Redstate

I'd love to read it, but I'm not going to try to wade through stuff that's had the paragraph breaks removed.

Hopefully you can get someone who can do edits to switch you to a different format mode, so it'll be legible.

I'll be glad to make it more reader-friendly if I can edit my post. I haven't tried it in this forum before.

you have the magic decoder ring that only the editors have.  But if you ask nice, often they'll do a little repair work for ya.

PLEASE format your posting legibly with paragraphs and proper punctuation. NO WAY I'm going to read this as is!

From what I did read... ANY Republican candidate, no matter how conservative they might be otherwise, who endorses forms of amnesty for illegal aliens who crashed our borders, does NOT deserve re-election. CLOSE THE BORDER FIRST. Then, prosecute employers who hire illegals. STOP giving free public education to illegals, or public assistance. STOP issuing driver's licenses to illegals. PROSECUTE those who use forged documents or steal SSNs or IDs. Most of the folks who came here by breaking our laws will leave when they see that the free ride is over.

Tancredo ROCKS!

I read the letter politically, not literally.  Buchanan just wants to scare Cannon and Pence into a tougher stand

on illegal immigration. She cannot seriously think that she could get them thrown out of office.

This huge  issue is destined to severely split  Conservatives because many of us  would say that  we are a "nation, not a market,"  and  we salute the flag, not Corporate America.

Pence's proposal was the dumbest that I have ever heard.  Tancredo's  PAC can get us a tougher policy for securing the borders.  I don't  need  to  hate him.  

.  

The Pence plan doesn't have any amnesty component. It is just plain dishonest to call increased legal immigration "amnesty." And I'm someone who has no problem calling the Senate proposal amnesty, because that's what it is. The Pence plan is infinitely better than the Senate plan and Tancredo is just showing how fanatical he is in his continued attacks on it. None of this surprises me. Remember the whole Mecca bombing fiasco?

We need to clarify our terms. Those who LEGALLY enter this country are legal immigrants. They are welcome. Those who crashed the gates and now want to stay here through a bogus redefinition of "legal" are not welcome. Lots of folks waited for years, paid the price, stood in line, and did it right.

As for Mecca. Those who understand Islam know that the ONLY thing that radical Islamists value in this world is the black stone in the "Kabbah." Tancredo's comment about "taking out their holy sites" came on the heels of a hypothetical question about how America might dissuade radical Jihadists from detonating nukes in our cities and murdering millions of our people.

The logic stands. If they slaughter millions of our people, they lose their shrine. Simple math. Elegant. The only deterrent that means anything to these fanatics. Tancredo got it right.

I don't understand what part of "no amnesty" don't people understand? Under Pence's plan there is no path to citizenship. All the illegals have to go home and they can't come back unless they have an employer willing to hire them. After being screened by private companies (which makes it more effective than any government bureaucrat) to ensure they are not felons or terrorists, they become "legal workers" and not legal citizens.

They have to leave after 2 years unless they can pass standard english tests and recite our national anthem. Then they can only stay for 6 years which they must return home or register for citizenship the legal way. All the while we get our borders secure, build our fence, enforce the law, and crack down on employers who hire undocumented workers. Sounds like a principled plan to me.

Please help me with the formatting. A couple of guys have trouble reading long sentences. Next time I'll also try to throw in lots of pictures.

Thanks!

As far as I can tell, Tancredo may end up, by quashing semi-moderate positions on immigration reform, may end up doing more to advance the hyper-liberal Senate bill than anything the weak-spined Senate RINOs have done.  After all, no Democrat is going to support Tancredo's position at all, and many Republicans (and not just the "moderates") have some qualms with the plan that Tancredo has brought forth.  So, if he's going after any House Republican trying to advance a counter-proposal, it leaves as the only bill to have actually made it anywhere the Senate one, which I'm sure many of us here find repugnant.

With this most recent letter, Tancredo (along with Bay Buchanan) seem to be doing more harm to any Republican-conceived immigration reform bill than anything the Democrats have done so far.  And to do so may end up leading us into a place where the Republicans, as a party, do not want to be.

Does not allow those who were illegal to stay here. It does not redefine them as legal. There is no amnesty in the Pence plan. I would read his plan rather than just take Tancredo's word for it, because he is being dishonest.

The Mecca comment was stupid and he did back away from it. He is a congressman and he shouldn't be talking about nuking Islamic holy sites, period, even as a hypothetical. He also did not "get it right." We are not going to slaughter innocent people who had nothing to do with a hypothetical nuclear attack, just to have something to do. We are not going to destroy Islamic holy cities. It was a ridiculous and stupid thing to say. We aren't conducting a war on Islam.

My problem is having private companies decide who can come to work in the U.S.   I do not wish to relinquish American sovereignty

to multi-national corproations.

Under Pence's plan there is no path to citizenship.

Yes, there is. According to Pence; Guest workers will be allowed to renew their W Visas, but only for a period of up to six years. At that point, the guest should decide whether to return home or enter the separate process of seeking citizenship. This is a path to citizenship.

You also say thet the Pence plan is not amnesty. Clearly, it IS amnesty. People who have broken the law, in the Pence plan, are allowed to get away with having broken the law. His plan does not even have the token "punishment" of the Senate bill, the payment of fines and back taxes. The Pence bill is more of an amnesty bill than the Senate bill is.

Needless to say, under the Pence plan, no employers who have hired illegals are liable for any punishment.

The big idea in the Pence proposal is that people working illegally in America should take a short trip back to their home country, about one week, in exchange for a promise that they will be allowed to come back to their current job.

Many illegals will decline to accept this offer. Then what? Pence has already ruled out the idea of deporting them, and he offers no suggestions at all as to what should be done with illegals. As for those who do take the Pence offer, what on earth is the point of asking them to go all the way back to their home country? If we intend to allow them to work here it would be a lot more efficient legalize them (give them amnesty) while they are here.

This bizarre element in the Pence plan appers to be some legalistic trick. Pence defines amnesty as follows; "Amnesty is allowing people whose first act in America was an illegal act to get right with the law without leaving the country."

So apparently Pence thinks that if they are given amnesty after taking a weeks holiday back in their home country, that is not really amnesty! How dishonest is that?

There was shock about the large numbers of immigrants we would have under the Senate bill. But Pence puts NO LIMITS on the numbers of "guest workers at all. None. Again quoting Pence;

After the program is up and running, there will be a period of three years when the market and the needs of U.S. employers will set the limit on the number of guest workers.

A complete free for all for three years during which employers can get as many foreign workers as they wish as cheaply as they can. And then what?

Therefore, after three years of the program, a reasonable limit on the number of W Visas will be determined by the Department of Labor based on employment statistics, employer needs and other research.

I have not even touched on all the bad points in this proposal. The Pence idea manages the difficult task of making the Senate immigration bill seem serious and strict about immigration.

Pence has declared war on the House Immigration cacus with this proposal and should be booted out of it as a result. His chances of higher office have just dropped to zero, and he has made it far more likely that the GOP will lose control of the House this November.

The Pence plan does allow those who are illegal to stay here, as long as they, for some bizarre reason, take a quick trip home first. What on earth is the reasoning behind that? If Pence wants to give them amnesty, which he clearly does, then he should just come out and say so. This absurd notion that "its not amnesty because they have to go back to their home country for a few days to pick up thir papers allowing them to work legally in America" is just silly.

The Pence plan is even more of an amnesty than the Senate bill, which at least proposes some token fines and the payment of back taxes. The Pence bill is softer on illegals than the Senate bill, which I did not think was possible.

Pence needs to change parties if he wants to propose stuff like this. He would fit right in with Ted Kennedy.

by the smear campaign which the open borders Republicans have launched against the conservative Republicans.

Pence is neither a good man nor a champion of conservatism. His immigration proposal manages the difficult feat of making the Senate bill look good. But because he is supposedly a "conservative" some people are willing to swallow it hook line and sinker. I don't see any of the Pence backers willing or able to defend his ideas on the merits.

Chris Cannon, the real object of your affection, thinks that Mexican citizens illegally in the US should be allowed to get US drivers licenses. Needless to say you managed to miss that little detail in extolling his virtues.

