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.
Which branch of the military did you serve in?
Not I. But at least you're honest.
Cute. The fact remains that his "mental" claim will keep him from the Oval Office. Why are you pimping him?
Anyone making the argument that pro-illegal stances get Hispanic votes is seriously mathematics challenged. Going from 30% of ~10 million voters to 40% of 20 million voters is a net loss. As long as the GOP gets less than 50% of the Hispanic vote - as is currently the case - bringing in more Hispanic voters makes it more difficult for the GOP to continue to win! That's not even counting the tsunami of conservatives ready to bail on what is now a socialist party.
See me in 2 1/2 years. If I am still alive we will compare notes.
Secure the Borders, build the fence, prosecute employers of illegals.
Tancredo gives RINOs a bad name... he EXPOSES them..
As democrat enablers..
Tancredo is among the most reliable conservative elected officials in the USA. What do you have differences with him on, other than immigration?
If I said I didn't go because I was depressed as a kid would you vote for me for President?
How about a bill demanding the executive enforce the laws already on the books? Congress passes a law, executive ignores it - sounds like a Constitutional crisis to me.
Does he answer questions with questions like you? That would suck.
Why don't you ask him and find out, my faux conservative friend?
I figured you never served.
You're not my friend and Tom is too busy dashing for cameras, microphones and Buchanan bred Tools.
But thanks for asking.
I didn't, but not by going "Corporal Klinger".
The only thing that keeps me from identifying Senator Frist as the biggest loser in the Senate is the presence of John Kerry.
You're out of touch with the facts.
MOST -- over 70% and up to 80% in many polls on the subject -- believe that the Law needs to be adhered to FIRST and foremost. And, whether a particualr person is Mexican and a murderer or not is simply irrellevant. If they have entered this country by means other than allowed by our Laws, THAT must be corrected BEFORE we can legitimately begin to discuss anything else.
Look, I think your heart is in the right place; we've got to have human compassion for people who want to better themselves, but giving them a pass to break our Laws is not the way to do that. If we truly respect them as persons, we will respect them enough to hold them accountable to the Law. To do any less is an insult to their human dignity.
Something that has been completely lost in all of the clamor of this debate is just changing the immigration Law itself to make it easier to immigrate legally. The convoluted volumes of paperwork and the years it takes to work through the present LEGAL process of immigration are so prohibitive that they are causal in this whole situation. We have, in essence, a bereaucratic "Berlin Wall" that is so onerous that people lose heart; they give up hope. People think, "Screw it; I'll NEVER get through all of that." So, instead, they compromise their values -- those that actually have them -- and sneak across the border in the dark.
What is necessary, then, and what "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" must include, are two dominant elements:
1) Kill the paperwork demon that intimidates people into avoiding it by coming here illegally; "tear down this wall." One form, a background check and a health examination ought to be all that we need in order to determine, "Yes, you may come" or "No, we're sorry, you may not come." The process need not take ten years, it need not cost thousands of dollars, and it need not involve lawyers.
2) Rigid enforcement of immigration laws at the border and internally; with respect to both illegal entrants and employers of illegal entrants. We need to affirm that, having made the legal process simple, nobody's got any excuse for failure to comply.
THAT is TRUE, "Comprehensive" Immigration reform. THAT would be just and right. But we need to establish control of the border before we can even put that kind of reform on the table, and THAT is what the great majority of the American populace desires. Get control FIRST; stabilize the patient; stop the bleeding. THEN, we can implement somthing just, fair and rational.
Pence's bill is almost the exact same one that Tancredo proposed a while back. Tancredo also included a guest-worker provision. You people are nuts if you think the Senate is going to support an enforcement-only bill. Pence's bill gives some wiggle room without compromising.
Pence's plan is amnesty. He wants to legalize the 12 to 20 million illegals already here. It is not a guest worker plan. It is amnesty.
I don't care what the Senate will support. The House will not support amnesty. This is what Tancredo said about Pence's plan:
"Mike Pence is making the same mistakes that the president has — using the straw man of mass deportations and redefining amnesty to suit his interests," Tancredo said. He added that he was baffled by Pence's shift from an enforcement-only position"
Exactly! The senate refuses to even consider anything other than their own bill and just declare themselves The Reasonable Ones. The illogic is staggering. The capper to the laughable Orwellian campaign is that republicans will lose at the polls if the house refuses to fall in line and pass a Let's-Pretend-It's-Not-Amnesty Bill. No, if they lose, it's because it got passed.
Check this out:
Vote breakdown by position for SB 2611:
YEAs ---62
Akaka (D-HI) - Up for Reelection in 2006
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM) - Up for Reelection in 2006
Boxer (D-CA)
Brownback (R-KS)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Chafee (R-RI) - Up for Reelection in 2006
Clinton (D-NY) - Up for Reelection in 2006
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND) - Up for Reelection in 2006
Craig (R-ID)
Dayton (D-MN) - Up for Reelection in 2006
DeWine (R-OH) - Up for Reelection in 2006
Dodd (D-CT)
Domenici (R-NM)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA) - Up for Reelection in 2006
Frist (R-TN) - Up for Reelection in 2006
Graham (R-SC)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT) - Up for Reelection in 2006
Johnson (D-SD)
Kennedy (D-MA) - Up for Reelection in 2006
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lugar (R-IN) - Up for Reelection in 2006
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL) - Up for Reelection in 2006
Obama (D-IL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Sarbanes (D-MD) - Up for Reelection in 2006
Schumer (D-NY)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME) - Up for Reelection in 2006
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
Wyden (D-OR)
NAYs ---36
Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA) - Up for Reelection in 2006
Bond (R-MO)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT) - Up for Reelection in 2006
Burr (R-NC)
Byrd (D-WV) - Up for Reelection in 2006
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dole (R-NC)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Ensign (R-NV) - Up for Reelection in 2006
Enzi (R-WY)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hatch (R-UT) - Up for Reelection in 2006
Hutchison (R-TX) - Up for Reelection in 2006
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Kyl (R-AZ) - Up for Reelection in 2006
Lott (R-MS) - Up for Reelection in 2006
Nelson (D-NE) - Up for Reelection in 2006
Roberts (R-KS)
Santorum (R-PA) - Up for Reelection in 2006
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Stabenow (D-MI) - Up for Reelection in 2006
Sununu (R-NH)
Talent (R-MO) - Up for Reelection in 2006
Thomas (R-WY) - Up for Reelection in 2006
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
22 Republicans voted for SB 2611
4 (18%) of them are up for reelection in 2006.
39 Democrats voted for SB 2611
9 (23%) of them are up for reelection in 2006.
32 Republicans voted against SB 2611
10 (28%) of them are up for reelection in 2006.
4 Democrats voted against SB 2611
3 (75%) of them are up for reelection in 2006.
22% of those who voted for SB 2611 are up for reelection this year.
36% of those who voted against SB 2611 are up for reelection this year.
I see a pattern here.
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.