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 ...
You are of course assuming that these "inside the beltway" toads can understand why they lost? I seriously doubt it.
You keep on posting this picture, but I notice you never post a picture of Souter. Why is that?
This is an "apples and oranges" comparison, since the daft-dodgers were American citizens from the get-go. But the answer to your question is "yes". I served. They can serve. Or leave and stay gone. No free lunch for cowardice.
"What if part of this 'amnesty' requires everyone to get in line AFTER those already seeking legal status the right way?"
I oppose amnesty under any and all conditions. No reward for breaking the law. Is that really so hard to understand?
By the way, you can stop putting the word "amnesty" in quotes, because amnesty is what is being discussed here. Any pretense otherwise is pure sophism.
As far as I know he was. It's not possible to stop it in the Senate but there's still hope for the House. That said, Republicans are such spineless wimps, they will cave under pressure.
Oh boy, with that kind of approach, just wait till she-who-must-not-be-named gets in there.
The time to fix the problem of incumbents is to remove them at time of primaries.
I really want to start seeing heads roll.
A good place to start would be with John McLame's Mini-Me, Lyndsay "The Goober" Graham.
Someone needs to run against him in a Republican primary exclusively on an anti-immigration platform, so that the open borders lobby can't shrug off the loss and chalk it up to some other issue the voters were disgruntled over.
the "dems are worse/we'll lose both houses"arguement no longer carries any weight with me
"If you're not pissed-off now, then something's wrong."
Agree. The USSC had Kelo v. City of New London, now Congress has its `Guest Worker' legislation.
"Guest worker". Now, that's really rich! I had friends in San Ysidro, their "guests" left piles of trash, cigarettes and `skat' in their backyard for them in the middle of the night.
See, legislation is fun! They're 'lawmakers', get it? You can put your name on a shiny, new bill . . .
but seeing that the Justice Dept. enforces old, crummy laws, gee, that stuff's for the birds.
The whole RINO vs "real" Republican's a ridiculous argument. I live in a state with a RINO governor (Arnie), and I sure as Heck know the difference between him and a Democrat like Bustamante.
If the Democrat had been in power instead of the RINO I would be living in a state where gays could marry and women would have driver's licenses. Geesh.
We'll see how well the Repubs do with it this November.
>but I notice you never post a picture of Souter. Why is that?
I don't have one.
You forgot Brownback. I know him, and can tell you most of his strongest supporters in Kansas are furious, and ready to call for his resignation.
You forgot Brownback. I know him, and can tell you most of his strongest supporters in Kansas are furious, and ready to call for his resignation.
The USA Dream Act, or some such nonsense.
I feel like we're living out some Kafkaesque piece of literature.
People can't really be this shortsighted.
Right. You'll have a Boxer or Finkelstein dynasty instead of a RINO.
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.