Thread: Tancredo announces he backs Pence

All Words Some Word Entire phrase


Tancredo Backs Pence for GOP Leader

by Robert B. Bluey — 11-09-2006 @ 05:08 PM Reader Comments (1)


Just hours after frowning on the idea of Rep. Mike Pence (R.-Ind.) for minority leader, John Hawkins at Right Wing News has changed his mind. What did it?

Rep. Tom Tancredo, leader of the House Immigration Reform Caucus, announced today that he's backing Pence. Hawkins, who is breaking the news, says he's put aside his concerns about Pence's immigration plan and is now officially on board.

UPDATE -- 5:20 p.m.: Pence also secured the endorsement of another immigration hawk today: Rep. Steve King (R.-Iowa), who is sometimes confused as Tancredo's twin -- for their looks and policy positions. Here's King's statement:


Republicans have lost seats in Congress because we needed more fiscal discipline, lacked clarity on the Global War on Terror, and were not aggressive enough on our fiscal and social agenda. We now need an articulate and committed Minority Leader who can be the most effective spokesman for our agenda. Mike Pence is the best communicator in Congress and among the most committed.

Republicans in this Congress and around the nation already look to Mike Pence for his guidance and leadership, proof that he has the respect of Republicans as an effective legislator, reformer and communicator.

I have full confidence that Mike will lead Republicans in the right direction, and promote the principles of limited government, fiscal discipline and personal responsibility. That is why he has my full support for House Minority Leader.
http://link.toolbot.com/humanevents.com/22877

I think we need to bombard Pence with emails and faxes.

Just a reminder of the Pence-Hutchison Plan. Lou Dobbs debated this hard with Pence and called it Amnesty.

What methods do employers look for Americans - ads in papers, online, what? How hard do they have to try.

THE HUTCHISON-PENCE PLAN: NO AMNESTY IMMIGRATION REFORM


Washington, Aug 30 -



Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison and Congressman Mike Pence authored the following op-ed in the Washington Times on July 26, 2006 about the Hutchison-Pence Plan.

To access a Border Security Certification Summary, Executive Summary and Final Detailed Summary of the Hutchison-Pence Plan, please visit the links below right.

In the years we have served in our respective houses of Congress, there has never been an issue on which our colleagues have been so engaged and yet so far apart as illegal immigration and border security. The bills on this issue which passed in each house are miles apart.

We believe it is imperative that Congress find a responsible solution and enact comprehensive reform. To achieve this, many small groups are meeting in an effort to jump-start the negotiations between the House and the Senate. The president is engaged, as are House and Senate members. Rightfully so. Congress cannot walk away from a problem that so affects our country's future.

We are putting forth a proposal that we hope can be used as the basis for new discussions. Our plan is tough on border security, but it recognizes the need for a temporary-worker program that operates without amnesty and without growing into a huge new government bureaucracy.

Our plan begins with border reinforcement. The millions who come to our country seeking jobs to support their families are not a security threat to our nation, but the weaknesses in the nearly 7,000 miles of international border and 95,000 miles of shoreline have given terrorists, drug dealers and human traffickers an opening that is being exploited; this is a risk we cannot allow to continue. Part two of our plan is a temporary-worker program that is essential in order to fill jobs in our economy that are in high demand.

This program would commence only after the borders are fixed. Here's how our plan works:

First: Secure our borders

Before any new temporary-worker program can begin, our plan requires the president to certify that all mandated border-security measures are completed. The Hutchison-Pence proposal embraces the tough border-security measures of the House and Senate bills. It would add border patrol agents, drug enforcement agents and port-of-entry inspectors; end catch and release; add security fences and other physical barriers at critical points; and employ American technology, such as unmanned aerial surveillance vehicles.

Second: The Good Neighbor SAFE Visa and Ellis Island Centers

When the border has been declared secure, the Good Neighbor SAFE (Secure Authorized Foreign Employee) Visa will begin. This program offers noncitizens opportunities to fill jobs that employers attest to not being able to fill with Americans at market wage.

Under our plan, the estimated 12 million people currently residing illegally in America can come out of the shadows and earn a fair living by returning to their home countries to apply for a Good Neighbor SAFE Visa. This does not give amnesty to those currently in our country illegally.

Our plan would accomplish this by setting up a system of private employment placement agencies outside the United States (called "Ellis Island Centers"), licensed by the federal government, to match willing temporary workers with jobs that employers cannot fill with American workers. The private agencies would also perform health screenings, fingerprint the guest workers and provide that information for federal background checks.

Successful applicants for the Good Neighbor SAFE Visa could enter America legally provided they meet the visa requirements.