 

you might have had.  To say that Pence is "not a good man" is ridiculous.  You can disagree with some aspect of his proposal, but to get personal shows considerable immaturity.  I don't know him personally, but everything I have heard about him indicates he is a good man.

As far as saying the Pence Plan is worse than the Senate bill just made you lose any credibility.  I'm not 100% happy with the Pence proposal, but you are coming across like a Tancredo shill.

I also disagree with Cannon's immigration stance.  But your notion of love and affection vs hatred and contempt seem a bit far fetched.  Under your definition Ronald Reagan would have been a traitor and should have been impeached.  Try reading the Pence proposal and gaining some historical perspective.  If that's too hard go back to your John Birch meeting and talk about the latest government conspiracy.

Then they aren't here, are they? What laws are they breaking at that point? How do we even know who was here? It doesn't give them any special status at all. They don't go ahead of any legal applicants. Once they are at home, they have to compete against those that are here legally. If they don't go home, they are totally out of luck. With any legal immigration program those who are here illegally could go home and try to get in legally. What is wrong with that? Should we execute them before they can leave so they can't apply to get into the country legally? Or would branding be sufficient?

who hasn't even read the plan.  You obviously have no clue what you are talking about.  If you decide to leave the kindergarten name-calling behind and actually talk about specific policy from his proposal, instead of your unfounded interpretations, we can have an honest debate.

Look at the H1-B process. Nobody comes here on a H1-B unless they have a willing employer here who participates in the process. We still have the power to deny the application and keep someone out, even when "multi-national corporations" want that person here. The same goes for the proposed visa program. The visa program proposed here is a whole lot like the existing H1-B process, only for unskilled workers.

he doesn't understand that by sending them home, they have to get in line.  There is the whole issue of fingerprinting them and assigning them biometric cards and performing DHS security checks on them.  Not only is it important for them to leave the country in order that they have no advantage over others wanting in, if they are found to be a security risk, they are already out of the country.

Tancredos biggest fan right now is Speaker Pelosi.

Is retribution, not solving the illegal immigration problem, then yes, the Pence plan is not for you. It exacts no retribution from anyone for pass misdeeds. Even a "deport them all" plan would apparently not be good enough. After all, if we do deport someone, they can just apply to get into the country legally. So a "deport them all" plan would just be another amnesty plan in disguise. I suppose illegals should be given a few years of prison time or something before we allow them to leave, if we ever do.

I think you need some extra time in study hall.  Do some additional research on the worker visas as they currently exist and how Pence's plan involves government approval before entry.

You obviously are having trouble with facts.  The only person who would hold to such blind loyalty with regard for reason would be an employee of Tancredo or Buchanan.

There is no path to citizenship in Pence's plan.  From what I've read (which is obviously more than you have) under the Senate plan they can buy there way into citizenship, making it a path to citizenship.  Under the Pence plan, NO illegal immigrant is put on a path to citizenship.  As a matter of fact, those that go through the guest worker program would have a more difficult time entering the citizenship program because they would have to get in line like everyone else.  There is no more path to citizenship in the Pence plan than exists under current law.  Try to get a clue about some of these basic points.

As far as your concern about Pence blowing his chance for higher office, correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought Tancredo was the only one to indicate he was interested in higher office.  And if you think his attacks on fellow conservatives is going to serve him well in reaching that goal, you might want to think a little harder.

As for me, I used to back Tancredo.  No more.  I'm switching to Sanford.

It is not your place to assign or deny "respectability" to anyone.

Second, you have been constantly attacking Tancredos character and respectability. Pot, meet kettle.

Climb down off that high horse and try to argue the facts in future.

Pences stab in the back of the House Immigration cacus does in fact indicate that he is sorely lacking in character.

with the "facts" as you imagine them to be.

Clearly, the only person who would espouse such views is an employee of La Raza or Ted Kennedy.

Gee, I can see the attraction of this line or "argument" for you open borders types. It sure saves having to think, which is not something you are notable for.

Actually, the "Pence Idea" is a misnomer, because he simply took the idea from an employers group and passed it off under his own name. Which is why it looks so much like a wish list drawn up by employers. It allows employers to decide how many and which foreigners they wish to hire, but allows them to do so legally rather than illegally.

They don't go ahead of any legal applicants. Once they are at home, they have to compete against those that are here legally. If they don't go home, they are totally out of luck.

This is simply not true. Under the Pence plan, the illegals keep their current jobs. They do not lose them and have to apply for them along with everyone else. Their employers, if they wish to keep them, send the gust worker paperwork to their home countries for some strange reason. The illegals go home, pick up the paperwork, then come back.

Lets quote Pence, since you refuse to read him.

I envision employers working with placement agencies to make sure that their long-time illegal employees get their paperwork processed, background checks performed, and visas issued so that they will be back on the job quickly.

Yup, no amnesty here, nosiree. Move along.

What is the point of this? Why not simply legalize their status right here in the US?

What about those illegals who refuse to go back? Are they in any sort of trouble? No. If you read Pence, he says that deporting them is impossible and unthinkable. So where does that leave us?

Since you people are plainly not reading what he said, I'll post a link to it here.

There are so many bad things in this proposal its hard to list them all. But to pick another one, it is a disaster from a security standpoint.

The "big idea" here is that private firms will do "background checks" on potential employees, and will do it within one week. How is this supposed to weed out any security risks? It isn't. And the private security firms conducting the checks will be employed by the employers and will give them exactly the results which they are paying for.

If you think the current process allowing people into this country is too lax, wait until the Pence plan goes into effect. It will make you long for the good old days.

Or would branding be sufficient?

Well, I'm open to branding, but there is this modern technique known as "fingerprinting" which would serve the same purpose. Any reason you would object to fingerprinting all illegals, and jailing those who don't take the hint and keep coming back? I'm sure you can come up with something.

is supposed to be a point in its favor, I take it?

do you imagine I am ignoring? The fact is that Cannon thinks that illegal immigrants should be allowed to get US drivers licenses. That is a fact. You can stamp your feet and call people names all you like; it will remain a fact. I suggest you attempt to justify that position, if you think that you can. Because your current tactics are not working.

as we point blank refuse to punish anyone involved, whether the illegal employers or illegal workers, then there will be no solution to this problem. Sorry if that sounds like vengeful "retribution" to you. Once upon a time this was just plain old commom sense conservative thinking.

Cannon on immigration.  I just don't think your myopic view of conservatism is healthy and your name-calling and character assasinations are less than honorable.

Serious question.  I haven't heard about his plan for retribution.  Is it simply a bus ride?  His criticisms of those he disagrees with are overriding his own plans.  Help me understand his plan.  Thanks.

I've heard no other conservative member of Congress attack another other than Tancredo's attack on Pence - and now Cannon.  He and Buchanan lace their internet, press releases and e-mails with talk of "betrayal", "sinister", etc. to describe a person, not just a plan.

I have just as much right to challenge your respectability as you do to challenge whether someone like Pence is a "good man".

I didn't realize the House immigration caucus was a monolithic organization where differing opinions were not allowed.  Since most Americans, even most of my friends in DC have never heard of the caucus, I don't think it's worth much fuss.

As long as TomBay continues to bash good conservative men and women, I will call them out.  I hope he returns to his senses and treats his fellow man with decency, even when they disagree on policy.

to edit many of your diaries and comments, if you really have such concern with name calling and character assassination.

Any time you wish to discuss conservatism with me, feel free. It's always an interesting topic.

I notice that you have still not responded to the many concrete objections I raised about the Pence/Krieble proposal.

If you think that American employers ought to be allowed to set American immigration and guest-worker policy, and to decide how many people should be allowed to come here, then be good enough to say why. Claiming that it's character assassination for anyone to object to such ideas is not especially productive of anyones time.

 .. Mr Rasputin.

I've heard no other conservative member of Congress attack another other than Tancredo's attack on Pence

Where were you during the battle over the House Majority leader position? Boehner, Shadegg, and Blunt attacked each other quite sharply. Blunt especially took some cheap shots. And that is just one example. Politics is not for the faint of heart. I suspect that even Saint Pence has been known to play political hardball from time to time. He sure seems to be doing so here.

