Posted on 05/25/2006 2:46:41 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON - Legislation offering millions of illegal immigrants a chance at U.S. citizenship moved to the brink of Senate passage Thursday, a rare reach across party lines and a triumph for President Bush.
Majority Leader Bill Frist called for swift talks with the House, which has passed its own version, in what loomed as an arduous search for compromise.
Underscoring bipartisan support in the Senate, Frist, R-Tenn., and Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada announced in advance they would support the measure. It was months in the drafting and narrowly survived several brushes with disaster across more than a week of debate.
The legislation calls for stronger border security, a new guest worker program and — most controversially — provisions giving many of the illegal immigrants in the country an eventual chance to become citizens. Another provision would establish a new system to verify the legal status of workers, and punish employers who knowingly hire illegal laborers.
Conservatives attacked the bill to the end after trying unsuccessfully to pick it apart with amendments.
"This bill will not secure our borders," said Sen. Jeff Sessions (news, bio, voting record), R-Ala., one of the most persistent critics.
"This is amnesty," said Sen. David Vitter, R-La., who tried last week to strip out provisions relating to citizenship.
Together, Sessions and Vitter echoed the views of numerous House Republicans, many of whom have vigorously denounced the Senate bill as well as Bush's call for a "comprehensive approach" to the issue.
That portended difficult compromise talks in the shadow of midterm elections, at a time when Bush's poll ratings are low, congressional Republicans are concerned and Democrats are increasingly optimistic about their chances at the polls.
For now, supporters of the Senate bill said they intended to savor their victory. Peppered with questions about the compromise talks ahead, Sen. Mel Martinez, R-Fla., said, "I'm going to celebrate here."
The House bill, which passed on a largely party-line vote last year, is generally limited to border enforcement. It would make all illegal immigrants subject to felony charges and it contains no provision for either a new temporary worker program or citizenship for men, women and children in the country unlawfully.
Frist said compromise talks should begin swiftly.
"I think it is important on this issue with millions of people coming across our borders illegally, not knowing who they are, where they are going or why they are coming," he said.
In contrast to the House measure, the Senate bill would mark the most far-reaching changes in immigration law in two decades. Built on compromise after painstaking compromise, it was designed to appeal to conservatives and others seeking tougher border enforcement; business interests eager for a steady supply of legal, low-wage labor; unions seeking enhanced protections for migrants who often toil in seasonal work the fields and Hispanics who are on the cusp of greater political power and determined to win a change in legal status for millions of illegal immigrants.
That last group — Hispanics — comprises the fastest growing segment of the electorate, and millions made their feelings clear in street demonstrations denouncing the House measure and calling for passage of a broader measure.
Bush played a prominent role in the run-up to passage. An Oval Office speech last week made explicit his support for the Senate's overall approach. A later trip to Arizona was designed to reassure conservatives about his commitment to stanching illegal immigration.
In more than a week of debate, the Senate made a series of changes in the legislation. Still, the key pillars were preserved when opponents failed to knock out the guest worker program or the citizenship provisions. A new program for 1.5 million temporary agricultural workers also survived.
To secure the borders, the measure calls for the hiring of an additional 1,000 new Border Patrol agents this year and 14,000 by 2011, and backs Bush's plan for a short-term deployment of National Guard troops to states along the Mexican Border. The bill calls for new surveillance equipment as well as the construction of 370 miles of triple-layered fencing and 500 miles of vehicle barriers.
The new guest worker program would admit 200,000 individuals a year. Once here, they would be permitted for the first time to petition on their own for a green card that confers legal permanent residency, a provision designed to reduce the potential for exploitation by employers.
A separate new program, a compromise between growers and unions, envisions admission of an estimated 1.5 million immigrant farm workers who may also apply for permanent residency
Even supporters of the bill conceded the three-tiered program related to illegal immigrants was complicated.
Those in the country unlawfully for five years or more would be permitted to remain, continue working and eventually apply for citizenship. They would be required to pay at least $3,250 in fines and fees, settle any back taxes and learn English.
Illegal immigrants in the country for more than two years but less than five would be required to travel to a point of entry before re-entering the United States legally and beginning a lengthy process of seeking citizenship. They would be subject to the same fines, fees and other requirements as the longer-term immigrants.
An immigrant in the country illegally for less than two years would be required to leave with no guarantee of return.
A new electronic system for employee verification is designed to hold employers accountable for hiring decisions. It provides for maximum fines of $20,000 for each worker and possible jail time for repeat offenders.
A separate controversy erupted over a call to make English the national language. Supporters said it would leave all current rights in place. Detractors argued it could undermine an executive order that mandates assistance to individuals who receive services such as health care yet lack proficiency in English.
And Sentator Warner (VA) is one of them.
Doesn't sound the least bit paranoid. It is something I hadn't thought about, and it makes perfect sense. When I read about Bush putting the 45-day clamp on the papers, it made me wonder what was going on. Figured he must be wanting to make some deals on all the thievery going on. And it's another question whether he's got something honest or dishonest up his sleeve...
The White House will pull out all the stops to pressure the House into agreeing to a bill acceptable to the Senate and Bush. We will never know all of what goes on, but it will be like making sausage.
It's curious that Salazar (D-CO) didn't vote because I saw him on C=Span walking around the chambers during the vote. I guess he knows he's walking on thin ice with his mouthing off about the "noble immigrants" to the voters in CO.
