Posted on 05/11/2006 8:15:29 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON - After months of partisan maneuvering, Senate passage of sweeping immigration legislation is virtually assured by Memorial Day. But that scarcely ends the struggle in Congress, given the vast differences between President Bush and House Republicans over the fate of millions of illegal immigrants.
The substance of the Senate bill is unlikely to change significantly from the measure that was stuck in gridlock more than a month ago. It includes additional border security, a new guest worker program and provisions opening the way to eventual citizenship for many of the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the country.
What changed was that after weeks of exchanging insults, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee and Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., agreed on a procedural compromise that gives the bill's critics ample opportunity to offer amendments. It also offers assurances to Democrats that Senate negotiators will not simply capitulate to demands of House conservatives in talks on compromise legislation later in the year.
However briefly, nearly everyone seemed pleased.
"We congratulate the Senate on reaching agreement and we look forward to passage of a bill prior to Memorial Day," said Dana Perino, deputy White House press secretary. Reid and Frist exchanged compliments on the Senate floor. Mexico's foreign secretary said in a statement that the deal was a "positive step toward the approval of a migration accord."
Everyone but House Republicans, many of whom criticize the Senate's bill as an amnesty measure. And possibly House Democrats, who, ironically enough, seem to share the White House view of the political implications of immigration. They are eager to campaign against Republicans responsible for last year's bill to make all illegal immigrants subject to felony charges.
Looking ahead, the White House is searching for ways to assure conservatives that Bush understands their concerns. White House strategist Karl Rove met with lawmakers earlier in the week, and at least one session included a discussion about making greater use of National Guard troops to shore up border security.
"Nobody is suggesting that we put troops on the border," said Sen. Lamar Alexander (news, bio, voting record), R-Tenn., who attended the session. "We are suggesting there are plenty of resources in the government" to increase border security, at least in an interim period while provisions in the pending legislation take hold, he said.
"The National Guard can in some cases help do that," he added. Other lawmakers said they expected Bush to announce border security improvements next week, possibly in a speech in Arizona or another border states.
The differences between Bush and House Republicans flared dramatically when the Senate appeared on the verge of agreement on a comprehensive bill several weeks ago. Several GOP conservatives denounced the bill as an amnesty measure and Rep. Steve King (news, bio, voting record) of Iowa said anyone who voted for it should be "branded with a scarlet letter A."
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (news, bio, voting record), R-Calif., offered his view of the importance of immigrant labor: "I say let the prisoners pick the fruits."
In political terms, Rep. J.D. Hayworth (news, bio, voting record) of Arizona and others said Republicans would pay a price in the midterm elections if they vote for anything like the Senate legislation. "Many of those who have stood for the Republican Party for the last decade are not only angry. They will be absent in November," Hayworth said.
Given Bush's recent erosion of support among conservatives, as measured in polls, there's been no evident change in sentiment among his congressional critics.
The political calculations are different at the White House. Hispanics comprise the nation's fastest growing minority, according to this line of reasoning, and no political party can afford to be seen as blind or even hostile to their concerns and the desire of their relatives to join them in the United States.
Bush and top House Republicans reviewed the issue last week at a private White House meeting, according to several officials, and the president urged the GOP congressional leadership to embrace his call for comprehensive legislation. That means provisions to strengthen border security, coupled with a guest worker program that — while the president doesn't say so in public — provides a chance at citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants.
House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill. and other leaders stressed that would be a hard sell with their rank and file. Bush restated his desire for a comprehensive bill, and the leadership responded by noting the sentiment of the rank and file, according to officials familiar with the conversation. They spoke on condition of anonymity, given the private nature of the meetings.
___
EDITOR'S NOTE — David Espo is chief congressional correspondent for The Associated Press.
"It also offers assurances to Democrats that Senate negotiators will not simply capitulate to demands of House conservatives in talks on compromise legislation later in the year."
THAT says it all.
