Posted on 04/11/2006 11:20:59 PM PDT by FairOpinion
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Following huge nationwide protests, Republicans on Tuesday moved to possibly change two key provisions in a get-tough immigration bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives.
One would turn millions of illegal immigrants into felons and the other has raised concerns that people who provide them humanitarian relief would be punished. Top Republicans insisted that neither is their intent.
Their verbal commitments to revisit those provisions came a day after hundreds of thousands of people held demonstrations nationwide, provoked by the bill that would also erect a fence along much of the U.S.-Mexican border.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a Tennessee Republican, and House Speaker Dennis Hastert, an Illinois Republican, issued a joint statement, saying: "It remains our intent to produce a strong border security bill that will not make unlawful presence in the United States a felony."
They said an effort had been made earlier to change the bill to make "unlawful presence" a misdemeanor, but it was rejected mostly by Democrats in the Republican-led House.
They also blamed Democrats for stalled legislation in the Senate, which would bolster border security and provide most of the estimated 11.5 million to 12 illegal immigrants in the United States a path toward citizenship.
A spokeswoman for House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat, said, "clearly Speaker Hastert and Leader Frist are feeling the heat from the hundreds of thousands of people around the country rallying against the (House) bill that Republicans supported."
Sen. Edward Kennedy, a Massachusetts Democrat, said, "Actions speak louder than words, and there's no running away from the fact that the Republican House passed a bill and Senator Frist offered one that criminalizes immigrants."
Millions of people have made their voices heard in support of a comprehensive immigration reform plan and now it is time for action, not empty rhetoric," Kennedy said.
Earlier on Tuesday, senior Republican aides told reporters it is not the intent of the House bill to crack down on humanitarian assistance to illegal immigrants.
They said key House Republicans were prepared to try to revise language in the measure to eliminate such concerns -- if and when the bill is sent to a House-Senate conference.
"We don't want to arrest nuns and priests," said one aide.
The aide cited a letter sent last week to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which has voiced concerns that the bill could make them a target for prosecution.
The bill reads, in part, "whoever -- assists, encourages, directs or induces a person to reside in or remain in the United States (illegally) -- shall be punished ...."
The letter to the Catholic bishops was signed by Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, Homeland Security Committee Chairman Peter King of New York and International Relations Committee Chairman Henry Hyde of Illinois.
In it, they wrote, "We can assure you, just as under current law, religious organizations would not have to 'card' people at soup kitchens and homeless shelters under the House bill's anti-smuggling provisions.
"Nonetheless, we stand willing to work with you and other persons of good will to ensure humanitarian assistance efforts are not mistakenly ensnared in this moral effort to end suffering at the hands of human traffickers," who bring illegal immigrants into the United States for a profit, they wrote.
How on earth do the Rats get by unscathed on this? If our party would just stand by the rule of law, they could have butchered the libs on this one.
"How on earth do the Rats get by unscathed on this?"
That is exactly my point.
People are so focused on holding Republicans' feet to the fire, that they forget that Democrats are a thousand times worse on this and every other issue, and they are the ones who benefit from this division in the GOP, and in fact, they are fanning the flames -- the Dems didn't allow the amendments, that would have taken out the most controversial provisions, just so they can paint the GOP as intolerant and racist.
It's Rotters. Let's see what actually ends up IN the bill.
What we need is STRONG BORDER ENFORCEMENT.
Don't let the illegals in, then we don't have to deal with them IN the US.
The more this happens, the more Tancredo rises in stature.
Immigration reform is separate from border security reform. Illegal aliens want to confuse that. So are the Democrats and RINOs. They are invaders not immigrants. These politicians are responding to the demands of illegal foreign nationals not American citizens.
Border security requires addressing two things:
1. Enforcement on the border itself.
2. A rational (as Arlen Spectre put it) means of dealing with the 11 - 20 million illegal aliens here already.
I agree with those who say it is not rational to deal with illegal aliens by "rounding them up." It is not rational economically, socially or politically. What is rational and would be highly effective is to enforce the laws we have on American employers who hire illegal foreign nationals. H.R. 4437, while not perfect, has some very good provisions for doing just that. None of the Senate bills do.
Immigration reform should be considered separately from border security reform. Both in public discussion and in legislative process. It should also be considered secondarily to border security reform.
Tancredo is all rhetoric, he couldn't do anything either.
People seem to forget that we elect a PRESIDENT, NOT a DICTATOR or EMPEROR, and thank God for that.
Fair enough.
What happens to the 11 million here illegally?
Do you want to absorb them?
Ha ha ha. Let's make it strong but not a felony. Yeah, how about calling an unlawful act a right. I call BS on the whimpy GOP.
People seem to forget that we elect a PRESIDENT, NOT a DICTATOR or EMPEROR, and thank God for that.
--
Our system is far from perfect. All things made of man fall in the end. We may well be seeing just that happening today. 'Unintended consequences' may well be the autopsy finding at the rate we are going.
Stick a shiv in the employers. Yet, the Repugs woundn't dare
butcher their business breathren.
This may come as a surprise to you, but I agree with you about both, except that I think they should indeed be handled together, as a comprehensive bill, as President Bush proposes: Enforce and strengthen borders; provide carefully monitored, legal way for people to come and work, if there are jobs for them here, make sure they are allowed to work, but not allowed to collect welfare; and provide a way people who are already here, to prove themselves worthy of staying and working.
I strongly object that we are sending Cuban refugees, who are true refugees, back to Castro's dictatorship, while people from Mexico just walk across the border and we don't stop them and send them back.
But I agree that it's not feasible to do midnight raids and demand papers to find those living here and deport them, so the only sensible thing is to check them out, and allow them to apply for some sort of legalization.
Damn the status quo crowd we have for leaders backed us into a corner originally and now they seem to be to danged dimwitted to get us back out.
Do you really need to wait?
I think we all know the Repubs are going to cave. Two things are guaranteed - amnesty under a sanitized name and no enforcement at the border. I guess they are really not "caving" when this is what they want anyway.
I think we will look back on these days 20 years from now as the tipping point that killed the US as we know it.
I strongly object to penalizing employers, they should not be made into INS agents.
If you start penalizing empoyers, you can probably lock up 90% of the US population, because virtually everyone employed an illegal at one time or another as a gardener, as a nanny, as a roofer, etc. Did you do a full background check on YOUR gardener?
The republicans need to drive this fact home that the democrats are behind this and it was their plan.
"Tancredo is all rhetoric, he couldn't do anything either."
"I remind the members of the US Senate that I will veto anything that includes/does not include the following...:"
Any President who said that would do a lot to shape the debate, particularly when his own party holds the majority in the Senate. The President absolutely has the power to do something.
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.