The problem is, you are simply saying Pence cannot be criticised, not defending him from the substance of the criticism.

of selective reading.  You addressed the issue Art.  It's best to just ignore him.  He started the name-calling with the slam on Pence.  Don't stoop to his level.

I will be sure to contact Cong. Tancredo's office and express my appreciation for his opposition Cong. Pence's plan to reward millions of illegal aliens with amnesty.  I will also be sure to cotact Cong. Pence's office and express my opposition to his amnesty plan.

He is not open-borders.  He has even said that he disagrees with Cannon and doesn't totally support the Pence Plan.  A simple examination and fair reading would prove that point.  You obviously have some kind of personal issue here.

to allow you to threadjack your own thread.

You exerpted a lenghty critique of the Pence/Krieble plan. I have added my own comments on its shortcomings.

If you see any reason why the House should add the Pence/Krieble plan to the bill it adapted last November then tell me what that reason is. It appears to pretty much gut the bill which they all, including Pence, voted for not so long ago.

The mere fact that Saint Pence is proposing it is not in itself enough for me to embrace it. You will have to explain why it is a good idea.

I don't think Art or anyone else has said people can't have their opinions.  From everything I've read in his posts he has always objected to the mean-spirited way that conservative friends are treating one another over one issue.

attacks on Pence?  Can't you just deal with the issue rather than sarcastic "Saint Pence" references?  I'm with you on border security first, but you're losing the debate for us when you go on these personal attacks.

Perhaps.

You obviously are having trouble with facts.  The only person who would hold to such blind loyalty with regard for reason would be an employee of Tancredo or Buchanan.

When people respond to factual evaluations of their beliefs in a personal fashion such as this, I take it personally.

I suppose one solution would be for Art to refrain from his non-stop cheap shots. Until that happens, I'll reserve the freedom to fire back when I deem it appropriate.

But hey, thanks for your valauble contribution to the conversation.

I really don't think Art is saying Pence can't be criticized.  To the contrary, he has said repeatedly that opponents of the Pence Plan should take it apart.

You are right that politics is often hardball, but is there some way Pence has been personal in attacking Tancredo?  I've not read or seen any reference Pence has made that was in any way inflammatory toward Cong. Tancredo.  If you have a quote or reference to help me understand your statement, I'd be happy to reconsider my current view of how Tancredo has handled the situation.  Thanks.

if you would take the trouble to read the thread, the only "argument" which Art is making is that it is wrong for anyone to criticize Pence. He ignored the substance of the criticism he excerpted, and he ignored the criticism which I made. The gist of his post seems to be that it is wrong to attack Pence. I don't see how he can come to that conclusion without even listening to the attack.

Art plainly dislikes Tancredo rather strongly. Fair enough, its a free country. But he never manages to spell out what his dislike is based on. I'll just have to keep nagging him until he does.

two good guys (Tancredo and Pence) going after each other.  Although in fairness, I've only heard Tancredo go after Pence, the fact is that supporters of both guys are going after each other and it's hurting the cause.

Conservatives often disagree with one another, but HOW we do it is important.  Cong. Tancredo can oppose the Pence Plan without alienating Pence supporters around the country.  A little civility goes a long way.  It's the difference between Ronald Reagan and Pat Buchanan.

You and Art should kiss and make up.  Ok, maybe that's going too far, but at least take the time to read each others posts before blasting away.  It's the type of thing we should leave to Kos.

I envision employers working with placement agencies to make sure that their long-time illegal employees get their paperwork processed, background checks performed, and visas issued so that they will be back on the job quickly.

That isn't amnesty. Maybe they would have an advantage over those who have no work history, but what's wrong with that? Better to hire those you know are good workers than to hire people you've never met who may or may not be good workers. They are still not guaranteed entry into the US at that point. They have to pass a physical exam and background check. It also depends on being (and staying) employed in the first place, not just finding a few hundred bucks to pay in.

What about those illegals who refuse to go back? Are they in any sort of trouble? No. If you read Pence, he says that deporting them is impossible and unthinkable. So where does that leave us?

They don't have jobs and deport themselves. He specifically talks about ramping up enforcement on those who hire illegals as part of his plan. If there's an easy source of legal labor on one hand and harsh penalties for hiring illegal aliens (that are actually enforced) on the other hand, the job market completely dries up. We can't deport them all, but we could certainly deport the gang-bangers and drug dealers who aren't interested in having a job. There aren't very many of those.

There are so many bad things in this proposal its hard to list them all. But to pick another one, it is a disaster from a security standpoint.

The "big idea" here is that private firms will do "background checks" on potential employees, and will do it within one week. How is this supposed to weed out any security risks? It isn't. And the private security firms conducting the checks will be employed by the employers and will give them exactly the results which they are paying for.

So you're a big fan of the model of efficacy and efficiency that is the TSA, eh? I sure feel a whole lot safer waiting in the long lines while unionized government employees with badges sewn onto their shirt stand around doing nothing. They may not be able to find explosives but they'll sure will make granny feel like a criminal for trying to carry her knitting project through. I'm sure we could devise a similar government jobs program here, if it would make you feel more secure. The Democrats would certainly be on board with that. The more unionized government jobs, the better.

Any reason you would object to fingerprinting all illegals, and jailing those who don't take the hint and keep coming back?

How would we get them exactly? Door to door searches in the middle of the night? And what do we do with them once we have them? Bar those people from legal reentry? No, I don't support that at all. I think we need to enforce the border and stop people from coming here illegally or overstaying their visas. I think those who are here illegally should not be rewarded. I don't think we should be in the business of selling citizenship. But I have no problem with people coming here legally. I have no problem with illegals going to their home country and applying for legal entry.

If you are anti-immigrant, I suppose H1-Bs are bad as well. I personally know a lot of people who've come here on H1-Bs and we are much better off having them here.

And I let an editor know about the formatting request.  As soon as he's done playing playstation with his 5 year old, he will attend to it.

It's probably an adaptation of his Mecca plan that involves the nuking of major cities in their home country if they keep trying to come here (either legally or illegally).

Read the supposedly inflammatory attack on Pence which Art is so upset about.

As I mentioned last week, Congressman Pence, a solid conservative, offered an outrageous "compromise" proposal on immigration. Pence's plan is to turn over our immigration policy to the private sector-(like putting the big hungry foxes on guard duty over the chicken coup). Employers could bring in as many guest workers as they want-Why wait 20 years when you can do all the harm in three!

What about this is untrue? Nothing. This is in fact exactly what Pence has proposed. Art seems to think that ANY criticism of Pence is not allowed. If he does disagree with the Pence plan then he should be agreeing with Tancredo, not attacking him.

I get the impression he is putting people ahead of policy.

to make sure I understand what you are saying.  It's clear that you are wrong on this point.  At no point did he say people shouldn't criticize Pence or Cannon.  His objection has been to the way the criticisms are conveyed.  From what I've read, he has a point.  He also has gone overboard in his criticisms of Tancredo.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and it appears that your opinion is that it's not only ok to criticize a conservative friend over a difference of opinion, but it's also ok to blast him with name-calling (which is what Tancredo did from all accounts I've read).  I still like Tancredo, but he's starting to lose support from conservatives who value a sense of civility and fair play.

Just something to think about.

Pence's proposal will reward millions of illegal aliens with legal status.  I am very pleased that Cong. Tancredo is strongly opposing it.

as Art suggested.  I can see why people would be upset with Tancredo over the kind of rhetoric he is using in press releases and e-mails.

 You are wrong.Pence's plan sends them home, gives them no citizenship and secures and controls our border.

Tancredo is the one proposing amnesty by embracing the status quo.

We must secure the border now, Pence has a plan and Tancredo does not.

You need to back Pence 08 not Sanford.

I love Sanford but he is open borders and pro affirmative action.

Pence is the only gut to carry the Reagan mantle in 08 and beyond.

Jon - you need to let this go. You've made your point and at this time, you are descending into harrassment. Drop it and move on.

