Senate Shelves Immigration: Misses Forty Votes
Hot off the news wires!
The Senate sidetracked sweeping immigration legislation Friday amid partisan recriminations, leaving in doubt prospects for passage of a measure that offered the hope of citizenship to millions of men, women and children living in the United States illegally.
The bill gained only 38 votes on a key procedural test, far short of the 60 needed to advance.
The hope of citizenship, or the hope that they wouldn't face any sort of recriminations for their illegal activity? There should be no offer of hopr for citizenship until this is worked out. I'm sorry, but I don't want amnesty for these people. They knowingly and willingly broke the law. It's time to pay the piper, not get an "'Atta boy!" slap on the back. And WE are happy to see that this measure fell flat on it's face. The compromise, as I pointed out early this morning, was more than a joke; it was a comedy of errors.
The vote marked a turnabout from Thursday, when the Senate's two leaders had both hailed a last-minute compromise as a breakthrough in the campaign to enact the most far-reaching changes in immigration law in two decades.
But Republicans soon accused Democrats of trying to squelch their amendments, while Democrats accused the GOP of trying to kill their own bill by filibuster.
"It's not gone forward because there's a political advantage for Democrats not to have an immigration bill," said Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa.
Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid countered, "The amendments were being offered by people who didn't want the bill."
The vote fell nearly along party lines, with Democrats in favor of advancing the bill and Republicans opposed.
It is a nice thing when your party listens to the acrimony of the base, and understands that there will be repercussions from them regarding the party's behavior. Had the GOP voted in favor of the procedural vote, I would have been very upset. And so would the base. It would have been a "sell-out" moment for the GOP thgat rivaled the Gang of 14 deal from last May.
Specter told reporters his committee would resume work on the measure as soon as Congress returns from a two-week break. He said the panel would have a measure ready for renewed debate within 10 days after that.
But Frist stopped short of a commitment to bring the issue back to the floor during the balance of the election-year session. "I intend to," he said, but added it would depend on the schedule of other bills.
The Senate voted after President Bush prodded lawmakers to keep trying to reach an agreement, but both sides said the odds were that a breakthrough won't occur until Congress returns from a two-week recess.
"An immigration system that forces people into the shadows of our society, or leaves them prey to criminals is a system that needs to be changed," Bush said at the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast on Friday. "I'm confident that we can change our immigration system in ways that secures our border, respects the rule of law, and, as importantly, upholds the decency of our country."
I'm liable to catch some flak over this next thing, but it has to be said. President Bush, you're dead wrong on this. We need something that addresses our border security, and demands respect of the law before we worry about the "decency" of our country. Does he not think that we've been decent enough already? We have tolerated these law-breakers in our nation. We have suffered under the numerous laws they continue to break, such as no driver's licenses, or insurance. We watch as they are a drain on our local economies in the form or health care, welfare, and incarceration. Do not lecture to the nation who put you back in office of the decency of this nation. WE are well aware of how decent this nation can be, and in our opinion, we have gone beyond the limits of tolerance and patience. This must end now.
Republicans said Democrats perceive a benefit in having only a GOP-written House bill that would make being an illegal immigrant a felony. That bill has prompted massive protests across the country, including a march by 500,000 people in Los Angeles last month.
And those people who took to the streets should have been dealt with. I am wondering why the National Guard was not called out? It was obviously out of the control of the police, and had violence broken out, there would have been no way for the police to quell it. These demonstrations need to end. In the legal sense, these people are already breaking the law, and they have no right to protest. That is a right that is exclusive to citizens only. That is a provision within the First Amendment, and it's protection for citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Democrats blamed Republicans for insisting on amendments that would weaken a compromise that Senate leaders in both parties had celebrated Thursday.
"This opportunity is slipping through our hands like grains of sand," said assistant Senate Democratic leader Dick Durbin of Illinois.
Opportunity? Is that what Senator Durbin calls this compromise? It's a joke! It's an attempt to grant those who have broken our laws--willingly broken our laws--to obtain amnesty, and become citizens. Not only will this outrage the bases for both parties, but it doesn't bode well for either side when it comes to people that have come here via the proper procedure of emigrating to the United States.
