Republican to Lead Immigration Revolt Against Bush

Reuters ^ | Jan 12, 2005 | Alan Elsner

[GOPXtreme20]

Republican to Lead Immigration Revolt Against Bush

By Alan Elsner

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A Republican member of the House of Representatives vowed on Wednesday to lead a revolt against President Bush (news - web sites)'s immigration reform proposals and predicted that up to 180 party members would support him.

Bush in an interview with the Washington Times published on Wednesday said he plans to force a debate in Congress this year on his proposal that would allow some illegal immigrants to obtain legal work permits in the United States.

Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo, who heads the House Immigration Reform Caucus, said he was determined to block the legislation. The caucus, which had 71 members in the last Congress, argues for stronger action to stop illegal immigration and a reduction of legal migration.

"Why is this so important to the president?" Tancredo said. "Is it just the corporate interests who benefit from cheap labor? Do they have such a strong grip on our president so that he is actually willing to put our nation at risk, because open borders do put our nation at risk?

"Is it petulance, because we were able to stop it in the last Congress? Why is it so important to give amnesty to people who have broken the law?" Tancredo said.

"I'm willing to lead a fight against this and I would say there are at least 180 members of our Republican caucus who are willing at least to stop amnesty for illegal immigrants," he told Reuters in a telephone interview.

Bush has repeatedly said he views immigration reform as an important issue for his second term. In the Washington Times interview, he said it was near the top of his agenda.

"Look, whether or not you agree with the solution or not, we have a problem in America when you've got 8 million undocumented workers here," he said.

BUSH CONFIDENCE

Bush expressed confidence he could win over opponents, as he did in passing tax reform during his first term. "Initially out of the box, some people said, over my dead body would they pass tax relief ... If I listened to all that, I'd just quit, you know. But that's not the way I think."

But analysts agree that immigration reform could be much more divisive for Republicans since growing numbers of rank-and-file voters are becoming concerned at the continued influx of illegal immigrants across the Mexican border.

"No issue, not one, threatens to do more damage to the Republican coalition than immigration," said David Frum, a former White House speech writer in Bush's first term.

"There's no issue where the beliefs and interests of the party rank-and-file diverge more radically from the beliefs and interests of the party's leaders," he wrote in the National Review last month.

Bush insists he is not offering amnesty to illegal immigrants but Tancredo said that was a "manipulation of language, the kind of thing (former President) Bill Clinton would have done. There is an issue of integrity here and an issue of honesty," he said.

[Semaphore Heathcliffe]

You've lost me. We're on a public message forum, and, as far as I can tell, I've not been disrespectful in my asking. Emily Litella say, "Nevermind."

[primeval patriot]

Asphalting parking lots is not an Orange Alert threat.

What about your fellow Americans?

We're a non-union affair down here.

Why should we compete with Mexican labor?

[gubamyster]

The fact is, I don't care about your bogus studies.

Thanks, now I know I can stop responding to someone who refuses to deal in factual reality, but instead reacts to emotion.

[Barlowmaker]

If you meant to write "Corporate Greed", then the apology is mine.

But my point about the national import of our trade with Mexico and the absurdity of economically and physically "closing" the U.S.- Mexico border remains.

You don't shut down your second largest trading partner because Tom Tancredo is on the MSM circuit this weekend and Michelle Malkin is cute.

Regards.

[Southack]

"I support strictly enforcing immigration laws, eliminating any and all incentives for them to come here illegally, severely punishing employers of illegals, and ending Special Order 40 and eliminating all sanctuary zones. I think Sabertooth outlined it pretty well when he was here in his 18-point plan..."

In all fairness, Sabertooth did a fine job of explaining his position, but that wasn't my question to you. Sabertooth favors a brute force approach to an 8+ million man problem (larger than the German roundup circa 1938-1945). From a position of *principle*, Sabertooth is dead on right. Existing laws should be fully enforced and incentives for illegals should be repealed.

But from a real world perspective, Sabertooth never quite managed to explain how many trains and internment camps he was politically willing to set up and powerful enough to get funded in the first place. Such a record-setting roundup and deportation wouldn't be a small exercise, after all, and there are real-world *logistical* reasons why such principled actions haven't succeeded in the recent past.

Now in the distant past, when the problem was *vastly* smaller and the cultures involved were less urban, his call to action might have been somewhat realistic.

But not today. Not when the scope of the problem exceeds 8 million anonymous illegals.

Today we have to be *smarter* than mere brute force; Sabertooth's ways simply aren't affordable or practical for the many millions under discussion.

But Tancredo and Bush have both proposed very clever, very humane, real-world proposals that will work. Both plans offer rewards for illegals to register themselves and their employers. That registration changes the entire situation. Instead of 8+ million anonymous illegals, suddenly we'll know most or all of the 1+ million employers of those illegals.

At that point, the law enforcement equation changes from seeking out anonymous fugitives to one of merely visiting tagged employers of illegals. The *scope* of the problem becomes vastly smaller and more manageable.

But you haven't answered my question, and you can see from the above that my question to you is very, very relevant to this debate: Why are you opposed to the very registration of illegals and their employers that would make this immigration problem manageable?

[rolling_stone]

But my point about the national import of our trade with Mexico and the absurdity of economically and physically "closing" the U.S.- Mexico border remains.

You don't shut down your second largest trading partner because Tom Tancredo is on the MSM circuit this weekend and Michelle Malkin is cute.