That isn't amnesty

Then you have some odd definition of amnesty. I define amnesty as when somebody who has broken the law or laws has the slate wiped clean and is not prosecuted for their crimes and is allowed to carry on with their life as if they never did anything wrong. Please tell me what definition you are using.

They are still not guaranteed entry into the US at that point.

They will only leave on the condition that they will be allowed back in. Those who are not given that promise will not leave. And Pence has no proposal to make them. In fact he insists that deportation is not an option.

According to Pence;

the solution is to set up a system that will encourage illegal aliens to self-deport and come back legally as guest workers.

The bait to get them to self-deport is that they are not really "deporting" at all. Thats just a ruse to sell the plan to Americans. Pence is explicit that they will "self-deport" then turn right around and come back within a week.

He specifically talks about ramping up enforcement on those who hire illegals as part of his plan.

Sure he does. He also says that any employer can hire anyone from anywhere anytime. This is solving the problem of illegals by legalizing them.

The problem is employers who act as if America is just a big union which they need to break. Making it legal for them to do so is not the solution. Explaining to them that if they want to live and do business in this country they have to abide by our laws is the solution. Sooner or later we had better tell them that.

Why on earth can't we simply ramp up enforcement on those who hire illegals, period, without his crazy scheme to throw the borders wide open? This is the sticking point in all these immigration debates. It is constantly asserted that in order to get the laws enforced, we must first consent to another amnesty. No good reason is ever offered for this assertion.

How would we get them (fingerprints) exactly?

Gee, I don;t know, each year we catch and deport millions of them, many of whom turn around and come back again. I guess we could fingerprint them at that point. We also, once upon a time, at least pretended to enforce the laws inside this country. Any caught there could have their fingerprints added to the database. It's not actually that difficult to do, you just have to want to do it. Clearly, you do not.

As for privatising immigration checks; that is todays GOP for you. The things which government should do, like controling the borders, it wants to privatize. The things it should not do, like education and Social Security, you cannot stop it from doing. And "conservatives" thinks its all just a great idea. Then people wonder why the party is in trouble. Feh.

Good for you.

I left Buchanan and his sister a long time ago (or he left me).  Tancredo was a hero on the borders thing, but attacking conservatives with better credentials than his, and in a nasty way, blew it.

I've actualy read the proposal in question.  I am anti-amnesty, and there is no amnesty in the Pence plan.  I also want the borders handled first before anything else is done.

While the left is making a strawman by accusing the right of being anti immigrant (when we are only ant-illegal immigration) those like Buchanan and Tancredo give legitimacy to the lefts claim.  It is unfortunate.

Now that Leon has weighed in I hope the conversation gets more civil.  You've got a great diary.  (And yeah, the format was awful to read without those breaks.  Still a recommend from me though).

can you elaborate on the distinction bewtween harrassment and having a discussion? My comments are on topic, factual, use quotations from the relevant parties, and attempt to engage the substance of Arts diary.

Art has chosen to call me a few names, but I can handle that.

This thread here, for starters. I guess I should be clearer - you both need to cool it.

Art,

I see  several differences between HI-B  and a similar program for unskilled laborers.  The HI-B Program is supposedly in the national interest.  It benefits the country as well as the employer.  These applicants have education and talents which are in short supply in the U.S.  We also can pick the best  applicants from  all countries.  Although there are disagreements about quotas, there is a consensus that we need them.    

What does a semi-literate and unskilled laborer from Mexico provide?  He is willing to work cheaper than a typical American. How is this in the  national interest?   If this is the sole  criterion, why don't we establish unskilled worker quotas from  China, India, the Philippines,  etc., because they might  work cheaper than the Mexicans.  But, that wouldn't solve the  illegal alien  problem.

The Pence plan is an amnesty plan.  It rewards millions of illegal aliens.

Different people have different levels of disagreement which they feel are "too much".

Having started my commenting at Front Page Mag I probably have a few more calluses on me than some. No hard feelings, Art Rasputin. You can take shots at my diary some day. ;=)

Seriously, I know it is annoying to put something up and have other people pick it apart.

He was an unskilled farm laborer who emigrated from Scotland.  Other than fighting for America in WWII and raising a family of patriotic Americans I'm not sure how it benefitted this nation.  He never made it past the 5th grade.

Why on earth can't we simply ramp up enforcement on those who hire illegals, period, without his crazy scheme to throw the borders wide open?

Because the people who share your opinion, Jon, and are actually in a position to do something about it (ie, members of congress) have manifestly failed to offer concrete legislation that would actually do something. Doing something is going to require tens of billions. The required extra border guards and vast array of high tech border guarding equipment won't be had at no cost -- it will cost, at minimum, several tens of billions in additional funds annually. Rolling out a biotmetric ID system will will likewise not be cheap.

As long as "all talk" GOP members of congress get reelected without actually being forced to provide results, you'll continue to have much to be disgruntled about.

to be.  I'm not intimately familiar with ICE processes, hardly familiar at all, but I'm very familiar with bureaucracy.  If the enforcement people learn that they won't be backed in enforcement efforts, they stop enforcing, but they don't stop coming to work and getting paid.

Just letting them know that they are free to do their jobs sets you on the way towards a "tipping point" strategy in controlling illegal immigration.  You don't have to get all of them, and you don't have to, probably shouldn't, start with the worst ones.  Just using existing staff and resources to start getting the "broken windows fixed" and the "fare jumpers" stopped will change the whole atmosphere on the Border and won't cost anything except perhaps some additional overtime.

The only really difficult problem with a "tipping point" strategy will be the mid to upper management in the Border Patrol and ICE generally.  They don't know how the next election is going to come out and they sure don't want to get a laser dot on their forehead from the Democrats.  Facing a Democrat committee chairman holding hearings on "illegal immigrant abuse" allegations next fall would be no one's idea of a good career move, so they'll resist doing anything.  And make no mistake about it, the laser dot isn't reserved to the political appointee level of the bureaucracy.  Republicans won't even touch political appointees over policy disagreements for fear of being called partisan and mean spiritied, but the Ds have no problem going down into the civil service levels and getting away with it; they're "good people" and the unions won't confront a Democrat administration.  Tough choice for a lot of 'crats who'd just as soon just do their job.

As to all the astounding cost estimates, that is Bureaucracy 101; if you can't attack the popular program, you just pile on costs, get the Democrats talking about how there is no plan and how to "do it better."  That's all it takes to keep people floundering and talking until the next election and then the Democrats can attack the Leadership and the Administration for not doing anything about the problem.  I know it sounds cynical, but I've been there, done that.

Tancredo has a plan, but unlike Pence's plan, it is not an amnesty plan.  Tancredo's plan is to secure and enforce this nation's borders, greatly increase the prosecution of employers for hiring illegal aliens and increase the number of illegal aliens deported that are already in the United States.  Once the jobs dry up, millions of illegal aliens will go back to their home countries on their own.  The concept of the number of illegal aliens being reduced through attrition by using these measures is supported by many Republican members of the United Stats House of Representatives.  Illegal aliens that illegally entered into this country found their way here without the help of the U.S. government and they can find their way back home without transportation form the US government.

Here is a transcript of a portion of Cong. Pence's speech at The Heritage Foundation concerning his plan:

"Private worker placement agencies that we could call "Ellis Island Centers" will be licensed by the federal government to match willing guest workers with jobs in America that employers cannot fill with American workers. U.S. employers will engage the private agencies and request guest workers. In a matter of days, the private agencies will match guest workers with jobs, perform a health screening, fingerprint them and provide the appropriate information to the FBI and Homeland Security so that a background check can be performed, and provide the guest worker with a visa granted by the State Department. The visa will be issued only outside of the United States.

Outside of the United States. That is a key point because it is the provision that will require the 12 million illegal aliens to leave. Now, some of you are thinking to yourselves that twelve million people aren't going to pack up and leave just to get a visa to come back legally. But, I believe most will.

The process that I just described to you will only take a matter of one week, or less. That is the beauty of the program. Speed is so important. No employer in America wants to lose employees for an extended amount of time. No worker who is earning money to feed and clothe a family can afford to be off the job for long."

