Posted on 03/27/2006 4:08:50 PM PST by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON - The Senate Judiciary Committee approved election-year immigration legislation Monday that clears the way for millions of undocumented workers to seek U.S. citizenship without having to first leave the country.
After days of street demonstrations that stretched from California to the gounds of the U.S. Capitol, the committee also voted to strip out proposed criminal penalties for residents found to be in this country illegally.
The panel's vote cleared the way for the full Senate to begin debate Tuesday on the emotional immigration issue.
"All Americans wanted fairness and they got it this evening," said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (news, bio, voting record), the Massachusetts Democrat who played a pivotal role in drafting the legislation, approved 12-6.
Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., voted for the bill but signaled that some of the provisions could well be changed by the full Senate.
In general, the bill is designed to strengtehn border patrol, create new opportunities for so-called guest workers and determine the legal future of the estimated 11 million immigrants living in the United States illegally.
At several critical popints, committee Democrats were united while Republicans splintered. In general, GOP Sens. Lindsay Graham of South Carolina, Sam Brownback of Kansas and Mike DeWine of Ohio, who is seeking re-election this fall, sided with Democrats.
That gave Democrats a majority that allowed them to shape the bill to their liking.
LEt's just say, he does, what can he do? Specifically, what can one guy do? Send in the national guard to enforce the borders? Will he get on AF one and round up illegals and deport them? Does he really have that kind of power to enforce what you imagine? Statewide? And if he does, how does that get enforced? How long, what's the time frame, where are they going to stay during transition? Just one of hundreds of questions. Does he micromanage every state government? How? This problem is beyond our ability to manage it. It's out of control. Unless we stop our borders, and start fresh, any thing ONE person does won't amount to beans. 1 president against 12 million illegals. Not a fair fight.
And maybe you've hit the nail, it's too overwhelming. What are we to do? That's a serious question. A border policy, enforced, military every 100 feet, that'll be about 10,000 troops, just on the southern border. I'm just pondering. But, the mines, the kill em all stuff is from the fringe kooks. We're not going to get rid of the illegals that are here now. It's impossible. Strict legal immigration policies need to be enforced, but that can't start until you have a strict border policy.
Yes, that would be a nice first step. Other actions include...
- Stop encouraging illegal immigration
- Direct agencies to enforce existing laws against the hiring of illegals
- Ask for additional border patrol agents in his budget
- Put pressure on Mexico to stop encouraging illegal immigration
- Stop saying "mexicans just do jobs americans won't do"
- Stop calling the minutemen vigilantes
That is just a start and all without new legislation.
Pay attention, you won't look so foolish.
LOL!
And Bush is the one in charge of setting border policy. His policy has been to ignore existing immigration laws.
By actively punishing employers, new immigration would dry up. Instead, he encourages it and says that the country can't survive without it.
I have an interesting quote....
During a recent interview Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great Britain was quoted giving the following answer to one of his parliament members as to why he believes so much in America and its President. And does he think they are on the right track?Blair's reply -- "A simple way to take measure of a country is to look at.....how many want in.......and how many want to get out."
Huh? what did I miss?
FOX (through translator): And President Bush, I want to ask you about your opinion about those people who are hunting migrant people along the border. BUSH: I am against vigilantes in the United States of America. I am for enforcing law in a rational way. That's why we have a Border Patrol, and they ought to be in charge of enforcing the border.
You're wrong.
PRESIDENT BUSH: I'm against vigilantes in the United States of America. I'm for enforcing law in a rational way. That's why you got a Border Patrol, and they ought to be in charge of enforcing the border.
If you look at the actual Whitehouse transcript it shows that a reporter named Caren had asked the question to Bush, NOT Fox.
The question was asked in March of 2005. The Minutemen were on the border in April of 2005.
The question was asked in the present tense before the Minutemen were on the border and the question was asked about people "hunting" on the border without mention of the Minutemen.
The President responded to the "hunting" in-the-present-tense question asked by the reporter by equating "hunting" with vigilantism and not by equating the Minutemen(who weren't even on the border) with vigilantism. His answer was based on that.
Opps, didn`t mean you, posted on the wrong place, you are one of the few that get this.
See, pay attention! LOL!
Yes Sir
This was interesting. Calling it a day. Thanks.
"All Americans wanted fairness and they got it this evening," said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy
all that Americans got this evening is, another one up the rearend
You are a moonbat if you believe this crap.
In my town (Columbus Ohio), the majority of the people in the emergency room waiting areas are whites and blacks and no mexicans at all.
The democrat list is longer, more dangerous and is 100% committed to destroy conservatism.
I guess I will have to send a couple grand to dewine now. You have no idea who brown is. This guy is Ohio's version of Senator Boxer.
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.