So is DHS going to be tipping off the Mexicans as to where the National Guard is patrolling?
A good portion of prisoners in Calif ARE illegals!
yes, you are correct.
but look at the flipside - we can keep the status quo, albeit with more illegals coming. or we can grant a amnesty and a citizenship path, which will mean millions more who would think about coming, will surely make their move right away. and we know the border security measures won't materialzie, especially in the short term.
That means provisions to strengthen border security, coupled with a guest worker program that — while the president doesn't say so in public — provides a chance at citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants.
"the president doesn't say so in public..."
Yea, imagine that. Kinda wants to just "breeze over that."
Here is a little something to "skim over" as well. Might even tack it in one of those morning briefings. Emphasis added, with extreme prejudice.
Seems to me that the Founding Fathers were pretty clever in putting that instruction in The Unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united* States of America (Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776). By placing that instruction there it is not subject to amendments or change. It is there forever.
"the voters will let their voices be heard by making the unbiased, non partisan Nancy Pelosi speaker this fall."
LOL!
Are you living on this planet? She is a far left moonbat.
She will not be speaker of the House, not this fall, not ever.
"Does this make you happier than if no bill emerges from the Senate at all before Nov?"
Seeing the previous legislative disasters like the Medicare prescription drug bill, where the Bush administration pounded on the table for *something* just so they could declare victory ... there is a great risk of letting a pro-amnesty bill get into conference. What will come out will be a 'comprehensive' monstrous compromise that Bush will twist arms to get passed, and the lemmings will jump off the cliff. Say goodbye to GOP majority for the next generation... say hello, Speaker Pelosi.
It's mind-boggling to think our GOP leaders are this deaf, dumb and blind, to go for something this unpopular an dwrong right before a tough election that their own base dislikes, ... but they wouldnt be pushing this rope if they werent, right?
Since Sen Frist has already caved by giving the Dems a huge voice in the conference committee (something like 14 Democrats - yuck), we *CANNOT* trust that what comes out of the committee will be any good, no matter what goes *INTO* it. The 'compromise' Hagel-Martinez was exposed as being 95% Kennedy's bill with loopholes galore by Sen Sessions.
Since I dont trust the Senate at all on this issue now, the best action on the Senate floor is inaction.
Here's the best scenario for Republicans other than inaction ... The Senate amends the Spectre fiasco to the point where it is close to Kyl-Cornyn type position - a temp worker program and *NO* path from illegal to citizenship. Even better: Frist calls for an up-or-down vote on enforcement-only bill. This is such a brilliant political move that would expose and deflate the Democrats, there is a 0% chance GOP Senate would try it.
"Email to my Senior Senator, just sent:
Senator Frist:
I am baffled by the tone deafness you and your fellow politicians exhibit on the immigration issue. Every one of you knows by now that the vast majority of AMERICANS totally reject the idea of any so-called comprehensive immigration reform instead of a simple bill that addresses these two issues alone: (1) Stop the INVASION by illegal aliens by any and all appropriate means, and (2) punish - SEVERELY - the employers that violate the law by hiring illegal aliens.
The ONLY secondary issues you should consider are the technical means to directly support these primary purposes.
Perhaps you think that we will forget what you are doing to us by election time, or by some time in the more distant future when the furor has subsided. I assure you, the furor may end, but the absolute FURY will NEVER subside. Far better to save your President from this folly than to join him in it. This is political suicide, and I am amazed that you lemmings don't realize how close you are to the edge of the cliff. Jump over, and there will be no way back for a single one of you."
GOOD EMAIL. Now let's send it to all 55 GOP Senators.
(Denny Crane: "Every one should carry a gun strapped to their waist. We need more - not less guns.")
"President Bush has made some mistakes but he is right on this issue. Who do you choose? Gore, Kerry, or Hillary?"
Right on which issue? And which position?
