Posted on 05/17/2006 12:32:49 PM PDT by BenLurkin
WASHINGTON - The Senate voted to build 370 miles of triple-layered fencing along the Mexican border Wednesday and clashed over citizenship for millions of men and women who live in the United States illegally.
Amid increasingly emotional debate over election-year immigration legislation, senators voted 83-16 to add fencing and 500 miles of vehicle barriers along the southern border. It marked the first significant victory in two days for conservatives seeking to place their stamp on the contentious measure.
The prospects were less favorable for their attempt to strip out portions of the legislation that could allow citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants and create new guest worker programs.
The Senate acted in a volatile political environment, as the White House struggled for a second day to ease the concerns of House Republicans who contend that President Bush favors amnesty for illegal immigrants.
Thousands of demonstrators massed a few blocks from the Capitol demanding immigrant rights.
Construction of the barrier would send "a signal that open-border days are over. ... Good fences make good neighbors, fences don't make bad neighbors," said Sen. Jeff Sessions (news, bio, voting record), R-Ala. He said border areas where barriers already exist have experienced economic improvement and reduced crime.
"What we have here has become a symbol for the right wing in American politics," countered Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill. He said if the proposal passed, "our relationship with Mexico would come down to a barrier between our two countries."
The Senate labored to complete work by next week on immigration legislation that generally follows an outline Bush set out in a nationally televised speech this week.
The measure includes provisions to strengthen border security, create a new guest worker program and crack down on the hiring of illegal immigrants.
Most controversially, it offers an eventual chance at citizenship for many of the estimated 11 million to 12 million illegal immigrants already in the country. Senate Republicans staged an impromptu, occasionally emotional debate over whether that amounted to amnesty.
Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana said it did. "Surely this is a pardon from what present law says must happen," he said of provisions in the bill that require immigrants to undergo background checks, pay back taxes and take other steps before they can become citizens.
Sens. John McCain and Chuck Hagel replied heatedly it was not amnesty.
"Let's stop the nonsense," said Hagel, addressing fellow Republicans. "You all know it's not amnesty." Said McCain, addressing Vitter, "Call it a banana if you want to ... to call the process that we require under this legislation amnesty frankly distorts the debate and it's an unfair interpretation of it."
Vitter sought the last word. "Methinks thou dost protest too much."
The clash erupted after Vitter sought a change in the legislation to strip out provisions of the bill that would allow for guest worker programs and give some illegal immigrants a chance at citizenship.
Supporters of the Senate measure credited Bush's prime-time Monday night speech with giving fresh momentum to the effort to pass long-stalled legislation.
Across the Capitol in the House, the story was different. Republicans pushed through a border security bill last year, and several members of the rank-and-file have criticized Bush for his proposals. To calm their concerns, the White House dispatched Karl Rove to their weekly closed-door meeting.
Rep. Steve King (news, bio, voting record), R-Iowa, an outspoken opponent of the Senate bill, derided the effort. "I didn't see it was a persuasive event. If it was about Karl Rove seeking to convince members of Congress after debate that he's right and we're wrong it would have been better not to have the meeting," he said.
King said Rove told lawmakers Bush is sincere about enforcement. But, he added, "The president doesn't want to enforce immigration law because he's afraid he'll inconvenience someone who wants to come into the country for a better life."
Rep. Peter King (news, bio, voting record), R-N.Y., agreed that Rove did not seem to have been persuasive. "It's not the kind of issue you can compromise on; either you're giving amnesty to people who are here illegally or you aren't."
At the White House, press secretary Tony Snow defended Bush against criticism. "The president is actually taking a more aggressive role on border security than the House itself took," he said. "That is the sort of thing that is going to answer a lot of the complaints that we have heard."
The National Capital Immigration Coalition organized the afternoon demonstration on the National Mall a few blocks from where lawmakers debated the issue they cared about.
"This is a critical moment. We oppose the militarization of the U.S-Mexican border," said Juan Jose Gutierrez, one of the event's organizers.
I agree on the domestic.
If he thinks a barrier on the border will destroy our relationship with Mexico he must think our relationship is based on drugs and illegals. He may be right about that, but if that is so, then it is about time to cut our losses. No one is proposing anything that will limit legal travel or legal commerce between the two countries.
I wonder if we are being blackmailed into accepting, in exchange for Border Security, a "COMPREHENSIVE" package that includes amnesty for BOTH the illegals and their employers, because, among other things, once a guest worker program is in place, the illegals are no longer illegal, and the employers are off the hook from threats and SEVERE PENALTIES of RICO lawsuits?
Maybe the RUSH to pass something in the next few weeks is because the current Senate bill even has a provision that provides 'amnesty' for prior acts by employers of illegals.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1606975/posts?page=78#78
Finally, something to get the ball rolling.
Now let's get a vote passed that ensures the remaining 75.4% of the border is fenced as well.
Even if Bush told Rove yada yada- then Rove told King, then King told the reporter...by then it is at minimum 3rd hand and surely you remember the game of gossip. I would be furious if I believed President Bush said that, but I will not believe a 3rd or more hand account of what he said. We all know how the the media distorts things.
Good One!!
