Death Tax: Death to the American Dream

 

Here are the words of Mike Pence yesterday on the House floor in support of the Permanent Estate Tax Relief Act of 2006. Even though we need to repeal the death tax, this legislation is a good step in the right direction.

“I rise in support of the Permanent Estate Tax Relief Act of 2006. I am mindful as I listen to my good friend who just spoke, as he spoke about the estate tax, of what Confucius once wrote millennia ago. He said, “When words lose their meaning, men lose their liberty.”

“I would prefer in the balance of my remarks to speak not about an estate tax, because I don’t know too many estates in eastern Indiana, but I’d rather talk about the death tax, because this a tax that is death to the American dream for small business owners and family farmers all across eastern Indiana.

“And it is why I have dedicated myself in my nearly three terms in Congress to the principle of ending this immoral tax, a tax which, by the way, was instituted in 1916 primarily to raise revenues for World War I.

“It was a product of a time where the redistribution of wealth was seen globally to be an acceptable practice of economics. It was the very nascent time of socialism on the world stage, and America embraced this principle of redistribution with the estate tax in 1916.

“And let me just say that I believe death taxes are immoral. I believe it is morally wrong to make death a taxable event. I believe it is also morally wrong to say to small business owners and family farmers, and any American whatever their means, that after a lifetime of obeying the law and a lifetime of paying your share honestly and legally to the Federal Treasury, that we will make your death a taxable event.

“So I want to say today that I still believe we should repeal the death tax, and the legislation we will consider under this rule is not repeal but it is relief. And it is progress. And this Congress should embrace it.

“The estate tax relief provided in previous legislation is scheduled to end in 2010. What we would pass today would literally bring permanent estate tax relief to millions of American families, especially increasing the exemption to five million dollars per person effective January 1, 2010.

“But let me emphasize what we will do today is not repeal but it is relief, and I want to recognize that progress and embrace it. But let me close with a word of caution.

“To our colleagues who may think of this as a starting point, that this is a deal that we can send down the hallway and we can negotiate from, let me say, having spoken to many of my colleagues who share my belief that we should repeal this onerous death tax outright, that if this is the deal, it’s a good deal for the American people.

“But we say with conviction, this far and no farther. We must demand at the very minimum this relief stand when this bill goes to the desk of the President of the United States."

House Weighs Compromise on Estate Taxes

Praise for Pence's courage

 

Here is an article by Family Security Matters praising Mike Pence for his efforts to find a solution in the immigration debate.

Even though illegal immigration is one of the most important priorities of the American people, it looks like Congress is more interested in political posturing than seeking solutions to the problem. This apparent lack of urgency and willingness to listen makes Rep. Mike Pence’s recent compromise proposal all the more interesting. Building on the excellent suggestion of Helen Krieble, a concerned Colorado resident, he has proposed a plan that will put border security first and then implement a guest worker program free from the bureaucratic red tape of a new government program. Well done, Rep. Pence and many kudos to Helen Krieble!

Seeking Security on the Border with Mike Pence
Molly McCarroll
June 21, 2006

Despite the overwhelming demand of the American people, immigration reform is in real danger of stalling in Congress as the Senate and the House of Representatives seek to enact fundamentally different legislation. So far, each house has dug in its heels and proclaimed its vision of reform as being too important to compromise. While such intransigence may give lawmakers the freedom to cite their commitment to principle when election time rolls around, it robs the American people of the action they need and the solutions they demand from their government. If the ultimate outcome of this debate, which looks increasingly possible, is a failure to reach any solution whatsoever, the United States will not only have not gotten its money’s worth from its government, but it will also continue to be plagued by the dangerous uncertainty that characterizes the immigration crisis today.

Into this maelstrom comes Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) with the most promising potential compromise yet. Building on the foundation of the House bill’s strong border security program, Pence’s plan, inspired by Helen Krieble, a concerned private citizen, would require the implementation of technological and human resources to stop illegal border crossings, the construction of a border fence, and the discontinuation of the “catch-and-release” policy that sends illegal immigrants back onto our nation’s streets, as the necessary first steps. Only when these hurdles had been crossed would the second portion of his plan come into play. In this phase, he would implement a viable guest worker program that, along with a path to citizenship identical to that pursued by all legal immigrants, could only be entered into from outside the country. In other words, illegal immigrants would have to leave the country before they could seek legal status. Rather than implementing these changes by creating an unwieldy new bureaucracy, Pence would establish local “Ellis Island Centers” that would serve as liaisons between individuals wishing to enter the country as guest workers, American employers seeking foreign workers, and the appropriate government agencies to provide documentation and background checks.