I have a few questions and comments regarding the Pence amnesty plan. How can health screening, fingerprinting and background checks all be perfomred in one week or less?  Are private agencies going to be give access to all the information obtained from the NCIC (National Crime Information Center) background checks? If not, how much information will the be given?  Are private agencies going to be given access to all the information obtained from the Department of Homeland (DHS) background checks?  If not, how much information, will they be given?  I believe that most illegal aliens have multiple identities.  Can it be determined in one week or less for each of the millions of illegal aliens that will participate in the Pence plan exactly what convictions are on record for that particular illegal alien?  What convictions, if any, will disqualify an illegal alien from participating in the Pence plan?  If an illegal alien has a misdmeanor conviction or misdemeanor convictions, will that illegal alien be allowed to gain leal status by participating in the Pence plan?  Will there be any attempt in the Pence to actually see what convictions an illegal alien has obtained in the place or places that the illegal alien has lived in his or her home country? If so, how can that be done in one week or less for each of the millions of illegal aliens that will participate in the Pence plan? If such a check is not going to be done, how is it fair to the many people waiting in line in foreign countries to come to this nation legally that have to undergo background checks in the foreign country in which they are living?

How is an illegal alien from China going to return home and go through the screening provided for in the Pence plan and return to his or her employer in less than a week?  I have the same question with regard to an illegal alien from Russia or an illegal alien from Kenya?

The Pence plan allows an illegal alien to go home for one week (or so it claims) and then come back to the same job at which the illegal alien has been working.  Therefore, an illegal alien that has been working illegally at a job in the United States for day, weeks, months or years will be rewarded for illegally working at the job by being given a one week vacation home and then come back and start right back to work for the employer that had illegally been using him or her for days, weeks, months or years.

Cong. Pence has joined with Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, John McCain, Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank in demanding that "comprehensive immigration reform" occur before this nation's borders have been secured and enforced and before there has been a vigorous effort to enforce the laws already on the books against hiring illegal aliens.  I support Cong. Sensnebrenner's bill, H.R.4437, not the Pence amnesty plan or the Senate amnesty plan, S.2611.

An overwhelming majority of House Republicans supported the House's enforcement only bill, H.R.4437.  Cong. Tancredo and many other Republican congressman have remained steadfastly loyal to the approach of the Sensenbrenner bill.  Cong. Pence's amnesty plan has undermined H.R.4437 and the negotiating power of Cong. Sensenbrenner at any conference committee.  By remaining loyal to H.R.4437, Cong. Tancredo has helped the negotiating power of Cong. Sensenbrenner.  Following President Bush's speech calling for "comprehensive immigration reform", Cong. Peter King told Bill O'Reilly that no bill is better than a bad bill.  H.R.4437 is a good bill.  The "comprehensive immigration reform" bill passed by the Senate was opposed by a majority of Republican senators, but supported overwhelmingly by Democrats by a margin of 38-4.

While H.R.4437 is good legislation, President Bush, however, doesn't need any new legislation to secure and enforce this nation's borders, nor does he need any new legislation to investigate and hire illegal aliens.  For five and one-half years of the Bush administration, border security and enforcement have been a disgraceful failure.  There are plenty of laws already on the books that prohibit employers from hiring illegal aliens.  The enforcement of those laws has had been even more pathetic during the Bush administration than it was during the Clinton administration.

Why is Mike Pence undermining the concept contained in H.R.4437 that illegal presence in the United States should be criminalized?  Cong. Pence's plan contains no provision for criminalizing illegal presence in the United States.  Why is Cong. Pence opposing the overwhelming majority of House Republicans that support criminalizing illegal presence?  Why does Cong. Pence believe an illegal alien should be allowed to be present in the United States with no potential criminal consequences for his illegal presence?

On what issues does Cong. Cannon have better conservative credentials than Cong. Tancredo?

You state that no Democrat is going to support "Tancredo's position".  Tancredo's position is that H.R.4437 is the correct way for Congree to begin dealing with the problem of illegal aliens.  Tancredo's position is that serious enforcement of our borders and the laws prohibiting the employment of illegal aliens should come before any other "immigration" legislation.  That is the approach that H.R.4437 takes.  It is the approach that the overwhelming majority of House Republicans supported when they voted for H.R.4437.  A few Democrats did support H.R.4437.  Democratic Cong. Bart Gordon of Tennessee signed a letter authored by Cong. Tancredo that was released on March 16, 2006, calling for the Senate to pass an enforcement first bill.

A majority of Republics in the United States Senate voted against the "comprehensive immigration reform" bill passed by the United States Senate.  It was supported by Democrats by a margin of 38-4.

Cong. Pence, like Nancy Pelosi and most Democrats in the Senate and House, favors a "comprehensive immigration reform" bill.  Cong. Tancredo supports H.R.4437.  Cong. Pence is undermining the negotiating power of Cong. Sensenbrenner by presenting his so-called compromise plan.

Jon:

You are absolutely right when you assert that the Pence plan provides a path to citizenship.  The Pence amnesty proposal allows illegal aliens to go home for a week or less and then return with legal status.  At the end of six years, those current illegal aliens can apply for citizenship.

Raider

The Pence plan gives NOTHING to illegal aliens.

It merely takes the House enforcement bill, and increases legal immigration by creating a new visa type.  This visa is NOT a reward for illegal behavior, because it has NO connection with illegal immigration.

Would it kill you to read what Pence said before you start parroting Tancredo's attacks?

Thank you editor for reformatting this diary.

Anyway, yes, that's an interesting letter. I love the first half of it, being of the opinion that the bill the Senate passed is a radical extremist amnesty-like monster.

But I lose interest once Bay Buchanan (I hesitate to call her just Buchanan, lest she be confused with her more famous brother) writes this:

One ominous development: the Pence amnesty plan! As I mentioned last week, Congressman Pence, a solid conservative, offered an outrageous "compromise" proposal on immigration. Pence's plan is to turn over our immigration policy to the private sector-(like putting the big hungry foxes on guard duty over the chicken coup). Employers could bring in as many guest workers as they want-Why wait 20 years when you can do all the harm in three! We will be overrun in months, and our jobs will be sold in mass o the cheapest bidders.

Right here she exposes herself as a radical the other way, opposing legal immigration, since that's what Pence's plan does.

Tancredo must be defeated.  I used to appreciate his focus on the issue, since nobody else was talking about it this side of President Bush, but now that he's fighting for the limelight even AFTER the issue is on the table, I have no use for him.

I never mentioned Cannon and know little about him.  I don't know what he has to do with my comment.  Perhaps you meant to reply to someone else?

I've read the Pence amnesty plan.  It allows illegal aliens presently working to go home for one week or less and return to the jobs at which they have presently been illegally working.  At the end of the six years, the former illegal aliens can apply for citizenship.

The Pence amnesty plan weakens H.R.4437, the House enforcement first bill.  Rep. Pence's amnesty plan removes the criminalization of illegal presence from H.R.4437.  Why does Rep. Pence believe that it should not be a violation of criminal law for an illegal alien to be present in the United States?

on immigration, I also think that this is a bad use of our resources.

When you stated that Cong. Tancredo had "attack[ed] conservatives with better credentials than his, and in a nasty way", I assumed that Cong. Cannon was one of those conservatives about which you were speaking.  I should not have assumed you were talking about Cong. Cannon.  Could you please list the members of Congress that have better conservative credentials than Cong. Tancredo that he has attacked in "a nasty way".  Further, I would be interested to know in what areas you believe those members have better conservative credentials than Cong. Tancredo.

I know Pence better than most (was on his radio show a couple of times when he was a conservative radio show host) and his credentials as the conservative standing up to the GOP leadership on spending has made him legendary.  He is rumoured to be on track for leadership, and already has the endorsement of several conservative think tanks should he make a run for senate or gov (when and if Mitch Daniels moves on).

Tancredo has moved into a one issue mindset, is lashing out at fellow conservatives (remember Reagan's 11th commandment) and worst of all has misstated Pence's plan (as others have tried to point out to you).  I'm not going to waste my time adding to the debate on that.

