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.
I doubt the House GOP will be blamed solely for the lack of any bill.
If anything, I think We The People will vote in a much more conservative House.
I just heard on Hannity that the CA-50 race between Bilbray (R) vs the democrat has just broken wide in favor of the enforcement-first Bilbray.
Why do you say whatever the senate sends is a clear signal? The message from the house could be described as a clear signal Shamnesty is a non-starter.
"But, Tancredo will accept nothing but an enforcement bill. The Senate sent a clear signal that enforcement only is a non-starter."
The Senate needs to rethink their arrogant and elitist obstructionism.
The House passed their border security bill first. It is the Senate that is being the obstacle by passing an amnesty bill which is a non-starter. We have two equal houses in our Congress. The Senate does not tell the House what to do. The House passed what the people widely support. The Senate passed crap. The Senate needs to cut the crap and seriously consider the House bill. Any bill which includes any form of amnesty is already a non-starter and the Senate knew that. The Senate is the obstacle. Not the conservatives in the Senate, mind you, but the Clinton/Kennedy/McCain/Specter wing of the Senate. You know, the enemies of conservatives and of Free Republic. Yes, that part of the Senate. So, why are you kissing their butts, Deacon?