John Ensign, Interview Transcript
On Friday's installment of CQ Radio, I interviewed Senator John Ensign, chair of the NRSC and an important voice on the immigration debate. Ensign twice voted against cloture in the Senate showdown ten days ago, but he says he still hopes that the bill can get amended to the point where it solves our border and immigration problems. The full transcript of the interview is now up at Heading Right.
I asked him several questions about immigration and his views on the bill:
EM: Let’s talk about that for just a second, because there are a lot of people who are complaining is what congress should do first is just focus on border security and fixing the visa program first and then once you have established creditability on that, then the American public will be more open to the idea of things like normalization and temporary guest worker programs. Why can’t this be done in two stages?SE: Well, that’s why I think it’s very important that the triggers, be real triggers in the bill and that we actually fund those triggers. We fund those types of programs before other of programs goes into effect. The funding has to be mandatory funding, not where it’s like a wink and a nod to future funding. We actually have to make sure that the funding is there to secure the borders and interior enforcement. People forget that about forty percent of the folks who are here illegally are people who came in legally then overstayed their visa ...
As I noted this weekend, we don't ever get a clear answer as to why the issues cannot be addressed separately. When that question gets asked, the responses fall back to the triggers in the comprehensive bill. So far, the Senate does not seem to grasp that they lack enough credibility to have us trust that the triggers will be honored over the 2-3 year period the CBO envisions for their completion.
I then asked him about the 854 miles of border fencing authorized last year:
EM: What about the bill that was passed last year to build eight hundred and fifty four miles of double fencing on the southern border? Where is that going?SE: It’s not being funded enough. It’s not being funded enough and that’s why I said it’s so critical that we get the funding in place. Ok, there is a lot of things that we do in the Senate that we’ll authorize but if you don’t appropriate the money, you know, you pass a law that yes you can do it but then you have to fund it. That’s why it’s critical for this immigration bill that it gets funded on all the enforcements mechanisms. If you don’t have the funding in place, it’s not guaranteed that those enforcement mechanisms will be in place.
Which neatly sums up our misgivings about the triggers.
I then asked him, as chair of the NRSC, how the Republican candidates can rebuild the trust the party has lost over the last six years on core values such as limited government and fiscal responsibility:
EM: Well, what are you going to frame as the core values of the Republican Party for 2008? I mean, you’ve talked a little about lower taxes and reducing spending but those are, I would almost argue, sort of second layer issues. I mean, are you going to be arguing for smaller government, if so, where do you see the reduction in government so we don’t have to have as much taxes?SE: Well, that’s where fiscal responsibility comes in leads to more limited, more effective government. More personal responsibility; lower taxes are because you believe that families and businesses can do better with their dollars than the government can do with their dollars. And those are the basic core principles that Republicans stand for and all of this gets down to its’ cores principle and that is the belief in freedom. The belief that we should be free to succeed and free to fail. The freedom to fail is one of the greatest freedoms we have in America and too many people try to put a safety net under everything that we do and that actually is harmful in the long run.
Be sure to read the entire transcript at Heading Right.
UPDATE: John Hawkins has his own interview with Ensign at Right Wing News. Also, this interview has generated some hostile reaction, and I think it may be a little overheated. Ensign didn't say he'd flat-out oppose the immigration bill, but he did say it would have to be a lot better than it is now before he'd vote for it:
EM: And I just want to remind the listeners here that Senator John Ensign, the chairman of the NRSC, voted against cloture on both counts eight days ago, which tabled the bill. So, I mean, like you said, you’ve opposed this bill because there are things in it that you don’t like. You’re hoping that you’ll going to be able to get a bill that fixes all those problems that you can vote for but you have actually fought against it in it’s current form. Now, we’ve heard ...SE: I think it was outrageous what the Democrats did in trying to wrap this bill up when this is a very complex piece of legislation and you need to have amendments to be able to be offered to the bill, they’re legitimate amendments, they not just people trying to kill the bill, there’re actually people trying to improve the bill. For instance, I think it’s outrageous right now that the bill still allows folks who are here illegally, who stole people’s social security numbers, used them to work, ruin people’s credit, and then this bill allows them to get credit for that social security work and allows them to get social security benefits. I have an amendment that will fix that. Well the Democrats have not allowed me to offer that amendment at this time because they know that the American people are against them on that and they hate that amendment but they know that American people against them on that. And there are several amendments like that, that we need to make sure we’re able to offer to the bill and then if they go down, well then, we can vote against the bill and know that we tried everything we could to fix it but if some of the things on interior enforcement, on exit visa program, on making sure that the funding is there for the triggers and it’s there before these other things go into effect, then no illegal immigrate gets social security benefits. If we do those things, then maybe we can actually vote for a bill. But, until we get those things, we’re not going to be able to vote for a bill.
