Posted on 07/03/2007 3:09:36 PM PDT by no dems
House Republicans are planning to use the ashes of the Senate immigration bill to resurrect the debate on border security.
The GOP leadership move to go on offense on immigration is politically tricky. While polls show that most Americans back stronger border-security measures, some House Republicans — such as then-Rep. J.D. Hayworth (Ariz.) — faced strong criticism last year for their so-called “hard-line” approach. Hayworth subsequently lost to Rep. Harry Mitchell (D) in last year’s midterm elections.
Immigration reform was not high on the Democratic agenda last election cycle, and some political observers questioned the motivation of Democratic leaders to pass the legislation. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) recently called the legislation “Bush’s bill” but noted that more Republicans than Democrats voted against cloture.
House Democratic leaders have suggested that they will not act on a broad immigration reform bill unless the Senate acts, a remote possibility following last week’s failed cloture vote House Republican leaders are calling out their Democratic counterparts for failing to tackle immigration matters, but have made it clear they do not want the lower chamber to act on President Bush’s proposed guest-worker program.
Kurt Bardella, a spokesman for Rep. Brian Bilbray (R-Calif.), who chairs the House Immigration Reform Caucus, said the demise of the Senate bill was a positive development for border security and the debate forced Congress to “come to grips with the reality that the illegal immigration issue is an issue of national importance.”
“The defeat of the Senate bill is not an excuse for Congress to do nothing when we have within reach a broad consensus on the need to address employer verification, interior enforcement and border security … we should instead renew our commitment to getting something done immediately.”
Homeland Security Committee ranking member Pete King (R-N.Y.), a cosponsor of border security legislation that will be introduced later this month, said through a spokesman that the Senate bill has “reinvigorated the border-security debate.”
During a press conference on Thursday, Republican leaders joined the chief House critics of the Senate immigration bill in applauding its defeat and touting the importance of border security legislation.
“Until we’re able — the government’s able — to demonstrate to the American people that we can in fact secure the borders and enforce the laws, the American people aren’t willing to take those next steps in this process,” House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said.
Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) said he expected many of his members to line up behind a bill crafted by King and Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), ranking member on the Judiciary Committee.
“I think many of us will be supporting the Lamar Smith/Peter King bill,” Blunt said. “I actually think it carves out a special spot for temporary workers for agriculture. The concern that House Republicans have and have had for some time now is the order in which these things are accomplished.”
A draft of the Smith-King legislation includes an increase in the size of the Border Patrol and would boost the number of Customs and Border Protection Officers at U.S. ports by 1,000 people over four years. It would also expedite the removal of individuals in the country illegally, make English the national language and refine the system that verifies the identities of those applying for employment in the United States.
Some House Democrats, meanwhile, want to move forward on comprehensive immigration reform. Following the Senate vote last week, Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), who chairs the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security and International Law, said in a release that Democratic leaders need to “improve the current unsatisfactory system.”
A spokeswoman for Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said the House has already begun to address border security through the passage of the homeland security appropriations bill by providing the funding for 3,000 additional Border Patrol agents in fiscal 2008 — a nearly 20 percent increase that will bring the number of Border Patrol agents to 17,819 by the end of the fiscal year.
“For the 148 Republicans who voted against this bill, any stated commitment to border security rings hollow,” the spokeswoman said.
“For the 148 Republicans who voted against this bill, any stated commitment to border security rings hollow,” the spokeswoman said.
Yeah, the "funding" was passed but what provisions were there in the bill to mandate that it be done? NONE!!! Talk is cheap. We need a bill with some teeth in it.
Demand a border fence! Build it NOW!! Beef up the border patrol and close our borders!
U.S. Senate switchboard: (202) 224-3121
U.S. House switchboard: (202) 225-3121
White House comments: (202) 456-1111
Find your House Rep.: http://www.house.gov/writerep
Find your US Senators: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
Toll free to the US Senate:
1-800-882-2005. (Spanish number)
1-800-417-7666. (English number)
Courtesy of a pro-amnesty group, no less!!
