were to pass. We are not guaranteeing anybody anything other than the fact that they will have to comply with the rules as they existed at the time they came into the process of suspension of deportation.

Again, I want to emphasize to my colleagues that this is not amnesty. Every person affected by my amendment is merely being given a chance for due process, to have their case heard. They must still meet the criteria to be granted suspension of deportation. In addition, my amendment is focused only upon an identifiable group. There are those who want to create the impression that if this amendment passes literally millions of people, millions of illegal immigrants will use this as a loophole to remain in the country. This is an extremely identifiable group. And, again, working with the INS, we have concluded that there are probably in the neighborhood of 316,000 individuals that would be included in the group, and of that 316,000 it is likely that 150,000 will receive suspension of deportation.

Again, I make the point that we ought to pass this amendment from the perspective of fairness. We should not change the rules midstream for this group of people. It is unfair and, I would make the claim, un-American.
On a personal note, from time to time, I have been asked why I became involved in this issue, and I will tell you that one of the memories that comes back to me is a trip to Nicaragua back in the 1980’s where I went to a contra camp, and this was at a particular period of time where the concern was whether the United States was going to continue to provide assistance to those fighting for freedom in Nicaragua. And since they did not have the commitment to those financial resources, thousands of these freedom fighters came back into the camps in northern Nicaragua. I visited them. It was quite a scene—I must say, too, a very emotional scene.

As the helicopter landed, off to the side of the camp two lines were formed, in essence two lines of men in fatigues at attention. As we walked through this group of individuals, where roughly 7,000 to 8,000 freedom fighters were standing at attention, three men, three of the soldiers, with guitars played the Nicaraguan national anthem. It was a tremendously emotional period. In essence I said to them that we will not abandon you, that we will continue to support you in your fight for freedom.
I would make the case that fighting for freedom is not just providing resources to those engaged in battle, or fighting for freedom is not simply standing firm in the U.S. Senate for a strong national defense. But standing firm for the protection of individual rights is, in fact, standing up for freedom. And I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.

We have encouraged those people over years, not only in their fight for freedom, but afterward, telling them that if they played by the rules they could stay in this country.

Mr. President, again, I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment. It is the right thing to do. It is a fair thing to do. And it would be in the best interests of our country to continue to stand up for freedom for this group of people.

I yield the floor.

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.