Posted on 09/03/2005 4:08:28 PM PDT by Constitution Restoration Act
Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., dismissed the suggestion of prominent columnists to introduce a bill of impeachment against President Bush for lack of border enforcement, saying his immigration reform bill will do what is necessary to stem the flow of illegal aliens into the U.S.
This week, WND columnists Patrick Buchanan and Joseph Farah called for legislation to begin the impeachment process due to, as Buchanan wrote, Bush's "conscious refusal to uphold his oath and defend the states of the Union against 'invasion.'"
Wrote Farah: "President Bush has had nearly five years in office to honor his oath of office and enforce immigration laws in this country.
"He has not only failed, he has intentionally neglected this sworn duty, instead claiming he prefers to promote a vague immigration 'reform' plan that involved a 'guest worker' program that has served as an encouragement to the most massive influx of illegal immigration this country has ever seen. "
Despite Tancredo's consistent criticism of the president's record on border enforcement, he says a better solution is to pass legislation instituting more stringent regulations on employers of illegal aliens and thus reduce the demand for illegal workers.
"The best thing to do is to see what we can accomplish," Tancredo told WND in a telephone press conference. "There are great many factors playing on our side," stressing the pendulum is swinging toward those who seek definitive action to deal with the nation's porous borders.
Said the congressman: "Right now, I'm kind of hopeful. Things are moving our way, and I don't think anything like [an impeachment bill] is necessary to keep this momentum going."
Tancredo says if Congress passes stringent legislation, the pressure will be on the president to enforce it.
The Colorado lawmaker told reporters Republican leadership in the House has indicated an immigration bill will be considered this year. The question is what form it will take.
Long an outspoken leader on the issue of illegal immigration, Tancredo is offering his own bill, H.R. 3333, the REAL GUEST Act of 2005. Besides stepping up enforcement at the border, the congressman's bill includes a provision requiring employers to use a now-voluntary "insta-check" program to verify the legal status of potential employees. A bill by Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., also makes the program mandatory, but, unlike Tancredo's measure, only for those newly hired.
Besides Tancredo's legislation, there are two prominent reform bills in the Senate – Kyl's and the McCain/Kennedy bill – and Bush has indicated he will have a detailed plan ready for consideration at the end of this month. The president has focused on a guest-worker program that critics say amounts to amnesty for illegals.
"My bill is a comprehensive piece of legislation that takes into consideration the needs of labor by creating a guest-worker program," Tancredo explained, "but that program can only go into effect once certain requirements are met in terms of securing our border and reducing the number of people in the country who are here illegally."
Tancredo says the key to solving the problem is cracking down on employers who hire illegal aliens.
Explained Tancredo: "If we can stop the employment of people who are here illegally, a huge part of this problem goes away."
The congressman says his approach will remove concern about the high cost of rounding up and deporting those illegals currently in the U.S.
"You will find people by the millions, frankly, will return to their countries of origin," Tancredo said. "If they do not have a job and do not have access to social-service benefits, there really aren't any option."
Tancredo noted the issue of illegal immigration "is reaching critical mass in this country. Something will happen … to force this nation to come to grips with this problem."
Referring to Bush as having an "open borders" approach, Tancredo decried the fact that current immigration laws regarding employment are not being enforced by the executive branch.
"The laws are on the books," he said. "Is there anyone out there that believes there are no aliens in this country working illegally?"
He says the laws not being enforced should either be repealed, or the government should "actually enforce them."
Related stories:
Tancredo backing off presidential candidacy
Tancredo visits with sympathetic Muslims
Tancredo talk too offensive? Too bad, says congressman
CAIR to GOP: Repudiate Tancredo
Tancredo clarifies 'ultimate response'
Tancredo talking White House bid
White House covered up immigration study?
Employers shun service to weed out illegal hires
Tancredo asks for border official's head
Rep. Tancredo considers White House bid
Patrick Buchanan and Joseph Farah are whack jobs. If they don't like democracy, they should move to North Korea.
Buchanan and Farah = Wingnuts. I knew Tancredo was solid.
What if Bush was impeached? Cheney would be president and have pretty much the same borders policy.
That's the question, isn't it? We have a fairly loud group on the Right who agrees that he should be impeached, even if it's in the middle of a war.
Like to see national confidence really drop? Do that.
I agree. And, again, I made that point before on another thread. Still got beat up for it.
I'm broadcast live in front of a pre-recorded studio audience.
Kind sir, I have to take exception to that. I can prove from a plethora of my posts that I do not support open borders. I used to argue on illegal immigration threads but withdrew because I wanted to debate solutions. The only solution that seemed acceptable was "deport them all now." I just don't believe that it is as simple as that.
So my exception to your statement is that, yes, there are a few who could seriously be called as being in favor of open borders. Others of us who want this situation handled correctly, but are not as vocal, are not a part of any open border supporting group.
