Compromise Ping!
In my line of work, 'compromise' is a very bad word.
Posted on 04/03/2006 7:36:42 PM PDT by Aussie Dasher
Republican senators uncertain of support for a proposal to allow illegal immigrants with jobs to remain in this country reached for a compromise late Monday to bolster votes for the measure.
Meeting into the evening in the office of Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., the lawmakers considered allowing illegal immigrants who have been in the country more than five years or other connections to the United States to remain legally and eventually seek citizenship.
"We're looking at the roots concept, and that is if they have been here more than five years," Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said after leaving the meeting. "That is a reasonable line as to people who have roots who ought to be treated differently. And if they have been here less then five years, they do not have roots to the same extent and can be treated differently, and that is what we're looking at."
The fate of those with less time in the country was unclear, but Specter, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, suggested they might be asked to go to ports of entry, like the Texas border city of El Paso.
A similar proposal was made in Specter's committee for younger, unmarried and more recent illegal immigrants before they re-entered as authorized guest workers.
Specter said the proposals _ mostly brought forward by Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb. _ would be spelled out to other Republicans on Tuesday morning.
"What we're trying to figure out is something which will be workable so 11 million undocumented will come forward, not create a fugitive class," he said.
The evening work was a sign of the pressure senators are feeling to get a bill passed by week's end. Hagel and Sen. Mel Martinez, R-Fla., who also participated in the meeting, said they were looking for a bill that would appeal to a broader base and clear the Senate to begin negotiations with the House.
The House passed a tougher bill last year that would make being in the country illegally a felony.
The Senate began its second week of debate Monday on immigration, but had yet to resolve which of three major proposals it would move forward.
A bill approved by the Judiciary Committee _ based on a proposal by Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass. _ would allow illegal immigrants in the United States before Jan. 7, 2004 and who have jobs, to work legally for an additional six years and eventually become citizens. The proposal has drawn opposition from some who consider it amnesty.
A proposal by Frist does not deal with illegal immigrants but boosts border enforcement and cracks down on employers who hire illegal workers.
A third bill proposed by Sens. John Cornyn, R-Texas and Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., would give illegal immigrants up to five years to leave the country before they can return legally to apply for permanent residence or be guest workers.
Earlier Monday, the Senate voted 91-1 in favor of a proposal by Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., to allow legal immigrants fluent in English to become U.S. citizens in four years rather than five.
An estimated 7.2 million legal permanent residents have lived in the United States long enough to become Americans, according to the Homeland Security Department's Citizenship and Immigration Services office. The wait to become an American is five years, three years if the legal permanent resident marries a U.S. citizen.
Alexander said a shorter naturalization wait might motivate more green card holders to seek U.S. citizenship.
"After we secure our borders, after we create a legal status for foreigners who work here and study here, the third indispensable step is to help prospective citizens become Americans," Alexander said.
His measure also up to $500 in vouchers to immigrants to pay for English courses and grants to groups that provide classes in U.S. history and civics, paid for by a portion of fees collected from applicants for naturalization, green cards and other immigration benefits.
President Bush is backing proposals for temporary work programs as a way "because that will relieve pressure off the border," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said.
"It will allow our Border Patrol agents to focus on the criminals and the terrorists, the smugglers and traffickers that are trying to come into this country for the wrong reasons."
Also Monday, the Senate voted 84-6 in favor of providing $50 million over five years for crime fighting by local law enforcement agencies within 100 miles of the U.S.-Mexican border. The House authorized $100 million over a year for local officials within 25 miles of the border.
Earlier, a Senate panel wrestled with how to reduce a backlog of immigration cases in federal appeals courts. Most of the appeals involve people seeking asylum or those who are refugees. The appeals have risen from 1,723 cases in 2000 to 12,349 in 2005.
Sen. Lamar Alexander's amendment is S1815.
Has Arlen checked into what Scottish law has to say about this?
...then they'll get royally screwed in November, and they know it. They're dealing from a position of weakness. If only our side would recognize that and act accordingly.
