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.
That about covers the bases. I would take some issue about the racists maybe about 30%.
The administration is supposed to enforce existing immigration laws. They haven't. Ergo, that's why Tancredo is "whining" about the issue. Or sleeping with Bay Buchanan and fleecing people out of their money. Or whatever nutty conspiracy theory you haters whip up.
No it won't it will help them if there is no bill.
Dude, I'm not touching this with a ten-foot pole.
hehehe...I was trying to be polite ;)
It may "cover the bases" for you, but it doesn't work as an argument. It's something the left does routinely.
Why is that important to you? You never answer that question?
However, rememeber this has nothing to do with Race or Ethnicity this whole debate. To say such a thing will have a thousand people come descending down on and accuse you of a Democrat race baiting cheap shot. Heck, at least Jim Curtis is honest about it lol.
People are afraid of change. People who oppose illegal immigration(the one issue folks) want to to present this Pollyanna POlitical Facade where fear, mistrust, race doesnt come into this. This is all about people crossing that border illegally they and for that they and their familes must be punished severely for doing so for that simple reason. Well , I am not buying all that. I have Mexican Americans in my Family and even I have to confront my demons of fear and mistrust and change. Its not pleasant but its there and I have to deal with it and know that may be coloring some my views. If I have it, I am sure the majority of folks do too. Its human. Sen Alan Simpson recognized that when he engaged this issue.
No, what is nutty is how these demagogues always find enough gullible people to make a comfortable living. Funny that you bring up Bay Buchanan it saves me the trouble.
Is it hard for you to answer the simple question? Do you or don't you believe that the US should maintain a white majority?
I bet it would be difficult for you to admit that there are white nations in existence today, just as there are black nations, brown nations, yellow nations, etc. And the only way any of those non-white nations will change to something else is with a battle, with all out war. That doesn't make them racist, it makes them normal.
Not true.
Facts always work as an argument.
Sorry I can't do that. Your opinions are so diametrically opposed to conservatism and good common sense, I could never pass up pointing out your silliness.
I know I should hold myself to higher standards. But you are the fish that would jump into the barrel.
There is only one ethical way to keep a "white majority". Have enough kids to keep it. The fact is that I would replace at least 50% of the whites in this country with people that are pro-family, anti-abortion, anti-gay rights and hard working instead of anti-American, pro-abortion, pro-gay rights liberals.
Well I guess that makes Bush and McCain the Jesse Jackson of amnesty.
I can't say for sure about McCain BUT Bush is the only one that doesn't have anything to gain either way.
So how did he go about designating the "Promised Land", as opposed to the non-promised land?
This is not a religious matter and if you force it into one you would be on the wrong side of the argument.
Got it a little backward. Eh! Sport? But then that's not all you have wrong.
I'm sure when the administration and pathetic Senate Republicans trotted out their Ace of Spades gay marriage card in a desperate attempt to appease conservatives you didn't accuse them of demogaguing, right.
This country can survive without a full Caucausian majority. Gosh, and this is offensive but in the deep South its seems that everyone,including me in my ingrated thinking, think that Asians and Latinos are white. No one blinks a eye when a white marries a Latino or Asian. But some still do when its black and white marrying or dating, which of couse is wrong. BUt even thats changing. The Republic is not falling apart because of it.
This Country went from being White Anglo a long time ago and its doing great. We will survive
Who was sitting on the "promised land" when God set up his border checkpoints?
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.