Characterizing this as backing down is ridiculous. The house and the senate are not going to get their specific bills. They will have to be reconciled. Something has to give or there will be no bill.
That is the wording of the headline in the Washington Times.
But yet some will jump all over it.
If they vote for anything resembling the Senate bill the Republicans can kiss power goodbye.
Better no bill than a guest worker amnesty.
Could'a saved time and just keyed your last 5 words. ;)
The only bill that will be enacted is the Reconquista/amnesty disaster that just passed the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Are you actually suggesting that passing a bill that will ensure the GOP forfeits both houses of Congress-which it is already in danger of doing already-and gives amnesty to millions of illegal aliens is preferable to the status quo?
"...there will be no bill."
At least not before the 2006 elections. The RATs and RINOs need something to campaign on and will tell their constituents whatever they want to hear. If the group is anti, they will be anti; if the group is pro, they will be pro. There will be so much flip-flopping, you will think Kerry is running in every election.
Fortunately it has a long way to go to become law, and we need to push our representatives to fix or kill it and replace it with better legislation.
There's a lot of rhetoric being tossed around. Characterizing Boehner's comment as hinting at backing down is reading a lot into a short comment. I'm ntosure it's really helpful to the debate, though I do support the underlying message of keeping pressure on COngress to make sure they pass a law that addresses illegal immigration rahter than sweeping it under the table again and letting it get worse.
No bill would be better than the path to legalization for the illegals which just makes them pay $2000 in fines and puts them in front of all those who stayed in their home country and filled out the paperwork for the official legal slots available.
If you let the line-cutters get away with it, everybody will cut in line.
I would like to see a couple house provisions lost, but we have to send the line-cutters to the back of the line.
And that's the way tom tancredo wants it. He has to keep those PAC donations flowing.
Oh, don't rain on the boo-birds' parade. They wake up every morning, looking for another conspiracy.
Then let there be no will. Outside of the beltway, among people who are here legally, the overwhelming majority of people do not want to see either a guest worker program or an amnesty.
The "back down" part comes in the extremely tepid defense of the House bill. Now we know why those House Republicans who wanted to control the border thought Boehner's election was a disaster.
There will have to be a compromise. The House will have to tell the senate in conference that they will only accept their plan if the senate accepts the border fence. Bottom line: A border fence requirement in the final bill is essential one way or another. The House better not back down from the fence!
Something has to give or there will be no bill.
Absolutely correct.
I don't think the DemocRATS want a bill because then they can use it as a club to Reps in the election. DemocRats never ever want solutions to any problems unless it can be fixed with more taxes.
How about NO bill?
Let's just enforce the laws we already HAVE on trhe books about illegal immigrants?
Under Title 8 Section 1325 of the U.S. Code, "Improper Entry by Alien," any citizen of any country other than the United States who:
-Enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers; or
-Eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers; or
-Attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact;
has committed a federal crime.
Violations are punishable by criminal fines and imprisonment for up to six months. Repeat offenses can bring up to two years in prison. Additional civil fines may be imposed at the discretion of immigration judges, but civil fines do not negate the criminal sanctions or nature of the offense.
Furthermore....
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act in 1996; (Deportation and exclusion procedures were consolidated, effective April 1, 1997.)
-The president can deport any alien who was deemed dangerous.
Why do we need MORE laws when the ones we have are GOOD enough?