The future of Pence’s plan is not certain. It is also probable that many Senators who are already feeling pressure from illegal immigrants’ interest groups and various business lobbies will be unwilling to support a bill that would disrupt the lives of immigrants and the profits of employers. But Rep. Pence has offered an interesting and appealing compromise solution. His plan balances the need to defend America’s borders with the economic realities of globalization. The incentive for foreign workers to enter the United States, earn an income they could never achieve at home, and then to return to the countries and cultures that they love has never been higher. But this certainly does not mean that the United States should sacrifice its own security and stability to serve the greedy hand of commerce.

While Pence’s plan has merit, it remains to be seen whether it will be successful. Accomplishment seems to have lost its appeal in Congress these days and there is much to suggest that our elected representatives would rather be on the record saying the right things than actually get their hands dirty and make some progress. But if Congress cannot get its act together and pass a bill, even though that bill will undoubtedly leave much of the divided country dissatisfied, our leaders themselves will lose just as much as we will. Border security and immigration reform are essentials, not options. Bravo to Rep. Pence for having the courage to seek a solution.

Exclusive: Seeking Security on the Border with Mike Pence

Common sense Pence

 

Here is an editorial in the Indianapolis Star from a fellow Hoosier seeking common sense from Congress.


Where is common sense? Only Mike Pence has any.

U.S. Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana voted against funds ($94.5 billion) for war and storm aid because add-ons included $5 billion that is not related to the Iraq war or to Hurricane Katrina.

This $5 billion is for road projects related to previous disasters in several states, including Idaho, and to help the Gulf Coast seafood industry. I applaud him for his efforts to stop these add-ons to existing bills.

Also, I note, that the House approved this bill even though on another page of the June 14 Star, it's reported that hurricane fraud tab could hit $1.4 billion. I repeat, where is the common sense?

Nancy Crawford
Carmel

Pence supports the war on terror

 

Here is an article about Mike Pence expressing his thoughts on the war.

Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., told Congress the U.S. is winning the war in Iraq and he continues to support the global war on terror.

“The enemy has never taken down so much as a full platoon in any military engagement,” Pence said.

“It is an extraordinary credit to soldiers.”

Pence voted with the majority of the GOP-led House that rejected a timetable for pulling U.S. forces out of Iraq.

The 256-153 vote followed a partisan debate between Republicans and Democrats who are aware of voters’ growing apprehension about the war.

Pence said he has made three trips to Iraq in the last three years and met with many soldiers.

“I’ve never met a soldier who didn’t believe in the effort in Iraq,” Pence said. “I’ve never met a U.S. soldier in uniform who didn’t believe in the mission.”

Pence said one soldier, Jim Newland from Washington, Ind., told him soldiers are on patrol in Baghdad every day looking into the eyes of the enemy.

“And he said to me, ‘We’ve got to stop these people right here. They kill Americans because they like it,’” Pence said.

Pence added that the message is hard for some people to hear, but he firmly believes the U.S. is winning the war.

The non-binding resolution in the House praised U.S. troops and called the war in Iraq part of the larger global fight against terrorism.

Friday’s vote followed a Thursday Senate vote that also soundly rejected a call to withdraw combat troops by year’s end.

Republicans and Democrats are sensitive to Americans’ divided opinions on the war and understand it could be a key issue in this fall’s elections.

Pence tells Congress U.S. winning in Iraq

The American Dream

 

Here is an excerpt from Mike Pence's speech from his Border Integrity and Immigration Reform Act, which draws a picture of the American Dream.

"I mentioned at the outset that I am the grandson of an Irish immigrant. I take my name, Michael Richard from his. Richard Michael Cawley came to this country on a boat from Ireland and stepped onto Ellis Island, in the shadow of the Statue of Liberty, in the early 20th century. Like millions who came before and since, that frightened teenage boy had a simple dream, a dream expressed when his mother handed him the one-way ticket and said, 'you have a future there,' a dream we call the American Dream.

"My grandfather grew up in a two room house in farm country east of a small village called Tubbercurry, Ireland. When I saw that home the summer after he died, I better understood a moment we shared just a few weeks before he went home to be with the Lord.