We don't need to shut down the border, just send all the illegals back to their home country. According to people here these workers are the reason our economy is so great, why not share with Mexico and send their people back to pull their economy and culture out of the toilet? Sounds to me like we would be helping them prosper and thus help our trading partner.

Maybe then Mexico will do something to help its people or face a revolution...

[Barlowmaker]

Hey, you want to pound roof nails in Tucson - 7 am to 7 pm every day from July 2nd to July 16th for $10/hour, you've got the job. That's $1700 in two weeks pal.

If not, there are three thousand Mexican guys who are happy to have it. They'll be there at 7 am. They'll stay till 9 pm if ya want them too. That's half what they'd earn in a year pounding nails in Veracruz.

Now, if that two week period meant that a new town home development got finished ahead of time, the work of those Mexican laborers has a force multiplying effect across the economic community. More construction materials are sold. More houses are sold. More morgages are written. More realtors are paid. More furniture and fixtures are bought. More landscapers, more painters, more retailers, more truckers, more tax money, more more more more.

Only folks who lose are the roof nailers who wouldn't accept $10/hour and wouldn't willingly work 12 hours a day.

I choose to look at all the folks who economically win, and it's not only the firm who employs the visting workers. Immigration has always been a boon to the American economy, and it's not hard to see why.

[Southack]

"We don't need to shut down the border, just send all the illegals back to their home country."

Can you describe how the NY Times will portray the trains and internment camps required for a roundup and deportation 3 times the size of what the Germans did in WW2 between 1938 and 1945?

The ACLU? NPR? Washington Post? USA Today? Would any of those organizations use bombastic rhetoric to portray the Party in Power in a bad light?!

Just round 'em up and deport, 'em; that simple, right?!

[rolling_stone]

But you haven't answered my question, and you can see from the above that my question to you is very, very relevant to this debate: Why are you opposed to the very registration of illegals and their employers that would make this immigration problem manageable?

LOL..Manageable in whose mind? Tell me, shouldn't we be able to keep track of 1 million student visitors before we register 20 million "guest workers"? All employees now are required to show proof of legality and it isn't working...

[Southack]

Just answer the question. Why do *you* personally oppose Tancredo's and Bush's registration plans and instead support keeping million of illegals and their employers anonymous?

[investigateworld]

LOL !!!
And when construction slows down, just what are those 3,000 guys going to do then?

[Southack]

"All employees now are required to show proof of legality and it isn't working..."

There's that word again: required. Tancredo and Bush aren't talking about more useless and redundant "requirements." Their plans offer *rewards* in exchange for illegals registering themselves and their employers so that they are no longer anonymous.

Rewards can do things that "requirements" can't.

[rolling_stone]

Only folks who lose are the roof nailers who wouldn't accept $10/hour and wouldn't willingly work 12 hours a day.

I choose to look at all the folks who economically win, and it's not only the firm who employs the visting workers. Immigration has always been a boon to the American economy, and it's not hard to see why.

Sounds like a scab exploiter. I have to pay for their public benefits, I am subsidizing your illegal workers. The net cost is the same, no free lunch. You gain off the backs of taxpayers. Its like stealing from Peter to pay Jose....

[Marine Inspector]

Not true. Once passed, either plan will allow us to register millions of currently anonymous illegal alien fugitives. Once registered, those millions will be crossing our border at *legal* checkpoints, not treking through the desert.

Illegal alien fugitives? No criminal fugitive alien will register for a guest worker visa, it's suicide. The only ones that will register are the ones that have no criminal history, outside of illegal entry and they will be replaced by millions more sneaking into the country.

As for enforcement of employer sanctions, that has been promised twice and Congress has failed to properly fund it twice. This time will be no different.

[FITZ]

They're already deported sometimes --- only far from how you describe. INS has big comfortable airconditioned Greyhound style buses they drive them back home in --- better buses than Mexicans have ever seen in their lives.

It's the Mexican government sending them in trains, boxcars and unventilated semi-trailers. They go back in far better luxury.

[Marine Inspector]

The one issue the open borders crowd won't talk about is the fact how much this is going to cost to enforce.

Too much, so Congress will do what they have done many times in the past; not fund the enforcement part and make things worst then before.

[Marine Inspector]

Why do *you* personally oppose Tancredo's and Bush's registration plans

Because they are meaningless and will do nothing to stop the flow of illegals across the border or catch on illegal alien of interest.

[Southack]

"No criminal fugitive alien will register for a guest worker visa, it's suicide."

That's true, but the *criminal* fugitives you are referring to will be easier to deal with after 8+ million other illegal aliens are registered and no longer anonymous...for the simple reason that our law enforcement will have more resources left available due to no longer being overstretched by so many presently anonymous illegal immigrants.

[FITZ]

But not today. Not when the scope of the problem exceeds 8 million anonymous illegals.

How many of the 25 million illegals here came stuffed in trunks of cars, dashboards of cars, dehydrated walking through a 100 degree desert, packed 100+ in a locked unventilated semi-trailer, locked in some boxcar in Mexico --- to be abandoned and found dead months later in some trainyard in Iowa.

Why doesn't any of that bother anyone? Why doesn't anyone question the Mexican government that is the main force behind all this? A country among the top ten wealthiest --- more billionaires than England has --- with this shameful abuse of it's majority of citizens. If that isn't a big deal to anyone --- why would rides in the INS buses be so shocking?

[Marine Inspector]

If you know any one in the Seattle area, let them know one of their lumber yards has a new opening, as of yesterday after, noon that pays $15.00 and hour. It's one of those jobs Bush says Americans don't want to do, but I'll bet Bush is wrong.