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.
"Its a good thing that the Senate Bill is not an amnesty bill then"
Give me a break. At least Reagan was man enough to admit that his bill was an amnesty bill, and look at where that got us.
The Bush/McCain/Kennedy bill is amnesty, period. Perhaps the Pence bill might be reasonable, but the Senate bill has bleeding heart liberal written all over it.
What does that have to do with him being re-elected time and time again?
Bush made a promise to dairy farmers in Wisconsin during the 2004 elections. Shortly after winning another squeaker he pushed to kill the spending from the budget. Hence, he broke a promise. Where was your anger then?
Bad logic, Texasforever. Let me break your argument down for you:
- Tancredo offers a solution.
- But he does not agree with someone else's solution.
- Thus he offers no solution.
Your argument doesn't work.
Just because he disagrees with someone else's solution does not invalidate the fact that he offers his own solution, which is to enforce existing laws first.
The house will offer up everything that is in the house bill PLUS MORE in the form of amendments in other house bills and the senate can either pass it or shut down the government.
I'm sure it doesn't matter to Tancredo or anyone else how the problem is fixed so long as it's fixed. As long as at the end of the day sinkspur and Ted Kennedy aren't happy, it's victory.
It's an election year sinkspur. Their butts are on the chopping block.
"It's an election year sinkspur. Their butts are on the chopping block."
Exactly. And the GOP politicians are figuring out that there are many conservatives (like myself) who will VOTE THIRD PARTY OR STAY HOME in November rather than vote for an amnesty-supporting RINO.
Border security/sovereignty is my #1 issue when deciding how to vote!
I just wish Tancredo will be more honest with what his goal is. Its basically a practical stop to legal immigration in this country. I started looking at the Web sites that are posted on here. The ones that have such high sounding names that imply they want to want to reform immigration. But there is an absense of something. There are no proposals to to make the immigration department more efficient. To make the backlog go away etc. This isnt a anti illegal immigration movement its an anti immigration movement period.
Tancredo in '08!
But, Tancredo will accept nothing but an enforcement bill. The Senate sent a clear signal that enforcement only is a non-starter.
The way things work in Congress is, the two Houses get together, take a little from this one, a little from that one, maybe come up with some things in neither bill, and there's your compromise.
It is extremely rare that one bill passes with no modifications, unless it is something like the marriage amendment or flag burning amendment, neither of which stands a ghost of a chance of passing but are mere vehicles to pander to the base.
And the House GOP has a bulls-eye on its back if there is no bill.
Then we just need to reinforce the message to the House GOP:
STAND YOUR GROUND! Do not cede conservatism to RINOs like McCain.
I have been praying for our leaders to have the wisdom to secure our borders and protect the sovereignty of our nation. Perhaps if we all join in that prayer, it will be answered.
Been taking classes in LibSpeak 101 lately? That was a classic "avoid the actual issue and delve into innuendo and character assassination" maneuver. Rep. Tancredo is one of the few Republicans left that actually has an identifiable backbone.
I see your tag line says put the military on the border. The first troops are starting to show up. Are you happy?
And who will get blamed? Republicans. Who is more exposed? The House.
Attaching amendments to bills means they will go to conference and get dropped by the conferees.
Sorry not Amnesty. Call it a plea deal, a preference, or affirmative action if you want. Those words have negatives too among focus groups but its more honest to what it is.
Exactly. And no bill is much worse than a compromise bill.
I don't think God is too interested in borders since he didn't create the world with them.
It's a good first step.
And truth be told... I am 100% confident that if it weren't for the intense pressure from grass roots conservatives, Rush, Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity, etc.... the National Guard wouldn't be headed to the border.
So true!
So you are not happy. Figures.
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.