"It was the fall of 1980 and my father had finally given in to my mother’s wish for a bigger house and the two-story, 4,000 square foot home in Columbus, Indiana seemed like a palace to all of us…especially my grandfather. When I walked into the house, I saw grandpa sitting alone in the family room and I noticed his eyes were moist with emotion. When I asked if he was alright, he quietly replied in a gentle Irish brogue, 'I just never thought a child of mine would live in a house like this..'. My grandpa, like my mom and dad, lived the American Dream. He got off that boat an Irish lad, he died an American, and I am an American because of him."

Let freedom reign in Iraq

 

Here is a speech given by Mike Pence on the House floor on US and Iraqi troops eliminating our biggest threat in Al-Zarqawi.

"I rejoice in the death of no man, but today I'll make an exception.

"As America and the world just learned, the al Qaeda leader in Iraq Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is dead.

"The President of the United States said it was an opportunity to 'turn the tide,' and that the ideology of terror had lost one of its visible and aggressive leaders, and it has.

"But this was not simply a tactically significant strike by US and Iraqi forces. Somebody dropped a dime.

"It is also evidence, as U.S. General George Casey in Iraq said earlier today, of increased cooperation.

"I commend U.S. and Iraqi forces for this extraordinary accomplishment. The leading enemy of freedom in Iraq is dead. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is gone.

"Let freedom reign in Iraq."

The party of old

 

We must become the party of old and return to the days where the Republican party stood for something different than the democrats...limited government! Here is an article talking about Mike Pence and conservative colleagues leading the charge to come back to our roots of fiscal discipline and responsibility.

Remember when the Republican Party stood for small government?

One could be forgiven for taking more than a brief moment to answer that question, looking back - and then back further still - before recalling the party distinctions that had seemed set in stone: Democrats spent money on federal programs, while Republicans worked to rein in that spending.

But that was then. Opponents used to mock Democrats as members of the tax-and-spend party. But Republicans of recent vintage have been spending money like the Democrats of old - and they've been running up the deficits to prove it.

But now two Republican members of the House of Representatives are looking to once again put fiscal discipline at the top of the agenda. They are looking to have a periodic review of federal spending - of all federal programs - to determine if taxpayers' money is being spent wisely.

A group of House Republicans led by Jeb Henserling of Texas and Mike Pence of Indiana want to change the rules so that federal programs do not automatically continue indefinitely. Instead, they would be subject to congressional review to see if they have outlived their usefulness. Or if they were ever useful in any way at all.

All programs would face a "sunset" provision under which their budgets would have to be renewed by Congress every five years. Or the sun would set on the program.

Their proposal is a rational attempt to stop runaway federal spending from going on unchecked forever.

But don't expect everyone to see it that way. Doomsayers will doubtless do what comes most naturally to them. And proponents of a particular program will most assuredly pull out all the stops, arguing that the GOP proposal would result in a falling sky, not a setting sun.

We'd strongly suggest that the citizens get ready for such noise. And that they then try to listen beyond all the shouting.

Where is it written that every government program must last for all time? It is written nowhere, of course, but many lawmakers - from both parties - have for too long been acting as though it is the most fundamental of all laws.

It is high time for the sun to set on that kind of outmoded - and terrifically expensive - thinking.

The sun never sets on anything made in D.C.

ACU's David Keene on Pence's immigration plan

 

Here is an articly by American Conservative Union's president David Keene on Mike Pence and his immigration plan that will help secure our borders and send illegals home.

Feelings on immigration are running high these days, but the thought that they may prevent any action at all scares many Republicans.

Congressional conservatives remain adamantly opposed to the quasi-amnesty and “guest worker” provisions in the Senate approach supported by the president, Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) and are vowing that no bill that comes out of conference including such an amnesty will win House approval. Bush and his allies are just as committed to a bill that will include both.

Both sides say they favor border security but seem quite prepared to sacrifice action on it unless they get their way on the rest of the bill. The result, of course, could be no bill at all and an open political sore that will fester during the upcoming elections.

Administration strategists believe that once they get to conference they’ll be able to cajole, bribe or force House Republicans to accept most if not all of what the president wants and that a conference report including both the administration’s quasi-amnesty provisions and the guest-worker program will, in fact, pass the House. They base this belief on their ability to work with House Republican leaders as they have in the past to force conservatives into line, Democratic support for their approach and the fear among many Washington-based Republicans that doing anything will beat doing nothing.