Like I said, read the whole thing before making up your mind. This is one of the Republicans who got the bill tabled ten days ago, so he's not exactly working with the compromisers at the moment.
Posted by Ed Morrissey on June 18, 2007 9:10 AM | Comments (19) | TrackBacks (0)
Comments (19)
Posted by Paul A'Barge | June 18, 2007 9:48 AM
Be sure to read the entire transcript
No thanks. I've read quite enough.
I've got vacation planning to do, and a new date just opened up on my calendar ... election day for 2008.
Now there's no need to be in the country that week.
Posted by CalabasasWinger | June 18, 2007 10:09 AM
I read the transcript that John Hawkins has of the interview at Right wingnews. These Senators are clueless spin machines. Say goodbye to another 5 GOP Senators come next election cycle. Like Gun Control Laws (over 200 of them) this Shamnesty Bill will magically implement new Laws that will never be enforced to go along with other Immigration Laws existing but getting ignored daily. Can I be more perplexed by our Govt.? Seems like whenever they hit a new low, they keep digging. Disgusting, they just Dont. Get. It.
Posted by Karen | June 18, 2007 10:11 AM
Now they are really making me mad. How stoooopid do they think we are????????
We GET it that they are WINKING at the enforcement of this bill otherwise they would not TAP DANCE around the issue when asked about it directly.
How fricking hard is it to ENFORCE laws already passed???
Posted by Realist | June 18, 2007 10:24 AM
Will you peasants just shut up and go away? Whose country do you think this is, anyway?
Posted by AnonymousDrivel | June 18, 2007 11:07 AM
Nice little conspired dance they've got us grooving to. Do nothing until crisis, then start the music:
Lather, rinse, repeat as necessary to frustrate public demands.
The unwashed masses get taken to the cleaners every time on this issue. It represents everything wrong with government and democracy. I hope there's an electoral bloodletting on all sides come election 2008 and beyond.
Posted by quickjustice | June 18, 2007 11:35 AM
You really get it, Ed, as do all of the previous commentators. My compliments to you all.
I don't think Ensign is evil, but when he admitted that the border fence never has been funded (and I'll add a failure to fund a crackdown on those who employ illegal workers to that), he said all I needed to hear.
Posted by Bill Faith | June 18, 2007 12:00 PM
Not trust the feds to enforce the law like the promised? Surely you jest.
I added an excerpt and link to my 2006.06.18 "No Illegal Left Behind" Roundup.
Posted by NahnCee | June 18, 2007 12:32 PM
I would love to hear Ensign's views on why people who voted against this stupid bill are now out hawking it. And why the White House is laying what's left of its tattered reputation on the line to get it passed.
Of course, being DC, he would never, ever, tell the truth about who's doing what to whom, and why, re: immigration. I wonder how Halliburton and Big Oil are swinging on the issue in their board rooms.
Posted by firedup | June 18, 2007 1:11 PM
I love your dance metaphor, AD, and your list. That's the most "comprehensive" summary I've seen of what our useless senators do; they've become a laughingstock.