The election-year legislation is designed to enhance border security and regulate the flow of future temporary workers as well as affect the lives of illegal immigrants.
No, the compromise was designed to give the current law breakers a slap on the wrist, and eventually grant them amnesty and citizenship. And what does that saw about our lawmakers when they bump these people ahead of others who have been waiting, patiently, for the opportunity to become US citizens?
It separates illegal immigrants now in the U.S. into three categories.
Illegal immigrants here more than five years could work for six years and apply for legal permanent residency without having to leave the country. Those here two years to five years would have to go to border entry points sometime in next three years, but could immediately return as temporary workers. Those here less than two years would have to leave and wait in line for visas to return.
Yes, but without documentation to back up when these people claim they entered the US, what proof do we have that they're telling the truth. Mark Steyn nailed it on the head yesterday in an interview with Hugh Hewitt. What is to stop them from saying that they had come here five or six years ago? What about the two to five year provisions, where they can blow off their adherence for up to three years? Will there be anyone who claims they came here two years ago? Not if it involves them having to leave, they won't admit it.
The bill also provides a new program for 1.5 million temporary agriculture industry workers over five years. It includes provisions requiring employers to verify they've hired legal workers and calls for a "virtual" fence of surveillance cameras, sensors and other technology to monitor the nearly 2,000-mile U.S.-Mexican border.
A virtual fence? The "virtual fence" we have now isn't working, so where do lawmakers believe it will work in the future. No, the fence must be real and tangible. To the people who argue against such a measure, it has worked for Israel in their fight against Palestinian suicide bombers. It can work for them, and it will work for us.
Demonstrations in support of the compromise were planned for Monday across the nation, including one in Washington that organizers claimed would draw 100,000 people.
The acrimony in the Senate at Thursday night's end was a sharp contrast to the accolades 14 members of both parties traded just hours earlier when they announced their compromise.
Frist called it tragic "that we in all likelihood are not going to be able to address a problem that directly affects the American people."
It wouldn't be so damned tragic if we actually had people in Congress who were serious about getting this fixed. But the people involved in the compromise obviously don't care. If they did they would have addressed the issue more forcefully, and with steady determination to fix a problem that we created out of our own apathy and complacency.
The House has passed legislation limited to border security, but Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., and other leaders have signaled their willingness in recent days to broaden the bill in compromise talks with the Senate.
But Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., said anything with what he called amnesty would not get agreement from a majority in the House.
No, amnesty won't gain approval in the House, nor will it sit well with either party's base. And that's something that needs to be driven home. The people need to speak out. They need to reach out to their representatives in the House and the Senate, and tell them to fix the problem. It needs to be done right. AMNESTY is not the answer. Amnesty is a quick fix that's going to irritate more people in the long run. And all amnesty will do is encourgae further illegal immigration. In 1986, the Reagan administration granted amnesty to the illegals here then. Now, twenty years later, after our lawmakers have seen that amnesty doesn't work, they're looking at it again. And if amnesty is a part of this compromise, I'm sure we'll had to readdress this again in twenty more years.
No, send the message to your lawmakers that you won't stand for amnesty. Tell them you want the laws enforced, and you want those that have broken our laws punished. We can't deport them all, to kill the argument of the Buchananite extremists. It's not possible, nor is it logistically feasible. But we can crack down on them, and make coming here illegally a very risky proposition. We need to deal with this problem today, and discourgae such tactics for the future. This compromise doesn't do that. And when Congress gets back from it's two-week break, this issue will still be on the table. Let's hope that the next go-round will grant us more wisdom, and less feel-good moments.
As they saw today, Congress enjoyed it's pats-on-the-back yesterday. Today it was a slap across the face. And as the ghost of Christmas Present stated in Scrooged: "Sometimes you have to slap someone in the face if you want to get their attention." They got that today. Let's see if they'll pay attention in two weeks.