I oppose amnesty, and want secure borders before anything else moves.  I favor legal immigration, and disfavor illegal immigration.  I like Tancredo's plan.  I like Pence's plan.  So far every other plan stinks.

Tancredo lost me when he attacked Pence's plan when Tancredo knows better.  He must want the issue for himself.  I'm one of the few (I'm guessing) who actualy wades through legislation.  Both plans are great.  To call Pence's plan in favor of amnesty is just wrong.

We can get in a shouting match over who is more conservative and it would be pointless.  What is easy to point out is that:

1.  Tancredo's assault on a fellow republican is classless,
   
2.  Just like bombing Mecca to alienate us from all Muslims was just a retarded thing for Tancredo to say.  It's the same kind of misstatement that Tancredo is becoming known for.

You made the assertion that Cong. Tancredo "attack[ed] conservatives with better credentials than his, and in a nasty way".  When you made that statement were you speaking only of Cong. Pence?  If so, I don't understand why you used the plural of the word "conservative".

For their votes in 2005 and 2004, both Cong. Tancredo and Cong. Pence received a rating of "100" from the American Conservative Union.  That fact certainly fails to prove your assertion that Cong. Pence has better conservative credentials than Cong. Tancredo.

Both Cong. Tancredo and Cong. Pence have a score of "100" from the National Right to Life Committee for the ongoing 109th Congress.  Both achieved a score of "91" for the 108th Congress and both achieved a score of "100" for the 107th Congress.

For the first session of the 109th Congress, the National Taxpayers Union (NTU) awarded Cong. Tancredo a score of "80%" and a letter grade of "A".  For the first session of the 109th Congress, NTU awarded Cong. Pence a score of "75%" and a letter grade of "A".  Cong. Tancredo's score of "80%" tied him for the third highest score in the entire United States House of Representatives.  Cong. Pence's score of "75%" ranked as the eleventh highest score in the entire United States House of Representatives.  Both won a "Taxpayers' Friend Award" from NTU for 2005.

Cong. Tancredo's conservative credential are as strong as any member of Congress, including Cong. Mike Pence.  If you have some facts to support your attempt to diminish Cong. Tancredo's conservative credentials, I would like to read them.

You assert that "[h]e [Tancredo] must want the issue for himself".  Cong. Tancredo does not want the issue for himself.  Cong. Tancredo supports H.R.4437, Cong. Senenbrenner's bill.  In the face of President Bush's immigration speech and the Senate passage of its amnesty bill bill, S.2611, Cong. Tancredo has steadfastly supported H.R.4437, which was supported by an overwhelming majority of House Republicans.

Cong. Pence, on the other hand, has undermined the negotiating power of Cong. Sensenbrenner at a conference committee by introducing his amnesty plan.  Instead of demonstrating loyalty to the House Republican bill, H.R.4437, as nearly all Republican House members that voted for H.R.4437 have continued to do, Cong. Pence has proposed legislation that will weaken H.R.4437 and will allow millions of ilegal aliens to gain legal status in a week or less.  Apparently, it is Cong. Pence that craves attention from the media on the immigration issue.

Cong. Tancredo's remarks about Cong. Pence's plan were right on target.  I'm glad he said them.  It is distrubing that at a critical time for the survival of H.R.4437, Cong. Pence would undermine the negotiating power of Cong. Sensenbrenner in a conference committee, rather than remain loyal to the House Republican bill.

With regard to Cong. Tancredo's remarks about bombing Islamic holy site, I agree with everything he said on that issue.  In every poll that I've seen, a majority of persons polled supported Cong. Tancredo's remarks.  Here is a link to a poll conducted at VOTE.COM in which eighty-one percent (81%) of the respondents agreed with Cong. Tancredo's remarks:  http://www.vote.com/vResults/index.phtml?voteID=60353520&cat=4075633.  Obviously, you believe it is acceptable for you to refer to Cong. Tancredo's remarks as "retarded".

The hyphen makes a BIG difference.

My paternal grandparents were also immigrants.  That was then, this now.  Conditions in this country have certainly changed in a hundred years.

and arguments about the economy existed 100 years ago.  Work conditions were much worse, but immigrants (legal) were often the brunt of bigotry in the name of Americanism.  It's an ugly and short-sighted way of thinking.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but I believe that one of the best things about America is our diversity, not our exclusivity.

Cannon is generally a solid conservative.  But he is atrocious on immigration.  Some of his rhetoric could be mistaken for coming out of Ted Kennedy's mouth its so shameless and white guilt-ridden, such as his claim to be proud of lettting illegals get drivers licenses.

You are resorting to  the old propaganda technique.   If someone disagrees with you, call him a racist.   I wouldn't care if we had 12 million illegal Norwegians, it is wrong.  At the turn of the century, we didn't have 320 million persons living in a welfare state.

Here's the deal - we frown very heavily on throwing the "R" word around here, especially in the absence of any kind of racial remark. You need to offer an apology to mchik1.

if my comment was interpreted as a personal attack on m.  I was referring to the "conditions in America 100 years ago" as compared to today, and was not labeling the poster.

here. My multinational employer was forced to transfer a Frenchman back to France after he divorced his American wife. IIRC, he was only allowed to stay about six weeks after the divorce. My employer wanted to keep him here, but the government said no.

(I'm sure that my employer had to spend many thousands of dollars to pay for the transfer as well.)

Some of the Islamic terrorists that murdered approxiamtely three thousand (3,000) Americans on September 11, 2001, were illegal aliens by virtue of having overstayed their visas.  If the INS had been serious about pursuing and deporting visa overstayers, maybe some of those Americans would be alive today.  Unfortunately, nearly five years after September 11, 2001, the Bush administration has yet to become serious about pursuing and deporting visa overstayers in this country.

Like I said, a shouting match over conservative credentials would be useless (but your selective reading didn't catch that).

You can rely soley on ratings (which show little difference between the two) or use anecdotes (which show little difference too).  My favorite anecdote would be the defiant Pence who was taken to the woodshed by leadership for instigating the spending cut movement in the midst of the Katrina spending fury.  Pence went toe to toe with the president and the house leadership, and received threats on everything from district spending (not a useful threat against Pence) and future party election support.  In the end Pence forced the leadership to act like they supported him becausae of the noise being made on talk radio and websites like RS.

Another anecdote is Tancredo.  He attacks fellow republicans and conservatives.  That's when I (and many of the people you must be mystified by on this site) chose to dump him.  That's one of several reasons there are conservatives with better credentials.  Having class is a good start if you want cred.

Vote.com doesn't begin to be a scientific poll.  That's a pretty sad attempt to rationalize the bombing of holy sites.  I suppose if Vote.com justified the bombing of churches because of Abu Graib you'd buy that garbage too?

And again, you must be eating up Tancredo's talking points instead of reading the Pence plan for yourself.  Back of the line (after meeting some qualifications) doesn't mean citizenship in a "week or less".

Stop and consider the number of people on this conservative site that aren't buying what Tancredo is selling.  Reevaluate what Tancredo is selling (like I and most of have) and figure it out.

If you can drop the talking points and engage all of the people here you are arguing with, this conversation might be worth continuing.  Otherwise I'm moving on.

I will start donating to the Republican Main Street Partnership in order to counter the increasingly strident approach conservatives seem to be embracing.

I'm just sick of the notion that I am somehow a "Quisling" or an "agent of Mexico" because I don't toe Tancredo's line.  Or, that because I support a more comprehensive approach and increased legal immigration, I somehow support, "the emasculation and gradual overthrow of the America we know".

You're leaving that comment at the wrong site. This is RedState, not PoliPundit.

(If you're in Firefox, you need to hit Ctrl+Tab.)

That was here.  Or do you not bother to read?

Because you were just cutting and pasting an old comment complaining overwhelmingly about PoliPundit, I figured you had just added something else to complain about, for a soupcon of spice.

Or did you have an original thought you neglected to share?

