Last week, Californians for Population Stabilization accepted U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan’s offer to “debate anybody” on whether the Border Security, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Modernization Act, S. 744, represents amnesty or is, as he claims, earned legalization. CAPS executive director Jo Wideman called S. 744 “amnesty-plus.” Read CAPS reply to Ryan here.
CAPS called, emailed and wrote Ryan a postal letter but as of June 23, we have not received a reply. Ryan would no doubt would be embarrassed to lose a debate to informed but relatively obscure Americans who favor border enforcement over amnesty for 11 million illegal aliens.
Now a much higher profile anti-amnesty advocate has accepted Ryan’s offer. Tom Tancredo, former Colorado Congressman and current gubernatorial candidate, said to Ryan: “Name the time and the place.” Tancredo is open to any format and offered to host the debate in Colorado.
As Tancredo put it in his press release:
“I would love to hear Paul explain how granting million illegal immigrants a path to U.S. citizenship isn't amnesty. This bill has one purpose: To give legal status to millions of people who are in this country illegally. Mr. Ryan can put as much lipstick as he wants on this pig, but it's still going to be a pig."
Ryan’s pro-amnesty position defies the fiscal conservative image he likes to promote. In its backgrounder titled Whistling Past the Fiscal Graveyard, the Center for Immigration Studies puts S. 744’s long-term cost above $6 trillion.
For the record, Ryan is doing poorly in S. 744 debates. Listen to him fumble around here with Mark Levin.
Ryan struck out against Laura Ingram, too. On her radio program, Ingram also flustered Ryan into non-responsiveness. Ingram asked Ryan how he could support S. 744 when the recently released Congressional Budget Office report said that it would drive down American wages for at least 12 years.
Ryan didn't answer but he did offer some encouragement. Ryan told Ingram that "We're not going to vote on the Senate bill."