Posted on 04/06/2006 8:33:43 AM PDT by STARWISE
WASHINGTON - In a last stab at compromise, Senate Republicans and Democrats reported progress Thursday toward agreement on legislation opening the way to legal status and eventual citizenship for many of the 11 million immigrants now in the U.S. illegally.
"There's been tremendous progress overnight," said Sen. Harry Reid (news, bio, voting record) of Nevada, the Democratic leader, while Majority Leader Bill Frist also expressed optimism that a long-sought compromise might be at hand.
There was no immediate reaction from President Bush, who has made immigration legislation a key priority.
The developments occurred after Frist unveiled a new bill late Wednesday night on the subject as the Senate headed into a test vote on the most sweeping immigration bill in two decades.
In general, the legislation would provide for enhanced border security, regulate the flow of future immigrants into the United States and settle the legal fate of the estimated 11 million men, women and children already in the country.
It was the fate of the illegal immigrant population that proved hardest to legislate, and it has left the Senate on the verge of gridlock for days.
(snip)
Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., as well as other key senators met before the vote to review terms of a proposed compromise.
In general, it would require illegal immigrants who have been in the United States between two years and five years to return to their home country briefly, then re-enter as temporary workers. They could then begin a process of seeking citizenship.
Illegal immigrants here longer than five years would not be required to return home; those in the country less than two years would be required to leave without assurances of returning, and take their place in line with others seeking entry papers.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
My post: "No, but a Mexican does have to successfully cross the border to become an illegal immigrant."
Where did I mention an RPG. I said that for a person to become an illegal immigrant, that person must cross the border.
I have to believe you are either on drugs or just trying to get the thread off topic. Either way, no more replies to you.
I don't think any of us called HR 4437 a "sell-out" - oh well, it's a minor point. So much the better, when NO BILL gets to the President's desk, your side will be grateful for the status quo.
Then please do. And I am a creationist that believes that the earth is millions of years old, and that the universe is without beginning or end ;)
And by the way, you have outed yourself as being anti-immigration in any fashion. Credibility is a hard thing to regain.
You should be listening to Lou Dobbs he's talking about the fraud in the agency that will handle this. It may go to the branch of USIS which can't handle what it has now.
http://uscis.gov/graphics/publicaffairs/DayinLife_050629.pdf
Some of the DAILY work of USIS according to their own
document: * Conduct 135,000 national security background checks * process 30,000 applications for immigrant benefits * Issue 7,000 permanent resident cards (green cards -PER DAY) * Welcome 2100 new citizens.
The policy you advocate is akin to a wife not upsetting her abusive husband for fear that he will get even more abusive.
Well, in getting all hot over replacing Republicans with Democrats, you remind me of those "Christians" who pray that their enemies get punished only to have the tornado blow by and knock down YOUR house.
Out of all the rock-solid stupid arguments for eradicating our borders this one, i.e. that it will help the Republican Party's political fortunes, is perhaps the most incomprehensibly stupid, and that's saying something.
We ARE securing the border - as some of us have been pointing out, a 100% effective barrier is a foolish waste of limited resources.
It's not even clear that he got 44% of the hispanic vote.
In any event, here is an interesting analysis...
Other nuggets from the analysis: Protestant Hispanics gave Bush a clear majority. (Most Hispanics are Roman Catholic). And voters who asked to be interviewed in Spanish were less likely to be Bush backers -- 36 percent, vs. 42 percent who did the interview in English.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26119-2004Dec25.html
It's even more simple than that.
Power comes from elections. Candidates who become Members gain power from the People.
When they abuse their power, especially when it is shown that they have lied to gain it, it's very important for their power to be taken away.
That taking away the power of these fraudulent "republicans" involves the election of Democrats is very unfortunate, but, ces't la guerre.
To fail to punish the current majority for their defalcations is a repudiation of republicanism and the principles on which this country is founded.
And to permit this majority to go on, with their bloated staffs and their anti-constitutional agenda, is to delay the emergence in this nation of a real opposition.
"You have sat too long for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!"
There's scant difference.
The border must first be sealed!
All except for the fact that there's no comparison between the two.
Yeah because I that is what I said - sheesh.
And of course that little War on Terror thing going on. The US doesn't want/need a guestworker program of any kind.
As XJarhead said above:
"I'm not saying that amnesty standing alone is desireable. I'm saying that if granting amnesty to some of the ones already here is the political compromise we have to make to get the needed votes on tightening up the border, that's better than the status quo.
All this "no amnesty under any circumstances" stuff is just childish foot stamping. If the bill we want doesn't have the votes, it doesn't have the votes. That's reality. Whining and taking our ball home isn't going to help anyone. All the folks who insist on no compromise may kill our chances to fix this problem."
A 95% effective barrier, on the other hand, is not. Thanks for the strawman, all the same.
How about Jesse Helms goes to Washington? I am dating myself, but many years ago Congress wanted a 5 cent raise in the gasoline tax. Of course, Congress was frothing at the bit to get the money.
Senator Helms, lone voice in the Senate, tried to filibuster and he was portrayed aa buffon. A Southern Buffoon at that!
Not relevant, but your post made me think of it.
Amnesty will create 12 million unemployable hispanics - how is that a solution to anything?
I'm no more ashamed of being opposed to untrammeled immigration than I am of not belonging to the Church of Scientology, or thinking that crack addicts shouldn't be eligible for Section 8 housing.
Me and all of the other "bigots," i.e. the majority of the American public, are perfectly happy to leave you and your open borders acquaintances at the table with unreconstructed Marxists, BoBo Che enthusiasts, doctrinaire leftists, Chicano racists, and people who give a bad name to the phrase Robber Baron.
You're assuming a static model. Politics doesn't work that way, especially when politicians are going so headstrong against the will of the people.
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.