I read everything you said in your latest post and also read everything you said in your post in which you stated that Cong. Tancredo "attack[ed] conservatives with better credentials than his, and in a nasty way".  Thus far, you have named one conservative that he allegedly attacked and are completely unable to justify your claim that Cong. Pence has better conservative credentials than Cong. Tancredo.  Second, you used the word "conservatives", rather than "conservative."  I'm still waiting to read  the list of "conservatives" that Cong. Tancredo has attacked with better conservative credentials than his.  You are totally unable to prove your charge against Cong. Tancredo that he "attack[ed] conservatives with better credentials than his, and in a nasty way" with any objective facts.

You state that ratings and anecdotes show little difference between Cong. Tancredo and Cong. Pence, yet you continue to claim that Cong. Tancredo's conservative credentials are inferior to Cong. Pence's.  If ratings from respected conservative organizations are not the best way to objectively determine conservative credentials, please state what is the best way.  Surely, you would not claim that your opinion about conservtive credentials means more than objective ratings from conservative organizations.

As far as going to toe-to-toe with the President of the United Staters and the House leadership, Cong. Tancredo has done that on the illegal immigration issue the entire time he has been in Congress.  He has also gone toe-to-toe with Democrats on the issue as have both Cong. Pence and Cong. Tancredo on the spending issue.  With regard to that issue, Cong. Tancredo has been just as fiscally conservative as Cong. Pence.

Cong. Tancredo has been attacked by fellow Republicans, including Cong. Cannon.  During an immigration debate televised on C-SPAN, Cong. Cannon sided with Rep. Gutierrez on immigration issues and esentially told Cong. Tancredo that he should leave the Republican Party.  I'm sure that when Cong. Cannon attacked Cong. Tancredo in the past you posted your indignation about such comments.

I didn't use the VOTE.COM poll results to "rationalize" Cong. Tancredo's comments.  I agree with everything he said on the Florida radio show.  My point in posting the VOTE.COM results was to support my claim that in every poll I have seen regarding his comments, a majority of those polled supported Cong. Tancredo's comments.  I believe a majority of Americans support Cong. Tancredo's remarks.

I never claimed that illegal aliens would become citizens in a week or less under the Pence amensty plan.  What I do claim is that under the Pence amensty proposal millions of illegal aliens will be able to return home and in one week or less return to the jobs at which they had previously been working.  My contention is supported by Cong. Pence's own words about the process taking one week or less.  These are Cong. Pence's own words:  

"Private worker placement agencies that we could call "Ellis Island Centers" will be licensed by the federal government to match willing guest workers with jobs in America that employers cannot fill with American workers. U.S. employers will engage the private agencies and request guest workers. In a matter of days, the private agencies will match guest workers with jobs, perform a health screening, fingerprint them and provide the appropriate information to the FBI and Homeland Security so that a background check can be performed, and provide the guest worker with a visa granted by the State Department. The visa will be issued only outside of the United States.

Outside of the United States. That is a key point because it is the provision that will require the 12 million illegal aliens to leave. Now, some of you are thinking to yourselves that twelve million people aren't going to pack up and leave just to get a visa to come back legally. But, I believe most will.

The process that I just described to you will only take a matter of one week, or less. That is the beauty of the program. Speed is so important. No employer in America wants to lose employees for an extended amount of time. No worker who is earning money to feed and clothe a family can afford to be off the job for long."

I belive a majority of conservatives in this country will not buy the amnesty plan that Cong. Pence is selling.  Cong. Tancredo continues to steadfastly support H.R.4437.  He has remained loyal to that bill.  It passed with the overwhelming support of House Republicans.  Cong. Pence on the other hand is undermining the negotiating power of Cong. Sensenbrenner at

a conference committee by proposing an amnesty plan that weakens H.R.4437.  Cong. Pence has made Nancy Pelosi and Senate Democrats very happy be buying into the argument that there must be "comprehensive immigration reform" before this nation's borders are first secured.  I'm sure Nancy Peolosi and Senate Democrats are very happy that he has undermined Cong. Sensenbrenner's bill by not remaining loyal to it.  Cong. Tancredo and nearly all other House Republicans that voted for H.R.4437 have remained loyal to it.

You seem to have a hard time reading.  Get back to me when you read the posts instead of having a knee-jerk reaction.

And it would appear so badly, that you can't even see adverbs.

I've been reading this site for a little while, and it would appear that these little temper tantrums are your primary reason for posting here. Every other day, it's They're ruining the Party, and I'm taking my basketball home you big meanies! (I could link, but it's just faster to go to your comment history.) I'm guessing the big guys keep you around for amusement value.

Have fun.

Dumping on and picking fights with anyone you deem to be "impure" ideologically?

What's the matter, you like to dish it out, but can't take it?

Thus, this:

Dumping on and picking fights with anyone you deem to be "impure" ideologically?

Seems to be a leftover of a fight you had with your imaginary friend, because I sure as heck didn't say anything about it. (Does he have a trunk, too?)

Maybe he can teach you about adverbs, too.

I am intrigued by your posts, and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Try again Raider,

Pence's plan would pass hr4437 100% intact except

for two changes Sensenbrenner already said he would make.

 Pence's plan is the only plan that can get 4437 passed in the Senate. "The art of the possible"

You need to try again.  Pence's amnesty plan  completely removes the provision in H.R.4437 that criminalizes illegal presence.  Cong. Sensenrenner is agreeable to changing the provision in H.R.4437 that classifies the crime of illegal presence as a felony.  He is willing to change that provision to a misdemeanor.  Cong. Sensenbrenner has never agreed to removing that provision entirely nor does he want that provision removed entirely.  Why does Cong. Pence believe that it should not be a violation of federal criminal law for an illegal alien to be present in the United States.  Why does he believe illegal aliens should be allowed to be present in the United States without violating federal criminal law?

If price of passing H.R.4437 in the Senate is having Pence's amensty plan attached to it, it is not worth the price.  As Rep. Peter King said following said following President Bush's speech, no bill is better than a bad bill.  President Bush doesn't need any new laws to secure this nation's borders nor does he need any new laws to enforce the laws that are already on the books regarding the employment of illegal aliens.

Unlike the vast majority of House Republicans that continue to be loyal to the enforcement first approach of H.R.4437, Cong. Pence, much like Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton, believes in "comprehensive immigration reform", rather than an enforcement first approach.

If we remove the felony provision from 4437, then it's still NOW a misdemeanor to be here illegally isn't it?

I mean if it wasn't, we'd never have any legal reason to arrest anybody for deportation, right?

Helped give us clinton, and is anti-Israeli to t the point where it is difficult to tell that he is not anti-semitic.

That Tancredo has joined Buchanan makes me not want to see him do well.

but isn't the primary exactly where we should thrash out issues like illegal immigration? If someone wants to support a primary opponent due to opposition to the incumbent's positions, isn't that the proper response?

Again, this is just a general question and not about Rep. Chris Cannon in particular.

Illegal presence in the United States is not presently a crime.  It is currently only a violation of civil.

Illegal entry into the United States is a crime.  It can be a felony or a misdemeanor.  However, around forty perecent (40%) of the illegal aliens in this country did not enter into the U.S.A. illegally.  Rather, those illegal aliens have overstayed the time in which they were lawfully allowed to be present in the United States.

Here is a copy of the federal law relating to illegal entry by an alien:

Section 1325. Improper entry by alien

    (a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection;

      misrepresentation and concealment of facts

      Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States

    at any time or place other than as designated by immigration

    officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration

    officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United

    States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the

    willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first

    commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or

    imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent

    commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or

    imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

    (b) Improper time or place; civil penalties

      Any alien who is apprehended while entering (or attempting to

    enter) the United States at a time or place other than as

    designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil

    penalty of -

        (1) at least $50 and not more than $250 for each such entry (or

      attempted entry); or

        (2) twice the amount specified in paragraph (1) in the case of

      an alien who has been previously subject to a civil penalty under

      this subsection.

The second sentence of the first paragraph of my post should have stated "civil law", rather than simply "civil".

to legal immigration as currently allowed in the United States beyond the pale of legitimate discussion, too?