That fear is in many ways peculiar to Washington, where it is an article of faith that if problems are taken off the table by passing something dealing with them the public will be mollified, regardless of the substance. The Bush administration has operated on this theory from the beginning and is just now discovering that the president’s base is splintering because of the substance of what he’s done, rather than because he hasn’t done enough.

Thus administration spokesmen bragging about Bush’s accomplishments tend to list the very same legislative achievements that conservatives outside the Washington Beltway list as reasons for their alienation. Indeed, as the administration and Republican congressional leaders piled “accomplishment” on “accomplishment,” Republicans around the country became more and more disillusioned with what was going on.

What none of them seems to realize is that the public, or at least the politically attentive public, is as interested in what they do as in the fact that they do something.

On immigration, the public has been demanding from the outset that control of the border must precede any discussion of legal immigration levels, procedures designed to deal with illegals already here or various measures that would make it easier for those seeking work here to gain temporary or semipermanent access to such work. The administration’s desire to solve all these problems in one package may make some logical sense but ignores the fact that such comprehensive proposals at present lack credibility with the public.

Failing to address the border issue could result in political disaster, but so could the adoption of legislation seen by the voting public as likely to make the problem it is meant to solve even worse. The Senate approach is already seen in this light. It won’t solve the political problem and should be rejected by House GOP conferees regardless of whatever pressure they might come under from the administration or their leaders.

It also means, however, that the Senate, the administration and House conservatives have to seek common ground in dealing with the problem in a manner that enhances border security, rejects amnesty and deals reasonably with those illegals here today and with the legitimate need to match those who come here legally with willing employers who will play by the rules.

Fortunately, there are some seeking solutions to these problems that neither surrender principle nor ignore real problems. Chief among them is Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), who has put forth an alternative that could attract support from reasonable men and women on both sides of the debate. There is no more credible conservative in Congress today than Pence. He has proved himself over time as both a serious legislator and a principled conservative capable of resisting the temptations and threats emanating from within his own party.

Since speaking out at the Heritage Foundation just before the recess, Pence has come under attack from those on both sides willing to accept the status quo unless they get their own way. Those attacks in themselves should force reasonable members of Congress to take a serious look at Pence’s proposal.

Watch Pence on immigration

Newt toutes Pence's immigration plan

 

Here is an excerpt by Newt Gingrich discussing Congress's current position with immigration going to conference.

One positive addition to the border-security and immigration debate is Rep. Mike Pence's (R-Ind.) bill, the Border Integrity and Immigration Reform Act. This bill is as close to the right solution as I have seen. It sets up a four-step process starting with what is needed and universally agreed upon -- border security. Second, it does not provide amnesty for people in the United States illegally. It requires them to go home. Next, it sets up a work-visa program using electronic bio-metric security based on conservative market principles. After an American employer can, in good faith, show that no American worker will fill a job offer, a work-visa holder may be hired. The key feature is that, in order for people who are here illegally to get a work visa, they must go home, because work visas will only be issued outside of the United States. Fourth, once the program is set up, companies that continue to ignore the law will be sanctioned severely.

I hope the House will take a serious look at Rep. Pence's thoughtful and pragmatic approach to solving this issue.

Observations From Asia

Marriage is under attack

 

Here are the words from Mike Pence as he stood on the House floor in favor of a constitutional amendment to protect marriage as one man and one woman in America.

“I rise in strong support of the Marriage Protection Amendment, and consider this to be an extremely important day in the life of this institution and the life of this nation.

“Let me say that though I am a conservative and though I support a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage in the terms that the overwhelming majority of the American people wish to continue to define it, it is not my desire to impose views or attack any individual or anyone in a relationship in America.

“I’m from south of Highway 40 in Indiana but I do know the difference between defending and attacking. The truth is, as legal scholars and millions of Americans know, the institution of marriage is under attack by activist judges. It brings us, as the Majority Leader said so eloquently, to this place by necessity where a Constitutional Amendment is the only way we can express the will of three-out-of-four or more Americans who desire to continue to have this fundamental institution of marriage defined as it has been throughout the millennia.

“Activist judges have had successes since 1999 when they convinced the Vermont Supreme Court that they should order a state legislature to legalize same sex marriage.

“The second major victory came when they convinced the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court to force that state to give full marriage licenses. The activists have literally plotted a state-by-state strategy to increase the number of judicial decisions mandating same sex marriage.

“And the U.S. Supreme Court provided potent ammunition to activists when they decided the Lawrence vs. Texas case in June of last year.