We call it a "Good Neighbor" SAFE Visa because the program would be limited to countries that currently enjoy a positive trade relationship with the United States in our hemisphere. Only residents of NAFTA and CAFTA-DR countries will be eligible to participate in this program. Good Neighbor SAFE Visas will be issued for two years, with the option to renew them in two-year increments for up to 12 years.

Good Neighbor SAFE Visa participants are not eligible for welfare, Social Security or Medicare. All paycheck deductions will be made as for American citizens. Workers' Medicare contributions will go into a fund to compensate hospitals for emergency medical expenses incurred while treating foreign workers. Worker Social Security deductions will be returned when a participant exits the program and returns to his or her home country. Employer Social Security contributions will remain in our country's system.

At the end of the visa period, visa holders who have been gainfully employed with no violations may return to their country of origin or apply for a new X-Change Visa with an employer sponsor and continue working in the United States under the same conditions with no further renewals required. There is no automatic path to citizenship in the Hutchison-Pence plan. After five more years, the X-Change Visa holder would have the option of continuing to hold an X-Change Visa, returning home or applying for permanent adjustment of status.

Third: Verification and enforcement

For the system to be effective, it is necessary to implement a nationwide electronic employment verification system through which employers confirm the legality of each employee. Those who continue to hire unverifiable employees will be subject to stiff fines.

Two years after the date of enactment, employers will be required to verify the eligibility of all new employees, including temporary workers. After six years, verification will apply to all employees. While this may be unsettling to some, and there may be better ways to do it, we will never have complete knowledge of everyone who is in our country and their legal status without some capability for verification.

Good Neighbor SAFE Visas will provide businesses seeking to hire foreign workers with a secure method of confirming their legal status. If a temporary worker is fired, convicted of a crime or just disappears, the card will be canceled, preventing someone else from hiring the worker.

We have a historic opportunity to repair our immigration system. Our proposal is meant to be one set of ideas; there are many others. But there can be no disagreement on this: Congress owes it to the American people to solve this crisis. We are attempting to protect our national security while providing benefits to our country for generations to come. We urge our colleagues in Congress to come back to the table and produce a workable system. The future of our country depends on it.

http://mikepence.house.gov/News/Documen ... ntID=47759

June 13, 2006, 6:32 a.m.

Another “No Amnesty” Amnesty
It was a nice try, at least.

By Mark Krikorian

It’s funny how every new “middle ground” on immigration is in the same place as the old ones.

The latest “middle ground” proposal comes from Rep. Mike Pence (R., Ind.). Pence, who has solid conservative credentials as head of the House Republican Study Committee, offered what he billed as “The Real Rational Middle Ground on Immigration Reform” at a Heritage Foundation speech last month. Since there’s no actual bill to look at, we have to judge from Rep. Pence’s speech and other materials what the program would be like.

It starts out well enough. In seeking an alternative to amnesty, on the one hand, and mass deportations, on the other, he laid out a four-step plan. The first step is securing the border, and he included the entire enforcement bill passed by the House in December (with two minor modifications) in his measure.

Step two is to reject amnesty. That also sounds good, until you remember that Senators Kennedy and McCain also deny their amnesty plan is an amnesty. As do Senators Hagel and Martinez. And President Bush. They all deny that they support amnesty because, as the president says, the only thing that constitutes amnesty is “automatic citizenship,” whatever that is.

Pence has a broader definition of amnesty:

Amnesty is allowing people whose first act in America was an illegal act to get right with the law without leaving the country. Allowing twelve million illegal aliens to stay in our country instead of leaving and coming back legally is amnesty, no matter if fines or back taxes are paid, or how it is otherwise dressed-up or spun by its proponents. The only way to deal with these twelve million people is to insist that they leave the country and come back legally if they have a job awaiting them.

This is exactly the same as the “touchback” gimmick in the Senate amnesty bill, which would require illegal aliens who have been here between two and five years to cross the border to be enrolled in the permanent “temporary” worker program and then immediately return to their homes and jobs.

That brings us to the third step: the guestworker amnesty. Yes, amnesty. Or, if you prefer, legalization. Or normalization. Or regularization. Or earned adjustment. Or whatever is the euphemism du jour. The fact remains that the guestworker program in the Pence plan is explicitly designed to allow all illegal aliens to keep their jobs and domiciles in the United States without interruption.

The congressman is quite explicit on this point. In explaining the need for speedy processing of the guestworkers, he says:

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. … And, an illegal alien currently employed in America will be willing to take a quick trip across the border to come back outside of the shadows and in a job where he does not fear a raid by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. In fact, 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.

In the 1950s, this process was called — in official U.S. government publications — “drying out the wetbacks.” Whether it’s called an amnesty instead, or is given some other label, the point is to let all illegal aliens stay legally.