Publius II
Hot off the news wires!
The Senate sidetracked sweeping immigration legislation Friday amid partisan recriminations, leaving in doubt prospects for passage of a measure that offered the hope of citizenship to millions of men, women and children living in the United States illegally.
The bill gained only 38 votes on a key procedural test, far short of the 60 needed to advance.
The hope of citizenship, or the hope that they wouldn't face any sort of recriminations for their illegal activity? There should be no offer of hopr for citizenship until this is worked out. I'm sorry, but I don't want amnesty for these people. They knowingly and willingly broke the law. It's time to pay the piper, not get an "'Atta boy!" slap on the back. And WE are happy to see that this measure fell flat on it's face. The compromise, as I pointed out early this morning, was more than a joke; it was a comedy of errors.
The vote marked a turnabout from Thursday, when the Senate's two leaders had both hailed a last-minute compromise as a breakthrough in the campaign to enact the most far-reaching changes in immigration law in two decades.
But Republicans soon accused Democrats of trying to squelch their amendments, while Democrats accused the GOP of trying to kill their own bill by filibuster.
"It's not gone forward because there's a political advantage for Democrats not to have an immigration bill," said Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa.
Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid countered, "The amendments were being offered by people who didn't want the bill."
The vote fell nearly along party lines, with Democrats in favor of advancing the bill and Republicans opposed.
It is a nice thing when your party listens to the acrimony of the base, and understands that there will be repercussions from them regarding the party's behavior. Had the GOP voted in favor of the procedural vote, I would have been very upset. And so would the base. It would have been a "sell-out" moment for the GOP thgat rivaled the Gang of 14 deal from last May.
Specter told reporters his committee would resume work on the measure as soon as Congress returns from a two-week break. He said the panel would have a measure ready for renewed debate within 10 days after that.
But Frist stopped short of a commitment to bring the issue back to the floor during the balance of the election-year session. "I intend to," he said, but added it would depend on the schedule of other bills.
The Senate voted after President Bush prodded lawmakers to keep trying to reach an agreement, but both sides said the odds were that a breakthrough won't occur until Congress returns from a two-week recess.
"An immigration system that forces people into the shadows of our society, or leaves them prey to criminals is a system that needs to be changed," Bush said at the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast on Friday. "I'm confident that we can change our immigration system in ways that secures our border, respects the rule of law, and, as importantly, upholds the decency of our country."
I'm liable to catch some flak over this next thing, but it has to be said. President Bush, you're dead wrong on this. We need something that addresses our border security, and demands respect of the law before we worry about the "decency" of our country. Does he not think that we've been decent enough already? We have tolerated these law-breakers in our nation. We have suffered under the numerous laws they continue to break, such as no driver's licenses, or insurance. We watch as they are a drain on our local economies in the form or health care, welfare, and incarceration. Do not lecture to the nation who put you back in office of the decency of this nation. WE are well aware of how decent this nation can be, and in our opinion, we have gone beyond the limits of tolerance and patience. This must end now.
Republicans said Democrats perceive a benefit in having only a GOP-written House bill that would make being an illegal immigrant a felony. That bill has prompted massive protests across the country, including a march by 500,000 people in Los Angeles last month.
And those people who took to the streets should have been dealt with. I am wondering why the National Guard was not called out? It was obviously out of the control of the police, and had violence broken out, there would have been no way for the police to quell it. These demonstrations need to end. In the legal sense, these people are already breaking the law, and they have no right to protest. That is a right that is exclusive to citizens only. That is a provision within the First Amendment, and it's protection for citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Democrats blamed Republicans for insisting on amendments that would weaken a compromise that Senate leaders in both parties had celebrated Thursday.
"This opportunity is slipping through our hands like grains of sand," said assistant Senate Democratic leader Dick Durbin of Illinois.
Opportunity? Is that what Senator Durbin calls this compromise? It's a joke! It's an attempt to grant those who have broken our laws--willingly broken our laws--to obtain amnesty, and become citizens. Not only will this outrage the bases for both parties, but it doesn't bode well for either side when it comes to people that have come here via the proper procedure of emigrating to the United States.
