Posted on 05/10/2007 4:52:28 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON - Efforts to reach an immigration compromise faltered Thursday as Democrats and Republicans staked out divergent positions and prepared to blame each other for scuttling the best chance for a broad overhaul this year.
Talks continued on a possible deal that would tie residency for millions of illegal immigrants to tougher border security and a crackdown on employing undocumented workers. At the same time, however, Republicans and Democrats set the stage for a partisan battle next week that could squash any agreement.
Democrats plan to force a debate starting Tuesday on last year's Senate-passed immigration measure. Most Democrats supported that plan, which a majority of Republican senators opposed.
The move is designed to pressure Republicans to cut a deal or risk being blamed for undermining one.
President Bush is "going to have to tell his Republicans, 'I want a bill,'" said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (news, bio, voting record), D-Nev. "If we lose this opportunity to do immigration reform, (Bush) can't go around the country saying, 'I believe in comprehensive immigration reform.'"
GOP senators are promising to block the move, saying the series of secretive talks attended by the White House and a few Democrats needed more time to yield a compromise.
"It would be a shame if that arbitrary deadline resulted in the process coming to a halt," said Sen. Jon Kyl (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz., the No. 3 GOP leader.
The developing impasse could prevent the Senate from even opening debate next week on reshaping immigration laws.
The issue is fraught with political risks and rewards for both parties and is a priority for Bush. Absent a bipartisan deal, Democrats would almost certainly be unable to get the 60 votes they would need to overcome GOP opposition and bring up the bill, which was to be considered over the next two weeks.
For some lawmakers, their appetite for a bargain is waning.
The GOP position has "moved far to the right" since last year, said Sen. Robert Menendez (news, bio, voting record), R-N.J., who has attended the talks.
"We have serious concerns about the workability and fairness of certain elements of the White House plan," Menendez added. He said the GOP proposal was "a huge step backward" from the 2006 measure, which 23 Republicans supported.
Talks have bogged down in a tangle of details. That has led officials in both parties to play down the chances for a breakthrough.
Publicly, Republicans remained sunny about the prospects of a compromise, reluctant to be seen as obstacles to achieving an item that polls show has broad support.
"I think it's pretty clear that the vast majority of Republicans want an immigration bill," said Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (news, bio, voting record), R-Ky.
Sen. Richard Durbin (news, bio, voting record), D-Ill., said Democrats are concerned the emerging bipartisan measure is going too far to placate GOP conservatives at the risk of alienating Democrats.
"Our frustration is, we look around the table of the negotiators, and they are trying to please Republican senators who were totally opposed to comprehensive immigration reform," said Durbin, the second-ranking Senate Democrat. "As a consequence, they are leaving behind a lot of mainstream Democrats and Republicans."
Republicans, many of whom considered last year's measure unduly lenient toward illegal immigrants, said they were bent on supporting the new approach under discussion in the bipartisan talks.
Modeled after a White House draft circulated in late March, it would impose large fines, long waits and trips home on illegal immigrants seeking to gain legal status. It would shift the immigration system toward one based more heavily on skills and employment criteria, eliminating or curtailing opportunities for immigrants to bring their families to the U.S.
"Republicans need to stand firm for this framework," said Sen. Jeff Sessions (news, bio, voting record), R-Ala. "The danger for Republicans would be that somehow they felt weak and defensive, and accepted so many compromises on this framework that it really is not true to the ideals it proposes." The negotiations have been extraordinarily sensitive for both sides. Democrats are wary of committing to anything stricter than last year's bill. Republicans are concerned about embracing anything that gives illegal immigrants a chance at citizenship — decried by conservatives as "amnesty."
That would sure be nice— looks like it’ll never happen tho. They’re too intoxicated with cheap labor (Dims AND Reps), at our expense for social services.
I am so tired of this @#$%. Honestly, who speaks for us in Congress? A handful of patriots.
The GOP position has “moved far to the right” since last year, said Sen. Robert Menendez
Hope it has moved far-right.
You'd think a news powerhouse like AP would at least get this bozo's party affiliation right.
I think the open borders crowd actually prefers a status quo that maintains a virtually unlimited supply of illegal workers. They’re much more exploitable.
Everything is possible here. Blame must be assigned.
Couldn't the Pubs' give them the 60 votes needed for consideration and then slam dunk the Dems during the debate and then on the actual vote?
I’m for immigration reform,enforce the law send’em home!