You know you and I are down like four flats on a dumptruck, so it goes without saying that my exception is with all due respect.
I'm broadcast live in front of a pre-recorded studio audience.
Well gee, there goes the straw man argument that Tancredo was a puppet of Pat Buchanon....
Try again OBLosers.
"The terrorist. Nothing else whatsoever, excuses..."
Okay so Clinton is in no way responsible for paving the way for 9-11?
Impeachment is a Constitutional procedure. The Constitution has not been suspended. If you don't like the Constitution, where do you go? Crawford?
Hypothetically, Bush is impeached and removed for failing to enforce the law and you assume Cheney will repeat his mistake, and that the Congress that just removed Bush will do nothing about it?
Not as simple as your straw man distortion of the position of border security patriots, surely. So the solution to the border and illegal immigration crisis in your view is "not as simple" as simply enforcing the law, which calls for deportation of illegal aliens as the primary "solution" for illegal entry? But we're still to believe that you don't support open borders? Mmm-hmmm, you don't support an open borders policy---but you're OK with accepting its results. Very convincing.
Look, my patience has run out with the likes of you. You don't debate in good faith, and you know it.
I made no strawmen. That's YOU saying that. You should have asked me what I meant when I said that I don't believe that it's as simple as that. Illegals who have been here for a while, what do you do? You conduct sweeps, stings, what? And when you do that, what prevents them from simply crossing over the border again?
This is a matter of proper planning. So what should be done first? Well, to me (and your mileage may vary), an actual tightening of the border must happen BEFORE any mass deportations because if it remains as it is, it just becomes a revolving door.
People like you make this debate impossible for those actually interested in it. Your "may way or the highway" approach is worthless.
Stop destorting my views, which you have egregiously done here. It's pathetic! I'm not going to allow you to lie on me. Fuhgedaboudit. I ain't Catholic, but this one is named after that new saint, St. Happening.
No arguments you attribute to me have I actually made myself. NONE!
So, LORD forgive me, back the hell up.
I'm broadcast live in front of a pre-recorded studio audience.
You SECURE THE BORDER, what's so hard about that???? How can you think deportation and border security shouldn't go hand in hand? Or is THAT something that's NOT SO SIMPLE either? You make the self-serving assumption that pro-immigration enforcement people are not also in favor of---nay, CLAMORING FOR---a secure border---more BP agents that your "great leader" won't fund and deploy---a WALL. You're not willing to admit that the position of border security patriots is "not so simple" as some demand that the US "deport them all now."
"Back the hell up" yourself, and let people who really care about America's security and sovereignty and the integrity of her laws and society debate this issue. You're obviously here just to provide "cover" for Bush's refusal to enforce the law. When you do more than that, that's when I'll believe you're not in favor of open borders.
Go in peace.
I'm broadcast live in front of a pre-recorded studio audience.
You misunderstood me. I was referring to the MSM.
Well, then to me that's inexcusable on his part. I don't know if I'd go so far as to say it's impeachable, but Congress does need to give him a shot across the bow for this. He can take men from the Border Patrol and CBP, two of the most understaffed agencies in the entire federal system, and which have about the most important job outside of the DOD, but he can't spare a single individual from an agency that has never done squat except harass people for not committing any crimes against others. Totally unacceptable.
Nonetheless, an actual tightening of the border must happen. Not implying that you disagree or anything, but I just wanted to emphasize that point.
Generally, I agree with you that it would make little sense to expend massive amounts of resources on deportation before that happens. On the other hand, we could free up the states to expend those resources. Did you catch that recent case out of New Hampshire where a judge overruled an attempt by a sherriff to enforce the law against some illegals who were in his jurisdiction. The judge overruled it on the grounds that the sherriff was trampling on Congress's turf, because Congress has decided to regulate immigration. Congress could put a stop to that charade right now by emphasizing that states do indeed have the power to add any new penalties, and take whatever action they deem appropriate against illegals (limited only by the Constitution itself).
It wouldn't be a complete solution without proper border security, but if illegals who keep showing up in a particular state or locality find themselves deported or even arrested, it would enable jurisdictions throughout the country to protect themselves from the onslaught.
LOL! I never knew that there was anything "undemocratic" about the House of Representatives and two thirds of the Senate voting to take action against an official who has consistently and doggedly refused to heed the will of 75%-80% of the people!
The things you learn on FR...
Nice rant, but just because I'm not aware of any ATF moving to the area doesn't mean they haven't.
What could ATF do that the Marines and National Guard can't?
What can the Border Patrol do that the Marines and National Guard can't do? If he's taking from the BP, he'd damn well better have been taking from the ATF as well. In fact, before taking a single BP agent from the border he should really have sent the entire ATF to New Orleans. For the first time in their sorry existence, they'd actually be doing something useful for the country.
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.