One reason that I would like to see more NO votes now, even though members can vote NO later, is that the margin of YESes probably lowers the morale of any potential anti-amnesty voters, and of course does the opposite for the bad guys.
But if it makes it out of Senate then all 82 are traitors and it is a massive sellout by them, even if some of them vote against it at the end.
Cornyn, for example, who voted YES, might be trying to avoid p***ing off the Dems, so that his "90% apprehension rate" (poison pill) amendment would be better received by the enemy. Maybe Joe Manchin?
Seeems like odds of passing that amendment (in the senate anyway) are pretty darned small.
As we saw they rejected Cruz’s amendments on the spot in committee knowing what he was up to.
What Republicans need to do is offer amendments for votes that makes the bill look like what Rubio kept promising conservatives that it is.
Examples : No $$$ from government meaning no EITC and they must support their kids w no help from taxpayers like food stamps,. And identify theft counts against them. No locally paid welfare either and they must pay for their own and dependents health insurance with their own money(they must be insured.)
Dems would have to kill them in votes but that would put the Senate Republicans on the spot if later they want to vote for the bill and claim they thought it was the bill that Rubio promised it was.
I can just see 2016 here :'They lied to the GOP again just like they did to Reagan. These Dems are downright evil. We must vote everyone out of office even if that means holding our noses and voting for every GOP who we hate, like McCain and Grahamnesty. This never would have happened if NO Dem held office.'