Posted on 09/22/2006 7:43:18 AM PDT by Dane
Tancredo: 'I Don't Trust the President' on Border Security By Kevin Mooney CNSNews.com Staff Writer September 22, 2006
(CNSNews.com) - An immigration compromise plan will not work, because President Bush cannot be trusted to "certify" America's borders are secure, Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) said Thursday.
In an effort to reconcile the divergent immigration bills in the House and Senate, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) and Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) put forth a compromise plan this summer that would require the president to "certify" the successful implementation of security measures along the most porous entry points into the U.S. before a guest worker program could be implemented.
"I don't trust the president to say the borders are secure," Tancredo told an audience at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C. He said immigration policy should be formulated with an emphasis on law enforcement as opposed to "political pandering" for votes. Tancredo also cited a "disconnect" between "elite policy makers" and the American people.
This week, the Senate is considering House legislation that would authorize the construction of 700 miles of reinforced fencing along the most porous sections of America's southwestern border.
Additional measures passed by the House Thursday impose criminal penalties on the construction and financing of border tunnels and provide for expedited removal of criminal aliens. The legislation also "reaffirms the authority" of state and local police to enforce federal immigration laws.
Should the Senate fail to act on border enforcement legislation, Tancredo sees grassroots efforts and citizen activism on the local level as a viable alternative. He would like to see citizen support for strict local laws against illegal immigration and support for pro-enforcement officials at the local level.
Tancredo pointed to a local ordinance in Hazelton, Pa., as an example of the kind of legislation local officials could enact. The ordinance imposes fines and penalties on landlords who rent to illegal aliens and on businesses who hire them.
Similar measures have also passed in other parts of Pennsylvania and in Riverside, N.J.
Tancredo took issue with some conservative strategists - such as Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform - who feel that a push for stringent immigration policies could hurt the Republican Party politically.
"I don't buy it," Tancredo said. "By saying we should be a nation of laws, we will gain votes."
As evidence, Tancredo pointed to Proposition 200 in Arizona, which requires government employees to verify the immigration status of people applying for benefits. Tancredo noted that law was enacted with support from 47 percent of the state's Hispanics.
How do we do the things you propose? Enforcement, ok, good, fine, but don't think for a minute many employers won't go around the system, they have been for years. We still have to deport. We have to start somewhere.
I suppose you can say that. I agree with Tancredo in this case, but he being a politician, I don't trust him either. I'll share with you one of my favorite literary quotes from Douglas Adams. The "president" he is referring to in this can stand for any politician...
The major problem - one of the major problems, for there are several - one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather or who manages to get people to let them do it to them To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must WANT to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job. To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem.
bump for publicity
Playing rapist apologist again, I see.
Absolutely.
Wrong. The too-silent (until recently), rational, vast majority of citizens.
Dishonesty is the trademark of you and yours.
How many Americans, this day, will be killed, robbed or maimed by illegals?
First give employers the tools to determine if workers are illegals, then fine employers for each illegal worker and require them to pay for all the social services used by their illegal employees and their families. Jail time for repeat offenders.
A few company owners and presidents bankrupt and serving time in jail will focus the minds of other employers on this issue.
So the ones who aren't killed, robbed, or mained by illegals don't matter to you?
I remember when I worked in HR for a construction company. You can't tell the difference between a fake ID and a real one. SS cards and fake id's can be bought on any street in any city. It's a real problem. In an ideal world, it would be easy to fix. But I do believe this problem is multi-faceted. We need to:
1. Put up a wall
2. Enforce our current laws which include fining businesses as well as deportation
3. Deal with the current "illegals" who have had children in the US.
I think an enforcement first approach is a good first step. I suspect that opponents of this bill are planning to vote for it now and kill it in appropriations. That's how they handled the "2000 new border guards" issue.
There is a very large and powerful coalition of dems and money republicans who do not want enforcement and who do want an amnesty program. What makes this issue difficult is that about 70% of the public supports the enforcement approach but a much smaller portion supports a "comprehensive" approach. But about 90% of the dems and the business R's want the comprehensive approach with as little enforcement as they can get.
So it's a very strange political battle, with citizen (not politicians) dems and R's aligned against establishment dems and R's. The battle is far from over and, yes, the opponents will try to accomplish in appropriations or in "certifications" that the border has been closed what they have failed to accomplish politically.
I would prefer Tancredo had not phrased it in a way that can be read to impugn the President's honesty. But in the end, he's right. The President will almost certainly try to undo what this bill accomplishes. The President thinks its a bad bill. He will sign it out of political necessity. But he really believes it's a bad idea and I believe he will try to undo it. I don't regard that as a trust issue. It's a difference in political opinions issue.
So stylistically, I would have preferred it differently. But on substance, Tom is right and the president is wrong. That doesn't make the President bad. Just wrong.
That is so silly. I think W is wrong on this issue. Profoundly wrong. Yet, I ran the GOTV campaign in a key swing county to help him get reelected and, this year, to help him get a congress that will support him in the WOT. Most folks can see the difference between disagreeing vehemently and despising. You, apparently, cannot.
Very well said...and so very right.
I've never called anybody a name on these threads. Nor do I "hang out" on any particular types of threads. I post on a variety of topics.
This FReeper accuses other FReepers of praying for the mass murder of other Americans. Do you agree with that?
Surely we can disagree on issues without resorting to the most vile of personal attacks. Otherwise, we are no better than the DUers we love to point fingers at.
You said I lied. If Bush is really just trying to get a guest worker program, why doesn't he support one that doesn't legalize any illegal aliens?
And the sooner you all face the fact that that dream of mass deportation isn't going to happen, perhaps we can get to the "meat" of the problem.
If mass deportations aren't going to happen, then why would guest workers leave the country when their status expires, if they won't leave the country now when they're illegal aliens?
Does Tom Terrific do ANYTHING but write press releases? Yesterday he gave the Pope permission to discuss Islam.
I continue to believe this is an unacceptable statement, and you guys can tap dance around it all you want.
No need to tap dance, the President also says that illegal aliens are here to do the jobs Americans won't do, which is not only false but an insult as well.
We also hear that catch and release is going to end. When? Why didn't Bush start talking about ending catch and release until 2005? Now the fifth anniversary of 9-11 has come and gone and we still have catch and release. Will it end before the sixth? Before Bush leaves office? Will you be tap dancing until then?
Tancredo wants to get publicity, keep the issue alive, and get money for his PAC.
And those who want to legalize illegal aliens have no financial stake?
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.