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.
So you are for gay marriage?
And you believe the "ethical" way of making whites a minority is the massive importation of non whites?
If it is the ethical thing to maintain a majority through procreating then isn't procreating the ethical way to overtake the majority?
I think he took the easy way...he slew the whole slue. Which at over 9000 homicides by Illegal Aliens per year, is something they are trying to emulate.
I spent a year there...does that qualify me to be an elected official? Not in the least. I do, however, think it gives me the right to be angry when I'm up to my a$$ in illegal Mexicans.
Ouch that's gonna leave a mark on Bushbot prnd21.
No because that White Majority is about to become a net drain on the treasury. The boomers are not going to be shy about making sure their retirements are fully funded by Social Security.
So God was the first coyote?
Wrong sinkspur. You've made plenty of comments in de facto support of the Senate plan. You know the Senate won't consider an enforcement-first approach and they won't even give Pence's compromise the time of day. You want the House to "negotiate" with the Senate, which they might as well just bring some kneepads to the table too.
IOW, you're support of the Senate plan isn't blatant but you know they're not going to consider any enforcement provision of the House plan & you foolishly think people are going to blame the House Republicans for killing (cough, cough) comprehensive immigration reform.
Ergo, you support the Senate plan.
House Republicans can hit an electoral HOME RUN in November, by loudly, rambunctuously, at every opportunity - defying President Bush on amnesty.
He's a Republican and a fine president, but he's *wrong* on the issue of amnesty - and everyone in America knows it.
Seriously. The only people who don't, are the few who are so dedicated to Bush for his other good deeds, they are blinded to the possiblitity he's 100% wrong on something.
It's a perfect opportunity for a win-win.
Republicans rally those who are fed up with the ongoing sell-out, which incidentally includes quite a lot of voters Republicans need to keep from losing the House.
Remember "Reagan Democrats"???
They're still out there. Patriotic, pickup truck driving blue collar types who oppose gay marriage, hide a shed tear during the finest renditions of the Star Spangled Banner, and who would love to vote Republican if only they weren't continuously being driven away by snobs.
Willing to lose the House, rather than dare let in those who actually work and make things.
(some still exist in America)
It's time for the Republican party to set its own course.
Bush can ride in the car at the front of the parade - but on some issues he really shouldn't be the one navigating. :)
No one knows what they will consider in committee. For crying out loud. Here is reality. At this point NOTHING will be passed this year. So what happens? Well we stay with the status quo OR we lose congress and then the Democrats pass a bill that will make the present Senate bill look draconian by comparison. Even if Bush vetoes it it will be over ridden in the Senate. Tancredo will then have his issue to run on in 2008 and it will be as the new 3rd party hero.
No but do you agree that Bush and his RINO buddies in the Senate should bring up an amendment at a time like this? I understand that their poll numbers among conservatives are in the gutter, but c'mon....even Democrats are ashamed of pandering at this level.
Why? Hell there are elections every 2 years so when is something NOT an election year ploy? If Bush really wanted to pander he would be shooting Mexicans at the border. He is the only one that is not pandering in this whole sorry mess.
You bring up God. Then try to blame me for it, Then say I should keep God out of it. Still you seem to be tenaciously avoiding your own advice. Oh well, that makes as little sense on your part, as supporting the Ileegal Invasion.
No I didn't bring up God. I replied to another poster that was urging prayer to keep illegals out of the country. You just decided to get cute. I don't like cute.
Bush can ride in the car at the front of the parade - but on some issues he really shouldn't be the one navigating. :)
He should turn around from time to time to see if anyone is following!
Damn guy you are unbelievable.
Here is a guarantee. Conservatives will sit out the election on anybody who votes for Shamnesty. Thank God, I don't have that problem, I'm from Texas.
Please provide proof of this unsubstantiated accusation.
Of course, we do have a vested interest in making sure legal migration is in the interests of our country. I had to prove (to the nth degree) that I could pay for my wife when she came here on a K1 Visa.
Nowadays, we let anyone in, even if they will be instant welfare recipients and spreaders of TB, Rubella, polio and other hitherto-thought-removed diseases.
Is this what you mean by "anti legal immmigration forces?"
LOL I have heard that threat every election for the last 40 years.
I don't like cute.
I'm sure your mirror reassures you every day you needn't worry about having anything to do with cute. But, then you do apparently like illegal invasions. Cute.
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.