Thing is, I believed President Bush and agreed with him when he castigated amnesty as a bad idea. Right on! That quote is still on the White House web pages:
" Temporary Worker Program Should Not Provide Amnesty. Granting amnesty would be unfair because it would allow those who break the law to jump ahead of people who play by the rules and wait in the citizenship line. Amnesty would also encourage future waves of illegal immigration, increase pressure on the border, and make it more difficult for law enforcement to focus on those who mean us harm. For the sake of justice and the sake of border security, the President firmly opposes amnesty."
Then there is his recent support for AMNESTY in the Senate immigration bills... such as:
Michelle Malkin - 'betrayal' ...
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/005075.htm
"And Sen. Sam Brownback, Kansas Republican, said Mr. Bush "endorsed the concept of an earned citizenship."
That would represent a substantial change on the part of the Bush administration, which just last year said it opposed a path to citizenship for those currently here illegally."
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12754924/
... So which position to take? And why take the position that is deflecting away from solving the real problem?
Amnesty is not a solution, it's a cop-out and invitation to make the problem worse.
I'm confused.
No, I'm just being sarcastic. :)
Sometimes you have to laugh cause you'll go insane if you don't.
Republicans aren't going to lose this fall - look at their opposition.
Would you vote for the party of Sheehan?
How is that possible? Bush is hated by his own party according to many. What can he offer except bad poll numbers? I think it is more likely an enforcement only law is signed than a compromise guest worker bill, but time will tell. Your opinion is typical of many Freepers. I reject your assumed premises and consequences, but I don't desire to argue with you...rather I seek to understand you.
my real, and perhaps poorly worded, question to you was...
Given these 2 scenarios, is one preferable to you?
The House passes a strong enforcement only bill, but the Senate fails to pass a law...or...
The conference committee comes up with a bill that barely resemble the House bill. The House rejects the conference committee bill...Again no law before the elections.
Same result, different path. In a nut shell...would the House rejecting the conference bill make you feel better about the GOP?
"What will come out will be a 'comprehensive' monstrous compromise that Bush will twist arms to get passed, and the lemmings will jump off the cliff."
"How is that possible? "
Since it happened before, on a bill that Democrats mostly opposed (Medicare), and now there is a bipartisan desire to sellout on amnesty, why NOT expect it? What do you think Bush was doing 2 weeks back when he held hands with Reid and Frist (see WH website! they were *proud* of that! gack!) ... he may have little capital left, but what he has he's squandering on this ill-conceived mission to make our immigration problems worse by giving illegals citizenship.
expect it again, but this time with Democrats jumping on board. The worse the bill is, the more Democrats will like it, with worst case a RINO+Democrat full amnesty bill.
"What can he offer except bad poll numbers?"
If the bad poll numbers havent dissuaded him from political suicide yet, nothing will.
" I think it is more likely an enforcement only law is signed than a compromise guest worker bill, but time will tell."
Well, Presidential leadership will have a lot to do with it. If Bush makes clear he WONT sign an amnesty bill.
"Given these 2 scenarios, is one preferable to you?
The House passes a strong enforcement only bill, but the Senate fails to pass a law...or...
The conference committee comes up with a bill that barely resemble the House bill. The House rejects the conference committee bill...Again no law before the elections."
First is obvious better choice. Have a breakdown in the Senate NOW, before it gets out of hand.
You HAVE to understand that the latter scenario, of sending a bad bill into conference with over a dozen pro-amnesty Senators, would be very very troubling and would split Republican votes and be only a downer for GOP politically.
Any good bill will be stymied by the Democrats, and a bad bill will be supported. ... Again, I am SURE the Democrats would vote in a way to give the most heartburn to conservatives ... do not think House conservatives have the veto power here, peel off 20 RINOs and the Democrats might put an awful bill on the President's desk. And, alas, he'd sign it.
Last thought: A near-miss of a bad bill this session + Democrat gains means a worse bill next session ...
Thank you for your reply.
Let me see, party of sheehan or party of amnesty....not alot of choices.
susie
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.