The problem is that not enough citizens are laughing. I think many still operate from "wanting to believe" when they don't want to face what is in front of their eyes.
Posted by Bachbone | June 18, 2007 1:16 PM
Color me skeptical. No, make that extremely skeptical. Oh, dang it! I just remembered that old saying, "Fool me once, shame on ...." Color me "I don't believe a word you're saying."
Posted by firedup | June 18, 2007 1:23 PM
Good job, Captain. You smoked him out... sort of. It would be impossible to get 98% of senators to be completely forthcoming on anything. Question: Isn't it frustrating interviewing such a creature? You never get straight answers, but you do get revealing contradictions.
To wit, a HUGE concern I haven't seen mentioned in this debate:
"For instance, I think it’s outrageous right now that the bill still allows folks who are here illegally, who stole people’s social security numbers, used them to work, ruin people’s credit, and then this bill allows them to get credit for that social security work and allows them to get social security benefits. I have an amendment that will fix that. Well the Democrats have not allowed me to offer that amendment at this time because they know that the American people are against them on that and they hate that amendment but they know that American people against them on that."
Senator Ensign, here's a big DUH for you. This does not need an "amendment" to the bloated shamnesty bill. This needs your staff calling up ICE and saying, "What the hell are you doing about these criminals?" Get them rounded up, prosecuted and/or deported, John, and then maybe we can talk!!!
The endlessly useless mantra of our endlessly useless senators is "I have an amendment that will fix that." Ptooey!!
Oh, and notice the whining, the "new tone" of spineless Pubbies: "The Democrats won't let me...Waaaahhhh!!" All they do is play games, in hopes of striking a future advantageous deal. Don't the Republicans get it yet? No matter how much they yield to the Dems, the Dems will not yield to them in future. They DO NOT reciprocate.
Posted by Maverick Muse | June 18, 2007 4:43 PM
By lumping all together, Congressional legislation further enables their NONENFORCEMENT course of action. The current UNWILLINGNESS TO ENFORCE will be protected by NEW LEGISLATION that will further disable our society. Congressional tactics are to DIVIDE AND CONQUER the e pluribus unum that the Constitution provided and the unity for which our flag stands, one sovereign nation. There are huge fortunes being made by the dismantling of our nation, and politicians lead the stampede toward our destruction.
Every call and letter delivered prior to repeated vote makes a huge difference. We refuse to go along with their pandering to illegal behavior. After the die is cast, it will be that much more difficult to make any agency responsible for anything beyond finger pointing and thumb sucking.
We already have an inkling of coming new legislation that will effectively censor internet/radio free speech. They'll base the need for censorship on limited airwaves or limited this or that, or global warming.
Nip THEM in the bud by exercising your constitutional right to notify your legislators and your President of your concerns about their obtuse legislative efforts. We stand our ground even as they refuse their Consitutional RESPONSIBILITY. Of course they refuse to illuminate single item bills for public information and resulting public support. They are sure that they do not need our approval for anything. We are merely a tax base upon which they lay the greatest burden imaginable, taxation and legislation to deprive us our rights WITHOUT REPRESENTATION as they do NOT represent the legal working citizens. The only benefiting constituency consists of those exercising illegal behavior, including our politicians.
Posted by Project Vote Smart | June 18, 2007 5:14 PM
Senator John Ensign’s voting record on immigration issues can be found at: http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=22139&type=category&category=40&go.x=14&go.y=1
Senator John Ensign’s history of speeches on immigration can be found at: http://www.votesmart.org/speech.php?keyword=immigration&daterange=&begin=&end=&phrase=&contain=&without=&type=search&can_id=22139&go2.x=0&go2.y=0#Results
Senator John Ensign’s ratings from special interest groups on immigration issues can be found at: http://www.votesmart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=22139
For more information on Senator John Ensign’s position on immigration please visit http://www.vote-smart.org or call our hotline at 1-888-VOTE-SMART.