Don't feel too bad. I'm from Pa. and have to constantly apologize for Snarlin' Arlen.
It is important to defeat them in the primaries. Many people who object "one issue vote" make an exception for this immigration stand, which is extremely damaging to this country.
I long ago stopped sending money directly to the party or even the Senate or House re-elect committees. Their support of Specter over Toomey taught me that lesson (and with Specter's behavior in this debacle, it's reinforced the lesson). The best strategy is to support the individual candidate that best fits your beliefs and as for voting, evaluate the situation on a case by case basis. For me, the strategy of voting for a Republican as the lesser of two evils is no longer a viable option. That strategy simply allows them to keep nominating faux conservatives in the belief that you'll vote for them simply because you have nowhere else to go. They are about to be rudely awakened, I think.
It would be interesting to discover the real reasons why the Senators are fanatically determined to pass bills that assure lasting harm to a country that has given them so much.
I voted against Arlen but because of the support of Santorum and GW, as well as many democrats, Arlen won!!!! I don't blame Arlen for being goofy since I know Arlen is goofy. But I do blame Santorum and GW for supporting that a$$hole. Therefore, I have no choice but to vote against Santorum in November. And I would vote against GW if he could run again.
It is pathetic that these so called conservatives vote against the base so overwhelmingly on important issues like illegal aliens? As I see it, Teddy Kennedy is going to have his way no matter that we have given the republican party a majority of both houses and the Whitehouse. Might as well vote democrat and I probaly will. What's the difference???????
UGH!! I should have caught that!!!!! :(
Well, we still have work to do in the party!
Thanks, deport--I should've seen the numbers.
Let's do the math: 42% of the Republicans in the Senate voted yes
90% of the Democrats voted yes
58% of the Republicans voted yes
10% of the Democrats voted no.
Clearly, a high plurality of the Republicans screwed the pooch on this vote. You find the usual suspects here: Chafee, Collins, DeWine, Voinovich, McLame...and some are overall good conservatives if the ACU ratings are reckoned: Bennett of Utah has 87 lifetime rating, McConnell of Kentucky has a 90, Warner of Virginia is an 81, Gregg of New Hampshire is a 79.
My belief in my previous post still holds true:
I hope the "let's abandon the Republicans" crowd can clearly see the problem isn't with the Republican Party as a whole, and I hope they work to change it instead of walking completely away and turning the federal government over to the 'rats.
Just look at the history of the fall of Rome. Barbaric hordes (modern equivalent - Third World Bananas) rule for a few hundred years and then the world slides into another Dark Ages (modern equivalent - Muslim Rule). Of course everything in the modern world appears to happen at an accelerated pace so perhaps we should replace 'hundreds' with 'decades'. Historically we peaked as a civilization when the following was first stated 'This is one small step for man, one giant step for mankind'. It has been and will be all downhill from that point.
I haven't decided about Santorum. I heard him explain his reasoning about his support for Specter shortly after the election. His biggest reason was personal loyalty. While I may not agree with the motivation, I could probably look past it. Where I have my problem with Santorum is that he has evolved into a big government "conservative". So, I'll be listening and pondering during the campaign. If you look at his Senate voting record, however, he's got one of the higher conservative ratings. I doubt Casey will be that high. My decision will be whether to vote for him, vote 3rd party or not vote for Senator. I won't be voting for Casey.
The two Republican Senators from Alabama, Goergia, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Texas, and Wyoming all voted NO! Republicans that are thinking of running for President that voted NO: George Allen
Shows me where the real conservative Senators are from. Next time someone on here that is not from one of these eight states complains and whines about the Senate, they need to quit whining and go work to elect more conservative Senators from their own state. If anyone has any complaints, it should be those of us from those eight states.
I am extremely proud of my two Oklahoma Senators who came through for conservative values once again.
Oh, please. It's necessary for us to waste our vote or stay at home altogether in Nov. in order to teach these Republicans a lesson. And Bush is the one to shoulder the Ultimate Blame for Everything and Anything, including this somehow. Period, never forget that.
That's what we are told ad nauseum in thread after thread after thread from immigration to the Jefferson investigation. You'd better get your head screwed on right R_D.
(do I need to the sarcasm tag?)
Maybe that's the problem we have these days? We rationalize why our elected leader votes the way he did and supports the people he does? It was flat out wrong for GW and Santorum to support Specter and now the chickens are coming home to roost. As important issues come before congress our weasel leaders, who happen to have control of both houses and the WH, go along with the likes of liberals like Teddy Kennedy so as to accomplish something, even though it is against 90% of the base. As I see it anymore, the pubbies can't be leaders so I might as well vote for the opposition! Call it a 'can't beat them, join them' attitude.......
If you are a proud member f the UN/NWO crows chaos will be very good for you, at least for a while.
Most of us in the Northeast know the conservatives are in the Southern and Western states and we rely on them to do what's right for the country. Suprisingly in the House though quite a few liberal Republicans in this region are not supporting the Senate bill but that's because even here people are fed up with illegal immigration and they're hearing about it constantly.
The whole problem with the Senate is that six years is way too long for a term and many of them don't even try to hide their arrogance and disdain for their constituents anymore.
The only one who can save the country is Senator Coburn, and he isn't running, couldn't get nominated if he ran, and would probably have to fight just to carry OK for president! The people want Hillary.
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.