But maybe the amnesty is time-limited? And in fact, part of Pence’s “no amnesty” claim is that the guestworker visa would be limited to a total of six years. This would be an encouraging requirement, except that, in the congressman’s words, “At that point, the guest should decide whether to return home or enter the separate process of seeking citizenship.” If legal immigration quotas are to remain in force, then these formerly illegal, now “temporary,” workers will have to leave, en masse, six years from now, which is precisely the mass deportation the congressman said (correctly) is unworkable. On the other hand, if these workers will be able to receive permanent residency outside the current limits, as they would be under the Senate amnesty bill, then this plan is the very “path to citizenship” that Rep. Pence made a big show of condemning. It’s unclear which of these is true, but it’s undeniable that the plan is either dishonest or amateurish.

Step four really takes the cake: a promise — really, truly, cross-my-heart-and-hope-to-die — to enforce the ban on hiring illegals in the future. Pence himself says that since every illegal alien will be legalized, employers wouldn’t need to hire illegals, but that enforcement will be phased in nonetheless. This is exactly the bait-and-switch Congress perpetrated in 1986 — legalization first, enforcement later (i.e., never). It is for this reason that the House, animated by a “fool me twice, shame on me” skepticism, has insisted on “Enforcement First.”

There are plenty of other reasons to dismiss the Pence plan as unserious: by not calling for an end to automatic citizenship at birth, it makes the “temporary” claim meaningless; his gimmick of having the private sector screen the workers misses the point that they will still need to use (and receive security clearances for access to) the very same databases that the FBI and Department of Homeland Security use now; and to get “temporary” workers, employers will merely have to attest that they tried to hire Americans, rather than using objective measures to determine need, like rising wages or low unemployment in the specific occupation in question.

In fact, I didn’t write about this plan when it was announced because I didn’t think it possible that anyone could take it seriously. I was wrong. Though the Pence amnesty plan hasn’t been widely covered, it has received support, or at a least respectful hearing, from insiders who will affect the final outcome of any bill. It’s no surprise, for instance, that amnesty supporters like Dick Armey, John Fund, and Michael Barone have had nice things to say about it (not to mention several newspaper editorial pages), but even supporters of Enforcement First, like Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner and Newt Gingrich, have been more receptive of the plan than a close reading of it would warrant. It’s also ironic that Pence’s speech was delivered at the Heritage Foundation, given that his plan appears to violate Heritage’s “permanent principles” on immigration; it will be interesting to see what Heritage has to say about the plan.

In the end, the Pence Amnesty wouldn’t go down with the public any better than the string of other amnesty plans that have been proposed over the past couple of years. As Peggy Noonan wrote last week about the public’s suspicions regarding immigration plans: “they think — they assume, at this point, reflexively — that slithery, slippery professional politicians are using and inventing complications to obfuscate and confuse. ... Americans don't trust ‘comprehensive plans,’ because they don't trust the comprehensive planners.”

There’s only one way Congress and the president can earn back the public’s trust on immigration: Enforce the law — comprehensively, confidently, unapologetically. Then, after several years have passed and enforcement mechanisms are in place and working, and the illegal population has shrunk through attrition, Washington will have proven that, this time, it’s not lying about immigration.

Until then, no deal.

— Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.

http://article.nationalreview.com/print ... EzMjg5ZWU=

Originally Posted by GeorgiaPeach

Just a reminder of the Pence-Hutchison Plan.

Ah yes, the Pence Hutchison Amnesty Bill. Is Pence all we've got left? Sounds like another globalist to me.

Originally Posted by Coto

Originally Posted by GeorgiaPeach

Just a reminder of the Pence-Hutchison Plan.

Ah yes, the Pence Hutchison Amnesty Bill. Is Pence all we've got left? Sounds like another globalist to me.

Pence is a GOP Water Boy!
He's a manipulator and dangerous.
That's precisely why they had him put up the PENCE BILL......they thought he'd sell it in a nanosecond.

Now Tancredo and King are backing him? I don't like the way this smells.

.

Rotten Fish Big Time.

Now Tancredo and King are backing him? I don't like the way this smells.

I was thinking that on my way down here to post. Something really stinks here. Did somebody site an asteroid headed for Earth?

Now Tancredo and King are backing him? I don't like the way this smells.

I agree, but I get the impression that Tancredo is smart - he may be thinking that Pence has already gained some support, and as such, this may put the IRC and the 4437 supporters in a better position to negotiate (???)

Originally Posted by Kate

Now Tancredo and King are backing him? I don't like the way this smells.

I agree, but I get the impression that Tancredo is smart - he may be thinking that Pence has already gained some support, and as such, this may put the IRC and the 4437 supporters in a better position to negotiate (???)

I've thought about that, KATE. We have no way of knowing right at this moment and will have to wait to see their "actions" before we know definitively either way.

.