“In that case dealing with same sex sodomy, the court strongly signaled that a right to same sex marriage could be found in the Constitution.

“Scholars ranging from Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia all the way to Harvard liberal scholar and author Laurence Tribe agree that the Lawrence vs. Texas case paves the way for this Supreme Court in this nation’s capital to recognize same sex marriage.

“Same sex couples are now challenging marriage laws in states across the union, including my own state of Indiana.

“So we come here not to attack, but rather in a spirit of civility to defend an institution that is cherished and is so essential to the American people in the life of our nation.

“And with this I close: We are here today because marriage matters. Because like millions of Americans, I believe that it was ordained by God, instituted in the law, is the glue of the American family and the safest harbor to raise children.

“Let us adopt this measure, defend the institution of marriage and ensure that our society’s most cherished social institution is defined by ‘we the people’ and not un-elected judges.”

Keeping America American

 

Here is an article talking about Keeping America American and how Mike Pence's immigration proposal is a good step in the right direction.

George W. Bush, John McCain and Ted Kennedy -- indeed the majority of senators -- keep getting it wrong, just like the foreign criminals who keep trying to get a free ride on the backs of American citizens and legal immigrants.

Give a nod to the president for calling immigration reform what it really and truly is -- "It's a difficult task," he told the U.S. Chamber of Commerce yesterday. The crux of the task is the insistence on pardoning an estimated 12 million criminals.

Mike Pence, chairman of the Republican Study Committee, is seemingly perched on middle ground, proposing a four-step plan that puts border security right where Americans want it -- at the top of the immigration-reform to-do list. His plan also "offers a no amnesty solution," engages the private sector in the worker-visa process and, like the House bill passed in December, cracks down on employers who hire illegals.

The Pence plan is a good starting point for House-Senate conferees.

Why? Because of the bottom line: It is against the law to enter this country without our permission; it is against the law to work in this country without our permission; and it is against the law to stay in this country without our permission.

The people who break any or all of those laws are criminals.

They could be the best cotton pickers in the Bible Belt; but they still are criminals if they break any or all of those laws.

They could be the best orange harvesters in all of Florida; but they still are criminals if they break any or all of those laws.

They could be the best maids, shoe shiners, managers, window cleaners, cherry-picker operators, teachers, waitresses,laundresses, landscapers,fathers, mothers, aunts, uncles, sons or daughters or inventory takers on the planet; but if they are in this country without our permission they are criminals.

They could be from Honduras or Israel, Nigeria or Mexico, Canada or Paraguay; Ireland or South Africa; but if they are in this country without our permission they are criminals.

They could pay rent, a mortgage and Social Security taxes; but if they are in this country without our permission they are criminals.

They could have worked hard and saved to bring their family here; but if they are in this country without our permission they are criminals.

They could have contributed money to McCain for President, made cowboy boots for George W. or tended to Teddy's Rose garden; but if they are in this country without our permission they are criminals.

They are no different than Americans who rape, kill, maim, smoke in a no-smoking area, drive without a license, deal drugs, make moonshine, solicit prostitutes, abuse children, steal credit records, beat their wives, rob a bank, carjack, kidnap, commit home invasions, plant bombs and blow up a federal office building, commit perjury, obstruct justice, smuggle cigarettes, smuggle humans, carry a firearm without a license, force women into prostitution, fail to pay taxes, steal a child's bicycle, commit identity theft or set off fireworks in a jurisdiction that prohibits fireworks. A criminal is a criminal is a criminal. The only difference is if they are in this country without our permission.

Some illegals obtain illegal documents to obtain more illegal documents, and some fly planes into buildings; their initial illegal entry into this country without our permission means they are criminals.

Whether they live in Texas, Arizona or Massachusetts, if they are in this country without our permission they are criminals.

Whether they are prolife or prochoice, support school choice, are fluent in English, baked brownies for the local PTA fund raiser, consider themselves a Democrat or Republican, have never broken any other local, state or federal law, if they are in this country without our permission they are criminals.

Mike Pence's proposal isn't perfect. In fact, there is no perfect solution.

The difficult task at hand is to first give Americans want they want and then reach a legislative compromise that punishes employers and foreigners who break the law.

We are in this fix today because the Republicans and the Democrats were in bed together 20 years ago. We can't keep letting W. and John and Ted get it wrong -- unless, that is, we want to stop calling ourselves Americans.