My Eurasian children and grandchildren also accept your apology.

I respect the  passionate  views of everybody on the blog.  We are not enemies.  

I hope that the politicos read redstate. com for ideas.  If Pence and Cannon would defer their immigration plans until  after a genuine effort by the Congress to secure the borders, they would get much more support.  The Senate has demonstrated the obvious dangers of a so-called "comprehensive"  approach.

It is interesting that the "spin meisters"  are not debating immigration laws based upon costs and priorities.  Presumably there is   a finite amount of  tax funds.  Will they be allocated based upon political, not security priorities?  It  seems that the the priority of Congress is a continuous supply of cheap labor, not controlling the borders.  The priority  needs to be reversed.

This is not denying that we need immigrants.  

As soon as a Guest Worker program  legalizes the primarily

Hispanic (mostly Mexican) labor force, I expect a couple of problems.  Firstly, the number of  illegals  applying might be disappointing.   Secondly, there will be litigation about discrimination against non-Hispanics from other countries, who don't have the same priviledges.  There are Filipinos waiting

for 10 years to get a work or resident  visa.

Without massive changes,  I don't believe that the U.S. Government could competently administer or enforce a comprehensive immigration bill.  Firstly, they don't seem to know how much of a bureaucracy would be needed.  Secondly, they don't know how to allocate the resources to be most effective.  They might blow  tens of billions, but not really control the border.  

What would you think of an army general who says  that  we don't need to prioritize our objectives and  marshal our limited troops accordingly?  This  general says  we  can do everything at once,  including keeping  most of our combat  forces in the  rear, instead of deploying significant numbers  to the front. I think that you would want him fired.

For example, sending a few Guard troops on their two-week annual active duty, to the border, is a P.R. gimmick, costing 10 billion bucks.  It is  not an adequate response, but something to just pacify politicians and the public, until a so-called comprehehnsive bill can be passed.

Does anybody  believe that the Bush Administration is serious

about controlling the border?  If not, how can we believe that he would be serious about  running an efficient  Guest Worker Program.  Bush has to coerced in both cases.

Opposition to legal immigration under the guise of opposing amnesty is deceptive and should be watched carefully.

Especially in the context of an individual such as Tom Tancredo who has other troublesome tendencies, and associates with people such as Pat Buchanan who are known for certain biases.

You are a funny guy. I like that. :)

One has to wonder what exactly is going on, and what Tancredo and Buchanan really want.

Fromw hat I can tell, Tom Tancredo seems to be more interested in having the immigration issue around than in actually solving the problem - reference his attack on Congressman Pence.  I'm sorry, that just raises all sorts of red flags in my head.

Tancredo seems to be more interested in having the immigration issue around than in actually solving the problem

And that, Sir, is exactly the problem I have these days with many politicians.  As champions of an issue, should the issue die, so goes their championship.  They must be seen as fighting for their position, yet they must not be so effective as to actually solve the issue since it would remove the national spotlight from them.

In fact, perversely, there is every incentive to obstruct those who seek a solution - and to take them out.  If the problem gets solved, why would people donate to their PAC?

...is advocating collective punishment on Muslims by retaliatory strikes on religious sites.

That's terrorism.

The vast majority were recent arrivals.  I seem to remember hearing that all of them were legal status but I can't find confirming information on that.  I do know for sure that Atta was here legally for other reasons.  We had intercepted telecommunications with Atta that we had to toss out because he was in the country legally.

He doesn't want to keep the immigration problem around, I don't think.  However, I think his definition of the immigration problem is different from that most of us use.

He sees no difference between illegal and legal immgiration, and he wants it ALL stopped.  That's why he has to attack Mike Pence MORE strenuously than he has to attack John McCain, because Pence's compromise threatens to undercut his coalition with the anti-illegal immigration people.

Ironically, though, it was his attack on Pence that caused me to revisit my interest in what he says, and resulted in my putting him on my Bad Republicans list.

that you think that being pro-immigration is morally good, and that being anti-immigration is morally bad.

Can you lay out for me the thinking underlying that position?  Which moral calculus are you employing here?

And as far as all this nonsense about a "Pence Plan" is concerned, people just don't seem to understand that there is nothing to it at all at this point: a single speech does not a legislative plan make. It's like trotting out a living pig and insisting that it is sausage.  From what I've read here in favor of Pence's plan, it appears there are those who are ready to eat said sausage without knowing the rest of the ingredients, not a very wise move if you've ever watched legislation being made.

Once the bill is drafted, we'll see if it's a good sausage or a bad sausage.  Right now, my main concern is that the person who appears to be the originator of the recipe has a history of, to extend the metaphor, health department violations.

Since the origin of this "new" concept is one Helen Kriebel, who has a vested interest in a never ending supply of cheap farm labor, I must remain a skeptic.  There appear to be the same or similar ulterior motives at work here as those that drive the Senate bill.

Making illegal aliens play some weird game of tag with their former homelands does not, even in the remotest conception, get us beyond the "not an amnesty" threshold.  Nor does it address the issue of how "temporary" just never seems to be "temporary" when government is involved. It all appears from the start to be a disingenuous ploy, but I'm open to the notion that the actual bill language may surprise me.

That said, I won't be holding my breath.

Oink.

bombing Berlin was terrorism.

Which it was, of course. The whole idea was to break the will of the German people by "collectivily" punishing them. War is essentially a terrorist activity. Its killing people for political ends, or the continuation of politics by other means.

Previously, I said in this web that  there is no debate on   immigration based upon costs and priorities.  Presumably, this is a great consideration.  Without massive amounts of money (probably 50 billion per year),  I don't believe that the U.S. Government could  administer or enforce a comprehensive immigration bill.  Nobody is talking about  how much of a new bureaucracy would be needed.  Secondly, they  are not talking about how to prioritize  the resources to be most effective.  They might waste  hugh amounts of tax money, but not really  secure the border.  

If Osama pulls another fast one, or six, are you going to bomb Mecca & Medina? Don't dodge this question.

The vast majority of Japanese citizens didn't work in bomb factories.  Next you're going to defend the internments, right?

What am I, some sort of open borders supporter?

Osama has not pulled any fast ones up to now, and I don't expect he will in the future. We are not dealing with any "lone nutjobs", but with state sponsored terrorism. Bush has spoken on this repeatedly, I don't know how you missed it.

The vast majority of Japanese citizens didn't work in bomb factories.

What's your point? We did not bomb bomb factories, we bombed cities. We did this because attacking the other sides civilians is a common practice in war, and always has been. FDR and Churchill would have bombed Mecca in a New York minute.

During the Cold War our ICBM's were not aimed at killing just the Russion military, but at killing Russians, period. The same for their bombs and our cities.

We are at war, and not with some handful of crazy nutjobs, but with several states in the Middle East. Afghanistan and Iraq were two of them. Iran and Syris are two more that are still standing. Arguably Saudia Arabia should be on the list. The fact they they have killed some of our civilans in the course of this war does not surprise me or shock me. It should not surpise or shock anyone, but some are slow learners. They'll keep killing us, soldiers and civilians, until we defeat them. That's basically what a war is, after all. We kill them, they kill us, until one side cries uncle.

Congressman don't make that much money when compared to what gets made by the folks in the "private sector" side of policy - particularly the folks who run PACs, lobby on issues, or consult people.

When the problem gets solved, the need for lobbyists/PACs/consultants rapidly dries up - and the folks on that gravy train get laid off because they are not needed.  It is in their interest to perpetuate the problem, not solve it.

/sigh...

You're perfectly entitled to fight this war with the last war's tactics if you choose.

As long as the governments in charge aren't supporting terrorists directly (Taliban), I don't see how the collective punishment to "peasants" is much of a disincentive to tyrants and lunatics in charge.

There's a name for state-sponsored terrorism---it's called espionage.  We never nuked Russia for training & supporting Yemeni terror camps.  We used *counter*espionage.

in just such circumstances. I have been successful in extending their stay longer than 6 weeks due to legal maneuverings. But that's just me! I was especially successful with a Brazillian I dated!! Now a proud green card holder after over-staying visa...

see e-mail too