The House bill,which most voting for it knew very well would never become law, is "good" only with regard to the Senate amnesty bill.
There are not 100 congressmen who would vote for what needs to be done.
Neither do most people on our side, including Tancredo. This column of his is quite eye-opening on that. The "felon" provision was a poison pill that was supported by most Democrat Representatives.
"If the other side is about to pass a horrible bill...
...then they'll get royally screwed in November, and they know it."
I wish that was true, but I don't think it is. Assume a RINO Congressman votes for amnesty. What are the voter's choices? A RINO or a Dem who also wants amnesty. Plus, the immigration issue will be a moot point after an amnesty bill- the 12 million illegals will suddenly be legal guest workers. Illegal immigration won't be a very big issue for a decade or so. I probably won't vote at all if an amnesty bill passes.
NEWSFLASH TO ALL:
Five years is a REDUCTION of the current TEN YEARS REQUIRED RIGHT NOW for an illegal in this country to apply for a hardship stay. Five years is even less than the six years that was previously required in the 1990's!
I think the REAL polling says very bad news for the senators.
The real translation is SENATORS ARE TRYING TO SAVE AMNESTY PROGRAM!
And where are the provisions in any of these bills to discontinue entitlement and/or gov. assistance to the parasitic invaders?
And your reasoning is ...?
Dear GOP,
Whenever something leaks:
1. FIRST, you fix the leak.
2. NEXT, you clean up the mess.
3. THEN, you think about how you can prevent it from happening again.
Thanks.
The repubs handed that "felon" provision very poorly.
Well this gives me some hope. Some of those are good sense proposals. That coupled with border protection would make a good bill.
Excellent article!
Oh and on to something really important Florida won the National Champioship. Go SEC
ping
Yes, perhaps, except recent history over Dubai proves otherwise. You can scrap the idea they are afraid to oppose Bush. And, btw, I despise what they did over Dubai, but as an example it holds up very well against your theory.
If I want to wear rose colored glasses I take this story at face value.
At face value it indicates the amnesty boosters are having trouble getting enough Reps onboard for Specter/McCain/Kennedy's collaborative efforts that they are being forced to give somewhat on border security concerns/English mandated and so forth in the proposals to lure a few more votes their way. This could mean calls to them are working, as well the "500,000" march hurt their cause.
Cynically, I fall in line with what another suggested. It's similiar to what they did with ANWR. The House played the bad guy while the Senate pretended it had enough votes for passage. IMO, it was an orchetrated stunt.
Until shown otherwise, IMO, the House directly at risk in district elections went hardline knowing the Senate would never fall in line. The Senate takes the opposite approach and appears completely irresponsible. In the end they 'concede' a few points in the Senate, and the House "claims" victory because without their hardline approach nothing would have been done. The Senate claims victory because they got their precious blessing on illegals.
Or so, imo, is their plan if they can fool enough people.
In the end amnesty happens. The only question is how much pro-border enforcement proponents get out of this scheme. I'm not hopeful.
Thank God someone is thinking. I been screaming that the votes to "deport them all" were not there. What will be interesting to see is what the Dems do. I am talking about individual dems. Besides a few they have been silent it seems. A few might break and endorse a good bill so it doesnt hurt them come election time. That would negate the hard core conservatives that are yelling no compromise. Of course I expect that the Dem leadership would be infuriated but I don't think they can hold a party line vote on this if a decent proposal comes down that has security and a reasonable guest worker program.
GOP Senators Seek Immigration Compromise ... followed by minority status.
In my line of work, 'compromise' is a very bad word.
Great if one happens to be a d@mn yankee. "Send them to Texas". How about we have YOU deal with them? You organize your local LEO round them up, pay for the bus, and deport them. Texas will never bear the brunt of Yankee ignorance. Since y'all know how to do everything so well, YOU pay for it. Or p*ss off, and build your own wall. Start with New Jersey. And have a nice day.
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.