Keep America American

Gary Bauer on immigration

 

Here is an article by former 2000 Republican presidential candidate Gary Bauer on the state of the Republican party and how immigration will affect voters in 2006 elections.


Would Republicans regret the day they stood against amnesty for illegal immigrants?

In the New York Times, columnist David Brooks asked of conservatives, "Do they think the GOP can have a future if it insults even the Hispanics who are already here [by opposing amnesty proposals]?"

Mr. Brooks was echoing the sentiment of more than a few normally clear-sighted conservatives who suggest that unless the Republican Party gets behind liberal immigration reform plans it will alienate Hispanics and soon be relegated to minority status.

Former Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie recently warned: "Anti-immigration rhetoric [read: border-security-first legislation] is a political siren song, and Republicans must resist its lure by lashing ourselves to our party's twin masts of freedom and growth or our majority will crash on the shoals."

But as lawmakers consider various immigration reform measures, they should take a hard look at the reams of polling data that show that standing strong on conservative values, not giving in on amnesty, is the key to winning the hearts, minds and votes of Hispanic Americans.

First off, Hispanics are much more conservative on immigration than is commonly believed. An August 2005 Time poll of Hispanics revealed 61 percent considered illegal immigration either an "extremely serious" or "very serious" problem. In addition, 41 percent thought the U.S. was not doing enough to secure its borders against illegal immigration, while 19 percent felt it was doing "too much." Moreover, a 2005 Pew Hispanic Center poll showed a majority of both American-born and foreign-born Hispanics opposed increasing the flow of legal immigrants from Mexico and Latin America.A majority of Hispanics (53 percent) even supported building vast border fences and stiffening penalties for illegal aliens.

As an alternative to amnesty, Indiana Rep. Mike Pence recently presented the Border Integrity and Immigration Reform Act, which would require all illegal citizens to leave the country, obtain a visa and re-enter legally. Essentially, the bill includes all of the important border security measures of the House bill passed last year, and adds a provision — allowing illegals to obtain guest worker visas for a duration of two years. Mr. Pence's plan would also create private worker placement agencies to link specific workers to specific jobs for specified time periods in the United States.

Mr. Pence's "rational middle ground approach" is a breath of fresh air in the immigration debate, because it recognizes the economic need for additional workers while also addressing the security issues at stake. This non-amnesty solution would be acceptable not only to conservatives, but also to American Hispanics who oppose illegal immigration and "reform" proposals that reward delinquency. After all, many Hispanic Americans did things the right way — enduring a long legal process to enter the country and pursue citizenship. For these immigrants, calls for amnesty by their former compatriots mock the laws and values that made America so appealing in the first place.

So, what can Republicans do to win the allegiance of Hispanic voters? Simple: Stand up for conservative values. A recent Time poll found that 72 percent of Hispanics considered "moral values issues" as either "extremely" or "very" important, while 87 percent felt similarly about homeland security.

Hispanics' cultural conservatism is well established. On abortion, a plurality of Hispanics (45 percent in the Time survey) wants to see Roe v. Wade overturned, even as Roe maintains majority support (65 percent) among the population at large. Hispanics also oppose homosexuality and homosexual marriage. A 2002 Pew Hispanic Center and Kaiser Family Foundation poll found 72 percent of Hispanics said they felt homosexual sex between adults is "unacceptable," compared to 59 percent for whites. Polls also routinely show much less support among Hispanics for same-sex "marriage."

Republicans have a distinct advantage with Hispanics on national security, too. A 2004 pre-election survey of Hispanics revealed that 40 percent planned to vote for President Bush mainly because of his solid stance on national security issues.

Republican lawmakers must recognize that Hispanics are conservative in a fundamental way. In fact, it was on the strength of his conservative positions on values issues that George W. Bush doubled the Republican share of the Hispanic vote for president in just eight years. No small feat.

Clearly, reaching out to the burgeoning Hispanic electorate has become a matter of political necessity for Democrats and Republicans alike. Not only are Hispanics the fastest growing ethnic group in America, but they are, politically speaking, a relatively untapped resource — only 47 percent of eligible Hispanics voted in 2004, compared to 64 percent of the population at large.

But if, in attempting to capitalize on these powerful electoral realities, Republicans capitulate on amnesty, not only will they give their conservative base reason to stay home on Election Day, but they may alienate a growing constituency that shares those core conservative values of family, hard work, respect for the rule of law and patriotism.

Have Republicans forgotten?