The media said King said Rove said President Bush said...? That is a few too many he saids for me. I will only believe President Bush said that when I hear it from him. Whatever is going on- don't forget the media is not your friend.
The reporter did such a bad job, I'm not even sure it started out as a direct quote. I do agree the writer is ignorant, whether or not he was deliberately trying to make someone look bad is debatable.
I'm against any type of blanket amnesty for these violators. But why is the government talking about citizenship? If they are going to cave in, why go that far? A resident can live here, work, go to school, etc; they just cannot vote. Do I smell something here from our traitors in congress? You bet!
Border Sheriffs Skeptical Of President's Plan ^
Posted by RedBloodedAmerican to soccer_maniac
On News/Activism ^ 05/17/2006 4:01:27 PM EDT · 19 of 23 ^
better check that
is that a king quote or rov quote
and why are you ignroing what Bush said Monday night about law enforcement?
quit lying.
Pinging people who I know have been watching, some you posted to and they ought to know you were lying and some who might be interested that there's a troll spamming the forum.
Senate OKs Border Fence, Mulls Citizenship ^
Posted by soccer_maniac to BenLurkin
On News/Activism ^ 05/17/2006 3:44:19 PM EDT · 22 of 93 ^
Rove told lawmakers . . . “The president doesn’t want to enforce immigration law because he’s afraid he’ll inconvenience someone who wants to come into the country for a better life.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12838263
Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies
Unions Oppose Hiring of Mexican Workers ^
Posted by soccer_maniac to Tammy8
On General/Chat ^ 05/17/2006 3:43:52 PM EDT · 34 of 42 ^
Rove told lawmakers . . . “The president doesn’t want to enforce immigration law because he’s afraid he’ll inconvenience someone who wants to come into the country for a better life.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12838263
Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies
Border Sheriffs Skeptical Of President's Plan ^
Posted by soccer_maniac to RedBloodedAmerican
On News/Activism ^ 05/17/2006 3:40:42 PM EDT · 18 of 22 ^
Rove told lawmakers . . . “The president doesn’t want to enforce immigration law because he’s afraid he’ll inconvenience someone who wants to come into the country for a better life.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12838263
Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies
Senate Votes to Build 370-Mile Triple-Layered Fence on Mexican Border ^
Posted by soccer_maniac to TomasUSMC
On News/Activism ^ 05/17/2006 3:33:50 PM EDT · 105 of 171 ^
Rove told lawmakers . . . “The president doesn’t want to enforce immigration law because he’s afraid he’ll inconvenience someone who wants to come into the country for a better life.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12838263
Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies
Sean Hannity Talk Show Live Thread Wednesday 17 May 2006 ^
Posted by soccer_maniac to hattend
On News/Activism ^ 05/17/2006 3:31:23 PM EDT · 86 of 194 ^
Rove told lawmakers Bush is sincere about enforcement. But, he added, “The president doesn’t want to enforce immigration law because he’s afraid he’ll inconvenience someone who wants to come into the country for a better life.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12838263
Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies
Senate Votes to Build 370-Mile Triple-Layered Fence on Mexican Border ^
Posted by soccer_maniac to LS
On News/Activism ^ 05/17/2006 3:30:35 PM EDT · 97 of 171 ^
Rove told lawmakers Bush is sincere about enforcement. But, he added, “The president doesn’t want to enforce immigration law because he’s afraid he’ll inconvenience someone who wants to come into the country for a better life.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12838263
Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies
Folks,
Look carefully at the amendments coming out of the Senate. They are moving in the right direction. The GW program is capped at 200K. If that cap is 1) reduced a bit more in House-Senate conference and 2) requires a supermajority of 2/3 in both Senate and House to raise the number, then hell, this GW program is really small.
We're going to get some fencing from the Senate. That is clear at this point. And the House will add miles to it.
The hoops that will be created by Senate amendments to provide path to citizenship for the 11 million illegals are going to be severe. When the House - Senate conference starts, they will get more severe. Damn near none of these illegals will qualify. And frankly, those who fight the process long enough and hard enough and learn English and wait the 10 years and endure some severe punishment for their crimes . . . hell, anyone who does all that would probably make a fine American.
Don't give up yet. This process that is unfolding is moving decidedly to the right, and the House - Senate conference hasn't even started yet.
I disagree. 370 is the minimum, the House-senate conference can and likely will up it substantially. It's a start and wouldn't exist at all if the base was a bunch of passive patsies, like some freepers advocate.
"I don't agree. He is seriously addressing a 40 year in the making problem."
yes, it started 40 years ago with a bill that Kennedy wrote in 1965.
Now we are facing the horrible consequences of that bad Kennedy immigration bill, and the solution is ... McCain-Kennedy?!?
Nuts.
It's not a solution it's a surrender, that will result in 100 million new 3rd world migrants in our country in the next generation.
"He is seriously addressing"
We cannot control immigration without enforcing the law.
Let me ask you, how many illegal immigrants will be deported under McCain-Kennedy or Hagel-Martinez?
How many? Ask your senator.
How much money and effort are they putting into INS enforcement and employer verification?
How many fines for employers?
Then come back and tell us about "serious".
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.