Posted on 12/06/2005 6:28:53 AM PST by GOPGuide
In a bid to bypass critics, the Senate will pass the plan and then merge it with a House bill, observers say.
Washington - Republican leaders will try to pass President Bush's controversial guest-worker proposal without putting it to a direct vote in the House.
Observers say the new GOP strategy that begins today is for the House to deal only with the more politically palatable issue of increasing border security and clamping down on employers. Republican leaders then will let the Senate pass some form of a guest-worker plan.
After that vote, senators and House members will merge the House's border security bill with the Senate's legislation in closed-door meetings.
The House will then vote on the final package, which will include some guest-worker provision, according to a GOP aide familiar with the plan, a Colorado lawmaker and other observers.
The strategy is designed to avoid a divisive debate and contentious vote in the House.
"There is a widespread expectation that that is how it's going to play out," said Tamar Jacoby, immigration expert with The Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank. "I think it would be hard to pass in the House without the Senate going first."
The legislation that is likely to be the core of the House's immigration bill is expected to be introduced today. Sponsored by Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., it tightens border security and forces employers to verify workers' citizenship. It does not address guest-worker issues.
Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., the biggest opponent of the president's guest-worker
proposal, said the strategy limits his ability to challenge the measure. "They're doing it this way because they know in the House they'll run into a buzz saw and maybe my name's on it," said Tancredo, who heads the 92-member Immigration Reform Caucus in the House.
Sensenbrenner's bill is expected to be voted on within the next two weeks. That allows House members to visit their districts for the Christmas break and say that they passed immigration reform, Tancredo and Jacoby said.
But the House members will be aware of the plan to build in a guest-worker program through the conference committee, said Grover Norquist, a Republican strategist who often serves as an informal liaison between Congress and the White House.
"The president's made it clear he wants both (border security and a guest-worker program)," Norquist said.
>
So I will ask you a question, why, when people from all over the world desperately want to come to America, why should only one country be allowed to not just immigrate but completely invade America? There are many quality and educated people all over the world, we should take legal immigrants those who love America enough to wait their turn (not butt in front of all the rest), learn the language, pay the taxes, etc. Doesn't it really tick you off when you are waiting in line and someone jumps not only in front of you but goes straight to the front of the line?
>
There's usually good reason for it when it happens. In this particular case, the person in question has a job, probably credit cards and whatever. Deporting him will hit the bank. Deporting him deprives Social Security of a working age person to pay into the funds and make no mistake about this, if we deport working age people there will be no pensions from Social Security from anyone. There are already too few working age people.
To save Social Security, there must be a procedure put into place to convert these people into tax paying residents.
For all we know V. Fox has a picture of GWB with a cigar if you know what I mean. What else could explain such utter inenptness and incompetence?
Its truly disgusting to see the GOP act like this. I would never vote RAT, but why even bother voting anymore?
They don't want to pay taxes. That is why they are illegal and want to work for cash to send home to "THEIR" country.
Employers love it since they can avoid payroll taxes and higher worker's comp. payroll premiums. They also love it because they know they have more control over the illegal than a domestic employee.
Its a crime all around. Landscapers will complain about it, but since when is any business entitled to cheap labor?????
Even after this plan is implemented there will still be this charade since the businesses will seek to avoid paying taxes and the illegals looking for cash to send home.
Let me turn that around!
What is the preferred policy for a bank robber that pays taxes on his booty? Or tithes 10%?
What is the preferred policy for a Rapist that takes an AIDS test and anonymously sends it to the victim?
What is the preferred policy for a terrorist that gives a 1 minute warning before blowing up a building? The body count would be SLIGHTLY reduced, but he was trying to do the right thing?
What is the preferred policy for a Politician that takes bribes, but votes with the (R)'s on occasion? Got an answer for the one McStain of the Keating 5?
Why can you not see the BIG problem in your question? How can we allow ANYONE to profit from Illegal behaviour?
The preferred policy is...if you are Illegal...I don't CARE if you pay taxes or not...you are here ILLEGALLY!
You are OUTTA HERE! Come back when you can do it LEGALLY! See if your job is still there in 8 to 10 years like the OTHERS who try to come here legally wait!
Just the fact that the republicans are willing to do this tells me all I need to know about the gop.
Take the TU out of POTUS and you've got my opinion of Bush.
Why can't our politicians just do what we ask?
I used to support him when people made fun of him or mocked him, now I just pile on, only from a different angle.
This immigration thing to me is just too much. The CFR sellout was one thing. The drug plan another sellout, the education bill another sellout.
He is actually worse than Clinton in many respects.
I prefer the gridlock of the mid-;ate 90's to this any day.
This is far worse and solidifies the balkanization of the country for years to come.
Or we could simply replace him with a legal immigrant worker, and then the legal immigrant worker would be paying into Social Security.
You mean like this?
"You really should stop drinking so early in the morning." LOL! See #39 and #40.
Dane's oh-so predictable. Ya know, Dane you really need to go in for reprogramming. That broken record that spins around in your head is stuck on stupid.
As will I.
The Republican leadership is full of cowards like Ken Melhman.
We have a President who is willing to ignore the people who put him in office.
We have a Congress full of crooks, liars, and self-interested career politicians.
My loyalty lies with Conservative ideals, not Republican "leaders." When Republicans stop governing as Conservatives, I will change my vote accordingly.
If the GOP continues with these underhanded, obnoxious tactics on immigration reforms, I truly hope they find themselves out of power very, very soon.
Sad to report, that already happened.
Bottom line: The America Bush will leave us in 2009 will be more third-world than the one he took charge of in 2001.
>
To save Social Security, there must be a procedure put into place to convert these people into tax paying residents.
Or we could simply replace him with a legal immigrant worker, and then the legal immigrant worker would be paying into Social Security.
>
Absolutely. And why can't that legal immigrant worker be him? He already knows the job. Who are the anonymous legal immigrants waiting at the border who already knows that job?
Look, people, this is not about hyperbole like "Invading our Country" or about "Turning the Country over to Mexico". It's about the reality that most western countries have a very very low population growth rate and that is devastating many different demographic based programs -- the most prominent being Social Security.
Get this deeply embedded in your heads. There Will Be No Pensions From Social Security For Anyone If We Either Do Not Find More Working Age People Or Raise Taxes. There is no other alternative. Cutting benefits will never happen because old folks vote in higher density than other age groups.
If you advocate deporting working age people you are advocating tax increases. There is no way around this.
These people are here illegally. You have to provide a path for them to become legal. They did something illegal? Then make part of the process paying a fine. Make them jump through whatever hoops you like to become legal, but you cannot advocate deportation of working age people and also claim to be against tax increases for Social Security. Deportation is equal to a Social Security tax increase.
Bump!
I'm all for LEGAL IMMIGRATION, not ILLEGAL ALIENS who DON'T PAY TAXES but DRAIN our system!
If I can't trust Bush on this issue (which I can't), there's no way I can trust him on Iraq (and I don't)...
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.