Posted by SDN | June 18, 2007 5:25 PM
Senator, I'll make it real simple for you:
It's been 11 years since Simpson-Mazolli, and none of its' enforcement provisions have been really implemented. Give me 11 years of real enforcement, and we'll see.
Billions for enforcement, not one cent for amnesty.
Posted by flenser | June 18, 2007 5:44 PM
SE:"People forget that about forty percent of the folks who are here illegally are people who came in legally then overstayed their visa ..."
Believe me, I have not forgotten about them.
Read this;
SEC. 110. AUTOMATED ENTRY-EXIT CONTROL SYSTEM.
(a) SYSTEM.—Not later than 2 years after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall develop an automated
entry and exit control system that will—
(1) collect a record of departure for every alien departing
the United States and match the records of departure with
the record of the alien’s arrival in the United States; and
(2) enable the Attorney General to identify, through online
searching procedures, lawfully admitted nonimmigrants
who remain in the United States beyond the period authorized
by the Attorney General.
This language is from the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, which was passed into law in 1996.
That is not a typo. 1996.
This system still does not exist. I'd like to hear Senator Ensign, or any other Senator, explain why not.
We keep getting told that the current immigration law is bad. Perhaps it is. But the people who made it bad, by and large, are the current members of Congress.
If your job is to write computer code, and your boss asked you why the program you wrote did not work correctly, would you answer "It's bad code." and expect not to get into serious trouble?
These guy's WROTE the damm law! They have remarkable audicity to come to us and complain that the law they wrote is garbage and ask our permission they write in some goodies for themselves in return for promising to fix their previous bugs.
2008 is going to be interesting.
And I say all this while admitting that Ed is correct about Ensign being one of the better Senators on immigration.
Posted by Rose | June 18, 2007 9:20 PM
I'm sorry - Ensign sounds like a handful of others who opposed the bill before - yet sound NOW as if they are very eager to find a way to support it, NOW.
Like Hawkins asked Ensign, what impression is it supposed to have, to pass about 22 amendments to it, when Trent Lott has already promised to strip the amendments BACK OUT in COMMITTEE.
I'm not impressed by wishy-washy TALK.
I ain't seen NO walkin', yet.
And the Senators know that a similar tactic is prepared for HIGHER TAXES???????
WHICH WAY TO THE BOSTON HARBOR AND THOSE TEA BUNDLES!!!
Posted by Rose | June 18, 2007 9:28 PM
No thanks. I've read quite enough.
I've got vacation planning to do, and a new date just opened up on my calendar ... election day for 2008.
Now there's no need to be in the country that week.
Posted by: Paul A'Barge at June 18, 2007 9:48 AM
************************
PLEASE CONSIDER:
If you do a WRITE-IN, it will keep your election officials up a few more minutes, late that night, because they have to BOTH COUNT, AND ALSO INDIVIDUALLY LOG all write-ins - so be sure to give them a name representative of the kind of CHARACTER you are looking for in a viable candidate - not just Mickey Mouse or Pat Paulsen, as much as that migh feel more rewarding, under the circumstances.
Posted by Rose | June 18, 2007 9:47 PM
Color me skeptical. No, make that extremely skeptical. Oh, dang it! I just remembered that old saying, "Fool me once, shame on ...." Color me "I don't believe a word you're saying."
Posted by: Bachbone at June 18, 2007 1:16 PM
******************
Yeah, and like 86-ed down the road, don't even bother speaking to me, anymore! SO LOL!
Reminds me of the other old saying about Liberals - "Are they lying?" "Are their lips moving??? Well, DUH!"
Posted by Rose | June 18, 2007 9:58 PM
And I say all this while admitting that Ed is correct about Ensign being one of the better Senators on immigration.
Posted by: flenser at June 18, 2007 5:44 PM
********************************
True - it just doesn't make him better enough to be ACCEPTABLE.
********************************
Posted by: Project Vote Smart at June 18, 2007 5:14 PM
----------------------
THANKS, GREAT SITE!