The election-year legislation is designed to enhance border security and regulate the flow of future temporary workers as well as affect the lives of illegal immigrants.
No, the compromise was designed to give the current law breakers a slap on the wrist, and eventually grant them amnesty and citizenship. And what does that saw about our lawmakers when they bump these people ahead of others who have been waiting, patiently, for the opportunity to become US citizens?
It separates illegal immigrants now in the U.S. into three categories.
Illegal immigrants here more than five years could work for six years and apply for legal permanent residency without having to leave the country. Those here two years to five years would have to go to border entry points sometime in next three years, but could immediately return as temporary workers. Those here less than two years would have to leave and wait in line for visas to return.
Yes, but without documentation to back up when these people claim they entered the US, what proof do we have that they're telling the truth. Mark Steyn nailed it on the head yesterday in an interview with Hugh Hewitt. What is to stop them from saying that they had come here five or six years ago? What about the two to five year provisions, where they can blow off their adherence for up to three years? Will there be anyone who claims they came here two years ago? Not if it involves them having to leave, they won't admit it.
The bill also provides a new program for 1.5 million temporary agriculture industry workers over five years. It includes provisions requiring employers to verify they've hired legal workers and calls for a "virtual" fence of surveillance cameras, sensors and other technology to monitor the nearly 2,000-mile U.S.-Mexican border.
A virtual fence? The "virtual fence" we have now isn't working, so where do lawmakers believe it will work in the future. No, the fence must be real and tangible. To the people who argue against such a measure, it has worked for Israel in their fight against Palestinian suicide bombers. It can work for them, and it will work for us.
Demonstrations in support of the compromise were planned for Monday across the nation, including one in Washington that organizers claimed would draw 100,000 people.
The acrimony in the Senate at Thursday night's end was a sharp contrast to the accolades 14 members of both parties traded just hours earlier when they announced their compromise.
Frist called it tragic "that we in all likelihood are not going to be able to address a problem that directly affects the American people."
It wouldn't be so damned tragic if we actually had people in Congress who were serious about getting this fixed. But the people involved in the compromise obviously don't care. If they did they would have addressed the issue more forcefully, and with steady determination to fix a problem that we created out of our own apathy and complacency.
The House has passed legislation limited to border security, but Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., and other leaders have signaled their willingness in recent days to broaden the bill in compromise talks with the Senate.
But Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., said anything with what he called amnesty would not get agreement from a majority in the House.
No, amnesty won't gain approval in the House, nor will it sit well with either party's base. And that's something that needs to be driven home. The people need to speak out. They need to reach out to their representatives in the House and the Senate, and tell them to fix the problem. It needs to be done right. AMNESTY is not the answer. Amnesty is a quick fix that's going to irritate more people in the long run. And all amnesty will do is encourgae further illegal immigration. In 1986, the Reagan administration granted amnesty to the illegals here then. Now, twenty years later, after our lawmakers have seen that amnesty doesn't work, they're looking at it again. And if amnesty is a part of this compromise, I'm sure we'll had to readdress this again in twenty more years.
No, send the message to your lawmakers that you won't stand for amnesty. Tell them you want the laws enforced, and you want those that have broken our laws punished. We can't deport them all, to kill the argument of the Buchananite extremists. It's not possible, nor is it logistically feasible. But we can crack down on them, and make coming here illegally a very risky proposition. We need to deal with this problem today, and discourgae such tactics for the future. This compromise doesn't do that. And when Congress gets back from it's two-week break, this issue will still be on the table. Let's hope that the next go-round will grant us more wisdom, and less feel-good moments.
As they saw today, Congress enjoyed it's pats-on-the-back yesterday. Today it was a slap across the face. And as the ghost of Christmas Present stated in Scrooged: "Sometimes you have to slap someone in the face if you want to get their attention." They got that today. Let's see if they'll pay attention in two weeks.
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 11:52 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home