Republican National Committee
310 First Street, SE Washington, D.C. 20003
phone: 202.863.8500 | fax: 202.863.8820 | e-mail: info@gop.com
Take a look at their hidden agenda: http://www.mexica-movement.org
This could help the GOP in ‘08 if they come up with a bill the American people approve of.
It sounds like it’s not such a bad idea. The House GOP needs to take the conservative stance on immigration since the Dems have clearly wanted amnest (at least most of them).
...developing/interesting. :|
I hope this is not like ordering more lifeboats for the Titanic’s return trip.
I don’t understand the attraction of the fence or wall. Has anyone heard of ladders or wire cutters? ANd how are fences going to stop tunnels or boats traveling from the coast of Mexico to the coast of the US?
The answer has got to be the perks that attract illegals, ie- jobs, housing, social services, etc. You’ve got to make them want to stay home- a fence is a billion dollar waste of time. (What Rush would call symbolism over substance).
WHERE’S THE FENCE??
don’t understand the attraction of the fence or wall. Has anyone heard of ladders or wire cutters? ANd how are fences going to stop tunnels or boats traveling from the coast of Mexico to the coast of the US?
You are right about taking away incentives, but the fence, hopefully an Israeli style double one, is also necessary. Yes, there will still be some attempts, but fewer will get across and sensors can detect tunnels.Coast Guard can take care of boats like they do in Florida. There will always be drug runners and terroist types who will try to cross. More will do so as we tighten up other vulnerabilities.
Build a 30 foot high wall and it’s a hell of a fall after climbing over it with a ladder(hard to work construction or pick lettuce with broken legs or arms). Fences can be built with sensors that detect someone cutting them. Building a double fence with ground sensors in between would stop almost all intruders. Tunneling under a double fence would be a massive job that surely the border patrol could detect. Boats can be stopped by this new thing called the U.S. Coast Guard. We’re the richest country in the history of mankind, we can afford it!!
I agree with disincentives, but first we must build a barrier, not only for illegal immigrants, but to keep out terrorists.
I agree.
There is not "The answer". Rather a variety of disincentives should be employed in parallel. The wall is simply one of them. It doesn't have to be perfect to cut down on the problem. No measures will be perfect and we will never eliminate illegal immigration. But we can reduce it. 90% effective is better than 0% effective. And your statement about wire cutters indicates you need to research this a bit more and get up to speed on what such a wall might look like before posting such a naive comment.
““I think many of us will be supporting the Lamar Smith/Peter King bill,” Blunt said. “I actually think it carves out a special spot for temporary workers for agriculture. The concern that House Republicans have and have had for some time now is the order in which these things are accomplished.”
A draft of the Smith-King legislation includes an increase in the size of the Border Patrol and would boost the number of Customs and Border Protection Officers at U.S. ports by 1,000 people over four years. It would also expedite the removal of individuals in the country illegally, make English the national language and refine the system that verifies the identities of those applying for employment in the United States. “
Sounds good, but not liking the small number of BP agents unless there is another number for agents on the borders.
As for the fence, Hunter wrote the Bill, Bush signed it, Chertoff is the hold up trying to stall. When Hunter is President, he will have it entirely built in 6 months.
Correct.
And yet so many insist a fence is THE answer.
Removing the attactants is THE answer.
attactants=attractants
Hayworth had Abramoff problems. Wonder why that wasn't mentioned?
Tancredo's House immigration caucus lost seats at a much lower percentage rate than non-caucus members. Wonder why that wasn't mentioned?
Good point, and IIRC his opponent pretended to be even tougher on border issues. I remember Heyworth complaining about his opponent stealing his ideas. Another little tidbit this articles ignores.
You are demanding that a fence be 100 percent effective, which is silly.
Even if a fence is 3/4s effective, that is a major deterrent when an illegal has to pay thousands to a coyote each time to get him over the border. Make it greater than 50-50 that he will get caught, and a lot will no longer bother trying.
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.