Posted on 05/17/2006 4:21:08 PM PDT by notes2005
WASHINGTON - The Senate agreed to give millions of illegal immigrants a shot at U.S. citizenship and backed construction of 370 miles of triple-layered fencing along the Mexican border Wednesday, but prospects of the legislation clearing Congress were clouded by a withering attack against President Bush by a prominent House Republican.
"Regardless of what the president says, what he is proposing is amnesty," said Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and the lawmaker who would lead House negotiators in any attempt to draft a compromise immigration bill later this year.
He said Bush had "basically turned his back" on a tough border security bill after encouraging the House to pass it last year.
Sensenbrenner's blast underscored the deep Republican divisions on immigration, and coincided with a clash among GOP senators on the Senate floor.
"This is not amnesty, so let's get the terms right," Sen. Chuck Hagel (news, bio, voting record) of Nebraska lectured fellow Republicans who condemned the bill. "Come on. Let's stop the nonsense."
"It sort of reminds me of the famous line, `Methinks thou dost protest too much,'" responded Sen. David Vitter, R-La., who repeatedly described the legislation as an amnesty bill for lawbreakers.
Ironically, the votes on the Senate floor gave fresh momentum to legislation that closely follows Bush's call for a broader bill that addresses the legal status of illegal immigrants as well as providing for a new guest worker program. Senate passage appears likely next week.
The political wheels turned as demonstrators massed within sight of the Capitol demanding greater rights for immigrants, the latest evidence of rising passions in connection with efforts to write the most significant overhaul of immigration law in two decades.
With the administration eager to emphasize its commitment to border security, officials continued to flesh out details of Bush's Monday night announcement that he would send up to 6,000 National Guard troops to states along the Mexican border.
Lt. Gen. Steven Blum, chief of the National Guard Bureau, raised the possibility that Guard members could be sent over the objections of a state's governor.
"If a governor truly did not want this mission performed in their state, then the option is there for the president and the secretary of defense to federalize the Guard. And then the mission would be conducted, and then it would be without the control of the governor," he said.
Vitter led the drive to strip from the bill a provision giving an eventual chance at citizenship to illegal immigrants who have been in the country more than two years. His attempt failed, 66-33, at the hands of a bipartisan coalition, and the provision survived. In all, 41 Democrats joined with 24 Republicans and one independent to turn back the proposal. Opponents included the leaders of both parties, Sens. Bill Frist, R-Tenn., and Harry Reid, D-Nev. Thirty-one Republicans and two Democrats supported Vitter's amendment.
The vote to build what supporters called a "real fence" — as distinct from the virtual fence already incorporated in the legislation — was 83-16. It marked the first significant victory for conservatives eager to leave their stamp on a measure that looks increasingly like it is headed toward Senate passage.
Construction 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 are in place 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."
All Republicans and more than half the Senate's Democrats supported the proposal. A core group of bill supporters who have held off other more serious challenges in the past two days made little attempt to fight this one, judging it far less damaging than the attack on the citizenship provision or an attempt on Tuesday to strip out a guest worker program.
The Senate labored to complete work by next week on immigration legislation that generally follows an outline Bush set out in his 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 as well as the controversial steps offering illegal immigrants an eventual opportunity to become citizens.
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 discuss immigration with the House Republicans at 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."
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.
ping
"This is not amnesty, so let's get the terms right,"
P-A-R-D-O-N
Whats wrong with this sentence? First it is ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION as the issue not immigration. Second, ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS have no rights so you cannot add to them!
"Path to Citizenship" ping
So if milllions of people robs banks, they too can look forward to amnesty. So hey gang, what are we waiting for?? I get dibs on Citibank!!
Yes, that would be the point.
sw
No Amnesty for politicians who vote for amnesty.
why do we fight in Iraq but shut our eyes to the invasion here?
A waste ......a waste......
what has happened to the American spirit?
That would be about half the population of earth, Presidente Bush!
"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."
"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.house.gov/
Here's a plan even the Democrats will love.......... Millions of people are trying to get into this country.
Let's make some big bucks on that fact.
First....set a number of legal immigrants each year...say 1,2 or 3 million.
Second....run a lottery that's open to the whole world.....criminals not eligible......
Each chance will cost $1000 and the drawing will occur every 3 months.
Potential immigrants can submit as many chances as they want....so the richer people with education and higher skills have an advantage.
I'd be conservative if I said the government would make several $billions each year.....
money that could be invested in tighter border security, more guards or fences.
This would work if illegal entry was punishable in every instance with a severe fine and or instant deportation.
Children born to illegals while on American soil would not become instant citizens...
This plan would be much fairer than allowing a disproportionate number of Mexicans to cross the border.
It would take some backbone but it would send a clear message to the entire world that a life in America is a privilege.
The alternative will mean civil war.
When the economy cycles into the next recession, Mexicans and Anglos will be literally fighting hand to hand for the few available jobs!
The day they get amnesty I want a call from the Courthouse in Spokane to setup a date so I can go and take the oath and get my citizenship...
Amnesty is a load of crap, why do they get to jump right in with both feet, it's an insult to all of use who have played the INS/DHS hoop jumping game.
{/PO'd
I heard an interesting argument when reading a Rush transcript. Compare their attitude on the war on drugs to the war on ILLEGAL immigration. They don't throw their hands up in despair and say we can't stop the war on drugs do they? They sure do when it comes to illegal immigration.
And I heard there's 500 miles of additional vehicle barriers approved by the Senate as well.
This is a good start.
Let's get control of the borders and then decide how to handle those who are already here.
I have no problem with productive and contributing people being given a chance at citizenship when all is said and done.
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.