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.
My last post should have read Congressman. Sorry for the typo.
0% On keeping the term limit pledge
I support Pence's bill as a starting point for discussion. The fact that Pence recognizes that the House must move toward the Senate in order for the Senate to move toward the House shows that Pence wants immigration reform.
Tancredo wants the issue.
I gave you two objections that will keep him out of National politics. You're dishonest.
Here's another...
Want more?
Yep.
Word in Washington is that the Senate won't even consider Pence's bill.
Do you believe that the House should completely compromise and pass the Senate's poison pill now? Screw it, they should just put the thing out of its misery. If the status quo continues, blame the Senate/Bush administration.
Sad, but what does that have to do with avoiding Vietnam?
"Word in Washington" seems kind of vague. Where can I go to get the "word"?
Pences scheme is "bus-trip amnesty". Take a bus to Tijuana. Back the same day with amnesty papers. Not just deceptive, but convenient!
"True Conservative" Congresscritters? Or Libs and liars?
No, both your "objections" fall into the category of "ad hominem". And your latest falls into the category of "guilt by association". These are classic dishonest argumentation techniques (and I certainly don't need to tell you that!).
If those "objections" would keep one out of national politics, then who among our current political leaders could stay in office? Which of Tancredo's alleged sins compares with the rampant corruption and bribe-taking that permeates both branches of Congress?
If you were being honest, you would say "I hate Tom Tancredo because I support massive illegal immigration, and consider anyone who opposes it to be a threat to my interests."
You obviously know nothing about childhood abuse. Perhaps you should do some research instead of posting ignorant statements.
So Pence is now a RINO?
The Senate isn't even going to consider Pence's bill.
Pence offered a reasonable compromise and the Senate won't even listen to that.
You and sinkspur are in the minority. The line in the sand is now drawn.
Where the hell are you getting that?
Right now- Enforcement only. The rest can come later once the bleeding is controlled.
You obviously know alot about ESP. The ignorance is yours.
No. There should be honest negotiations between the House and the Senate. Bullying won't work.
Screw it, they should just put the thing out of its misery. If the status quo continues, blame the Senate/Bush administration.
If the status quo continues, the House will be just as much to blame. In addition, every House member is running, so they're much more exposed than the Senate is.
For all the bluster, Hastert and Boehner have not joined the "all or nothing" crowd. Watch what they say over the next couple of weeks.
They show that he will never be elected Nationally and people like you will pump him up to "Perot" the Republican candidate.
Colorado voters didn't have a problem with it.
So why are you still sweating it?
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.