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.
100% "Best and Brightest" Rating from American Conservative Union (one of only 38 other Congressmen)
100% Rating from National Right to Life Committee
100% Rating from Conservative Index (Spring '05 - 75% lifetime, tied for second highest rating)
100% Rating from Concerned Women for America
100% Rating from Christian Coalition
100% Rating from Campaign for Working Families
100% Rating from FreedomWorks
98% Rating from National Tax Limitation Committee (average since 1999)
95% "Taxpayer Hero" Rating from Citizens Against Government Waste
95% Rating from Americans for Tax Reform
95% Rating from Christian Action Network
93% Rating from Eagle Forum (tied for second highest rating)
0% Rating from National Education Association
0% Rating from National Organization for Women
0% Rating from Brady Campaign
0% Rating from People for the American Way
0% Rating from Planned Parenthood
0% Rating from Pro-Choice America
You can tell a faux Republican by the way they badmouth Tancredo, who is pretty much everything a real conservative could want in a Congressman.
I await the flames from the Go-Along-to-Get-Along types re immigration.
The only way to take down the best and most blessed Country in the history of the world is from the inside.
If the amnesty bill passes America will be dead, It may whimper for a few years but it will be lost!
Sheesh.
He lied about his Term Limit Pledge and claimed he was "mentally unfit" to avoid Vietnam.
Talk about faux. I'm not surprised you "support" him.
If that's the worst you can dredge up, the guy must be cleaner than 99% of the elected officials we have. I care not for term limits - the people who need those applied to them the most are the least likely to agree to them - and if the guy was suffering from depression in 1968, that's not something I will hold against him in 2006.
What I care about is having a clean elected official who will advocate, vote for, and advance policies that are good for the nation. And on that basis there are few who hold a candle to Tancredo.
So Tom is willing to let the entire issue drop. I guess he sees a way to retire on illegal immigration.
He wants, and desperately, needs the issue to stay alive.
He knows the Senate will not pass HR 4437. Even Mike Pence knows that, which is why Pence modified the House bill.
So. Tommy has a choice. He can back Pence's bill as a starting point, of he can have his issue in a minority Republican House.
Which means he won't get jack.
Tom has found his meal ticket. He is the Jesse Jackson of illegal immigration.
Sure to upset the various Mexico-merger trolls.
Good for you. Tancredo did, now he doesn't.
and if the guy was suffering from depression in 1968
It wasn't in 1968, it was when he was a kid. He used that to declare "mentally unfit" to avoid Vietnam.
What I care about is...
Nobody asked.
What does it say about Pense's bill that you support it? Tells me it's a deceptive amnesty bill.
what I'd like to know is if a person who was born here of parents who are citizens here can lose the right to vote by the commission of and conviction for a crime, just why the hell are these idiots charging off a cliff to give the vote to people who weren't born here and whose first action coming here was in itself a crime?
In other words, for lack of any substantive objection to Tancredo, you'll do the socialists' work for them in trying to bring him down on trivialities.
I rest my case, Mr. Faux Conservative.
Oh, and yes, "they" do ask, every election.
Exactly. Without illegal immigration as an issue, Tancredo is just a fat, round face in a GOP crowd.
No bill will be death for the Republicans in November. Tom Davis has said that, and so have others.
If the Senate had any interest in HR 4437, it would have taken it up a month ago.
Tancredo was physically abused by his father, and he talks about it openly. He addressed the issue recently on a local Denver talk show. He has overcome a childhood of abuse and I am proud to have him as my Conressman.
So did other Congresscritters.
Did the voters of Colorado care? No, they returned Tancredo back to Washington.
Darn, I'm disappointed. When I misread the title I thought the House had already told the Senate No!
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.