We only count to pay the bills and reemploy these cretins.
Really, and what polls would those be? The last four I've seen showed people overwhelmingly want enforcement, not amnesty.
“Immigration compromise falters on hill”
Good. And lets hope all upcoming ones do the same
Im sure our petitions, emails and phone calls have a lot to do with this.
It’s about time to sign another petition if there’s one out there
This must be sunk. This reckless idea of Bush's had a lot to do with losing congress last year. Hugh Hewitt was right about this before the election.
Being told we need "comprehensive immigration reform" for "jobs Americans won't do" makes my anger 3dB more intense every time I hear that. Seeing ski-masked illegal alien scum attack police in McArthur Park turns my anger from dB into Kilowatts.
They are going to get you Patriots.....do not believe anything you read....slave traders, slave masters and slave enablers stinking up Washington selling you out and your kids and grandkids to paying tons of taxes, reduced social security and getting the worst health care and schools next to Somalia...yes...
Jim...
Pity you arnt in congress...
:)
BWWWAAAAAHAAAAAHAAAAA
"Yours till the United States drinks Canada Dry" ;-)
Cheers!
>>Sen. Richard Durbin (news, bio, voting record), D-Ill., said Democrats are concerned the emerging bipartisan measure is going too far to placate GOP conservatives at the risk of alienating Democrats.<<
Apparently Dems don’t even want the illegals to pay fees nor pay back taxes to get legal status. I probably can’t even imagine all the concessions the illegals are demanding here.
The Dims are the only ones pushing the bill but Bush and all the republicans will get blamed forever.
This bill would be a disaster for the GOP.
My senator Kyle looks to be set to filibuster any plan that will grant the Dems 100,000 of new voters in his district and make his base really pissed off.( might cost him his job)
Has any one looked at how many of the millions of new Mexican voters will determine who will control the house and senate if the comprehensive bill passes?
I guess the Know Nothings don’t get it. The current system is broken. It doesn’t work so doing NOTHING means the Illegals win.
Here ya go, you’ll enjoy this.
kindergarten kids confront the minutemen chanting “Mexico! Mexico!”
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Z7YrkpKNB7M
ping
If Bush merely enforced the existing laws this whole thing would be a non-issue.
The Dems voted 38 to 4 FOR S 2611 and the Reps voted 32-23 AGAINST the bill. The Reps against the bill did not have enough votes to prevent cloture, i.e., 60 votes, and the WH was pushing for passage of the bill. Among those notable Reps who voted for the bill were Presidential candidates McCain and Brownback. Frist and McConnell, the Rep Senate leadership voted FOR it. So did Martinez, the current RNC Chairman. Despite the fact that we lost Allen, Santorum, and Burns who voted against the bill, I suspect that the remaining Reps who voted for the bill the first time are not going to vote for it again, especially Brownback and McCain. But it remains to be seen how much pressure the Senate Reps will get from the WH and whether the Dems are going to press for some sort of quid pro quo to get the Supplemental passed.
The House would be a battleground, but we don't know how many Dems would defect. The 2006 House enforcement first bill, H R 4437 received 203 to 17 Reps for it [11 NV] and 164-36 Dems against it [2 NV]. The new Dem controlled House may be able to pass comprehensive immigration reform depending upon what is in the bill and how much pressure they can exert.
Since 1990 we have increased our population by 53 million, since 2000 by 20 million, with 3/4 of the increase attributed to immigration, legal and illegal. The Census Bureau projects that our popoulation will be 364 million by 2030, i.e., we will add another 63 million in the next 23 years. And these projections are based on 1 million legal and 500,000 illegals a year. Just imagine the impact on these projections if we start taking in three million legal immigrants annually.
No, it won't. Legal immigration laws have to be fixed as well.
Technically, something is being done, more enforcement of existing laws, and at least a token effort at the border including the NG..
Then lets do what needs to be done, build a wall from the Gulf of Mexico, to the Pacific. Deport all the illegals we can find, jail and confiscate teh property of those who give them jobs.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid needs to respond to the will of the people and govern "from the consent of the governed." That would be "WE WANT ENFORCEMENT, NOT A BILL."
"I think it's pretty clear that the vast majority of Republicans want an immigration bill," said Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (news, bio, voting record), R-Ky.
Minority Leader Mitch McConnell needs to respond to the will of the people and govern "from the consent of the governed." That would be "WE WANT ENFORCEMENT, NOT A BILL."
