| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 04/07/2006 1:27:25 PM PDT by Religion Moderator, reason:
Duplicate: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1610910/posts |
Posted on 04/07/2006 9:37:15 AM PDT by VU4G10
A carefully crafted compromise that supporters had claimed could win an overwhelming majority received only 38 of the 60 votes necessary to protect it from weakening amendments by opponents.
Republicans were united in the 38-60 parliamentary vote but Democrats, who have insisted on no amendments, lost six votes from their members.
An alternative bill by Majority Leader Bill Frist — with no provision to let illegal immigrants stay but imposing large fines on employers who hire them — received even less support in a 36-62 test vote.
Earlier Friday, President Bush prodded lawmakers to keeping trying to reach an agreement, but both sides said the odds were increasing that a breakthrough would not occur until Congress returns from a two-week recess.
"An immigration system that forces people into the shadows of our society, or leaves them prey to criminals is a system that needs to be changed," Bush said at the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast. "I'm confident that we can change our immigration system in ways that secures our border, respects the rule of law, and, as importantly, upholds the decency of our country."
Democrats and Republicans blamed each other for the stalemate.
"It's not gone forward because there's a political advantage for Democrats not to have an immigration bill," said Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa.
He said Democrats perceive a benefit in having only a GOP-written House bill that criminalizes being an illegal immigrant. That bill has prompted massive protests across the country, including a march by 500,000 people in Los Angeles last month.
Democrats blamed Republicans for insisting on amendments that would weaken a compromise that Senate leaders in both parties had celebrated Thursday.
"This opportunity is slipping through our hands like grains of sand," said assistant Senate Democratic leader Dick Durbin of Illinois.
The election-year legislation is designed to enhance border security and regulate the flow of future temporary workers as well as affect the lives of illegal immigrants.
It separates illegal immigrants now in the U.S. into three categories.
Illegal immigrants here more than five years could work for six years and apply for legal permanent residency without having to leave the country. Those here two years to five years would have to go to border entry points sometime in next three years, but could immediately return as temporary workers. Those here less than two years would have to leave and wait in line for visas to return.
The bill also provides a new program for 1.5 million temporary agriculture industry workers over five years. It includes provisions requiring employers to verify they've hired legal workers and calls for a "virtual" fence of surveillance cameras, sensors and other technology to monitor the nearly 2,000-mile U.S.-Mexican border.
Demonstrations in support of the compromise were planned for Monday across the nation, including one in Washington that organizers claimed would draw 100,000 people.
The acrimony in the Senate at Thursday night's end was a sharp contrast to the accolades 14 members of both parties traded just hours earlier when they announced their compromise.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist called it tragic "that we in all likelihood are not going to be able to address a problem that directly affects the American people."
The House has passed legislation limited to border security, but Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., and other leaders have signaled their willingness in recent days to broaden the bill in compromise talks with the Senate.
But Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., said anything with what he called amnesty would not get agreement from a majority in the House.
The immigration debate has given the American public a glimpse of what may lay ahead in 2008 GOP presidential politics.
Frist, R-Tenn., a potential presidential candidate in 2008, sought to establish more conservative credentials when he initially backed a bill limited to border security. At the same time, he has repeatedly called for a comprehensive bill — adopting Bush's rhetoric — and involved himself in the fitful negotiations over the past several days.
|
Suits me fine that this didn't pass. It was a lousy bill - too many loopholes, too much money, too, too, too much amnesty and not enough securing the borders.
Good riddance to bad rubbish. A bad bill for the sake of claiming to have done something doesn't interest me.
Well, hey, then, if disobeying immigration laws force people into the shadows, and that's a bad thing, then we should repeal drug laws, too - drug dealers shouldn't have to fear the law when they are selling the drugs that Americans want. We should make them legal now.
I am really beginning to think that Bush, having gotten our votes in 2004 despite having done so many things that ran counter to basic conservative values, now believes he can insult our intelligence with this kind of nonsensical blather and he won't get called on it.
Looks like they want this issue to cool down and switch the National debate to something else, I'm sure the MSM will oblige.
Illegal immigrants here more than five years could work for six years and apply for legal permanent residency without having to leave the country. Those here two years to five years would have to go to border entry points sometime in next three years, but could immediately return as temporary workers. Those here less than two years would have to leave and wait in line for visas to return.
------
This statement alone, to say nothing of the lunacy of the rest of how Washington is trying to sweep their malfeasance under the rug, says it all about Washington. Who and how, is ANYONE going to be able to VERIFY how long an illegal has been in this country??? Hmmmm ??? One day or one year?? All they have to do is LIE!! So all this does is perpetuate the CRIMINALITY AND FRAUD of the illegals. It solves nothing...
I think this is the vote the article is talking about. Please give kudos to the 5 Democrat senators that votes 'NAY'.
Well that didn't take long. Now that that stupid crap is behind us can we please give the decision making process over to the grown ups?
A step in the right direction. We've got the laws on the books already. All we need is a president with the stones to do the right thing and stop acting like Neville Chamberlain.
You give Bush way too much power.
If Tom Tancredo was president the dems would still be able to block the house bill in the senate with the filibuster.
If the president doesn't have 60 solid republicans on his side in the senate he can't get anything done.
Oh my gosh...Lincoln Chafee voted with the Pubbies.
How 'bout one that forces them back across the Rio Grande?
What kind of nonsense response is that? I was discussing something Bush said in a speech. The Senate Dems don' filibuster what he says.
All I get from you is one of the ten or so boilerplate responses from the usual suspects, many of which are used, like this one, completely out of context from the post in question.
And, once again, if Bush was against amnesty, it would take 67 votes to override his veto, as opposed to 60 votes to break a filibuster. So his positions DO matter.
That's true but at least Tancredo would make an attempt to enforce the law and then maybe we wouldn't be at this point to begin with.
I love the spineless analogy. It is becoming more apparent everyday.
I am really beginning to think that Bush, having gotten our votes in 2004 despite having done so many things that ran counter to basic conservative values, now believes he can insult our intelligence with this kind of nonsensical blather and he won't get called on it."
Really? Funny. Bush got the largest percentage of Hispanic votes, ever. Think maybe Bush knows that this won't pass and is keeping the Hispanics in the fold by wanting this bill?
If Bush didn't have the Hispanic vote in 04 we would be arguing now about President Kerry. Remember that.
And if he keeps it up, the GOP will lose far more votes from the conservative base. Even Rush is all over the GOP for this nonsense.
"If Bush didn't have the Hispanic vote in 04 we would be arguing now about President Kerry."
I find it disappointing that Hispanic voters, presumably here legally either by birth or proper immigration procedures, would side with legislation enabling illegals.
Are they Americans or not?
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.