"Our frustration is, we look around the table of the negotiators, and they are trying to please Republican senators who were totally opposed to comprehensive immigration reform," said Durbin, the second-ranking Senate Democrat. "As a consequence, they are leaving behind a lot of mainstream Democrats and Republicans."
Sen. Richard Durbin needs to respond to the will of the people and govern "from the consent of the governed." That would be "WE WANT ENFORCEMENT, NOT COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM BILL."
Republicans are concerned about embracing anything that gives illegal immigrants a chance at citizenship — decried by conservatives as "amnesty."
Well actually that is true. Anything that gives illegal immigrants a chance at citizenship does not have to be "decried" because it IS amnesty. Immigration is going back to where ever and fill out the correct forms to apply for immigration. Immigration is NOT breaking the law by sneaking across our international border and living in the United States illegally.
But one can easily see a reoccurring theme here. While the DC crew is busy wagging fingers at each other they are not seeing the looming black cloud of their demise easing over all of them.
But that is not the choice. Why aren't we enforcing the laws on the books? Who should be held accountable? The illegals are just that, ILLEGAL. The system is broken because the people responsible for enforcing our laws are not doing so. Passing more laws that will be selectively enforced will be even more damaging than doing nothing. Like a physician, first, do no harm.
I suggest that you represent the real Know-Nothing point of view. You should educate yourself on the issue instead of posing as a Know-It-All.
What is the problem with legal immigration laws? Too lax? Too strict?
Prior to 1965, the US was taking around 178,000 legal immigrants annually. In 1965, Congress replaced the national origins system with a preference system designed to unite immigrant families and attract skilled immigrants to the United States. With these changes and some subsequent ones, the result was that most of our legal immigrants now come from Asia and Latin America, and not Europe.
Chain migration designed to unite families has also brought in aged parents, children, uncles, etc., many of whom are not contributing to our society and in fact, require more social services. Even with quotas in certain immigration categories, we are now legalizing the status of over one million people annually and millions more are waiting in lines overseas for their turn to come in.
Chain migration has also changed the "mix" of immigrants, making it less diverse. Mexico accounts for 31 percent of all immigrants, with 10.8 million immigrants living in United States, more than the number of immigrants from any other region of the world. Immigrants from Mexico, Central and South America, and the Caribbean account for the majority of immigrants, with 54 percent of the foreign‑born coming from these areas. Of those who arrived 2000 to 2005, 58 percent are from Latin America. This lack of diversity has hindered assimilation and could well result in the Balkanization of the country by language and culture.
Jeff Sessions and others are recommending we go to a points system for immigration similar to what Canada has. We can then recruit and admit people with the skills we need to keep our economy competititve. The current system of taking in the poor and uneducated from Latin America is not helping us, which is why there is such pressure to raise quotas for H1B visas.
We need a rational, sensible immigration policy for many reasons, some of them economic and some of them cultural, i.e., the ability to assimilate these massive numbers into our society . Since 1970, the population of the US has increased by 100 million; since 1990; by 53 million; and since 2000 by 20 million or the equivalent of our six largest cities. The Bureau of the Census projects that we will have 364 million by 2030 and over 400 million by 2050 with one-quarter of the population being Hispanic.
The annual arrival of 1.5 million legal and illegal immigrants, coupled with 750,000 annual births to immigrant women, is the determinate factor— or three-fourths— of all U.S. population growth. These additional people will require infrastructure [roads, water, electricity, gasoline, etc.], and impact our schools, hospitals, social welfare systems, penal system, etc. Couple these increases with an aging US population faced with entitlement programs about to go belly-up in 10 years and you have some serious public policy issues that could threaten the future of this country.
No news to me. I was almost killed by an illegal alien running a red light. No prosecution. And I had to sue my own insurance company Allstate for uninsured motorists?
I have the right for revenge and to be made whole. If the GOP stands in the way, they will be the first target.
I about laughed the first time I saw this months ago. Millions of illegals will tell the gov to stick it....since they aren't enforcing the laws now. BTW, who will enforse comprehensive immigration reform....what a joke.
Which means we build the wall and emplowment restrictions lead to enough attrition that the 18 emergency rooms reopen in L.A. County. THEN we can discuss changes in immigration law. This is a human RAT problem.
There is one way. Write a law that says all cities and counties and states who are "sanctuary cities for illegal aliens" are completly responsible for damages done to persons by illegal aliens, including future earning estimates.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.