Immigration Prospects Brightening

Powerlineblog ^ | 5/28/2006 | John Hinderaker

[Jameison]

The Washington Post reports this morning that prospects for the Senate's immigration package are dimming, due to House members' concerns about November's election:

Republican House members facing the toughest races this fall are overwhelmingly opposed to any deal that provides illegal immigrants a path to citizenship -- an election-year dynamic that significantly dims the prospects that President Bush will win the immigration compromise he is seeking, according to Republican lawmakers and leadership aides. Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) will not allow a vote on a House-Senate compromise that does not have the support of most GOP lawmakers or one that would undermine the reelection chances of his at-risk members, aides said. According to GOP lawmakers and strategists, about 75 percent of the 231 House Republicans are steadfastly opposed to the Senate bill or even a watered-down version of it.

The Post's article cites poll's that supposedly show strong support for the administration's plan, but, as one House member says, "they must not be polling anyone in [my] District."

[DoughtyOne]

In the early 1990s, over 90% of the births in the Los Angeles County run hospitals were to illegal alien parents.

With citizen flight from the LAUSD school system, I have no idea what the percentage of illegal alien offspring in the k-12 school system is, but I have been old it is over one third. That was some time back. It may be much higher today.

[Jameison]

"Yet, it wouldn't have passed without Republican support"

I repeat.
Republicans MAJORITY voted against The Senate immigration Bill.
RATS voted overwhelmingly FOR that evil Bill.
Couldn't be clearer than that.

"Democrats, including Chuck Schumer and Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, voted 39-4 in favor of the bill. Three of the four Democrats who voted no are up for re-election.

Republicans, in defying President Bush, who favors legalization, voted against it by 32-23."

http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/64270.htm

[hedgetrimmer]

States don't nominate Federal Judges. Presidents do

You're right. The states elect the senators who confirm the nominations. There is culpability there.

[Jameison]

"Second, 2 of the three who were up for reelection are not in the least bit vulnerable in their states (Byrd and Nelson), so they weren't voting to save their seats"

Byrd is vulnerable alright.
That';s why he's been relatively quiet since some polls came out a last year ago showing his support slipping.
He was voting according to the wishes of his constituents and to save his seat in a relatively conservative state.

[Jameison]

"Yet, I keep disproving what you say."

You mean like your huge number of immigrants to Taiwan right?

[babygene]

"Republicans, in defying President Bush, who favors legalization, voted against it by 32-23."

It was very much a Democrat Bill...

[Jameison]

"It was very much a Democrat Bill"

It was.
RATS voted a MASSIVE 39-4 for that evil Senate Immigration Bill.

[Rick Deckard]

"Was that picture taken from the US side? The next time that I am down in San Diego I must go and actually see the wall."

Yes it was. If you exit southbound I-5 at Dairy Mart Road, you can get a personal & up close view of the border fence. Head south on Dairy Mart Rd. & follow the signs out to Border Field State Park. You might be surprised to see that some of the houses down there literally have the the border in their backyards.

[sinkspur]

So help me understand... Are you supporting the Kennedy/Democrat immigration bill that just passed in the Senate?

It doesn't matter what I think. But it does matter that

Americans, Republicans, and conservative Republicans actually support comprehensive immigration reform, and they will not take it lightly if the enforcement-only crowd burns down the bill, rather than acquiesce in creating a path to citizenship for the illegals already here -- as supported by 80% of Americans and over 75% of Republicans

[supercat]

If we can get the otherwise non-criminal illegal alien issue taken care of, the tiny minority of illegal aliens we ALL want to keep out (e.g. terrorists, gang-members, cocaine smugglers, rapists, murderers, etc.) could be caught easier.

The current immigration policy is insane. We would be better off declaring immigration a free-for-all rather than saying that lawful people have to wait years or decades to enter while lawless people can enter at will. Our present policies keep out those we should let in and vice versa.

I agree that there needs to be reasonable means by which people can enter the country legally, so that the people who should be in this country will arrive via such means. There also, however, needs to be sufficient border security to ensure that the good people will only enter via such means, so that people entering illegally may be presumed to be bad people.

[Rokke]

"Yeah? Here is the "huge" number of "house cleaners and nannies" immigrants to Taiwan right here for ya."

You do realize that the site you linked me to shows the "net" migration numbers for each country don't you? That means the difference between the number of people migrating and immigrating from each country. Taiwan has a huge number of immigrants (relative to its population) arriving from Mainland China. And every year it loses a huge number of migrants to countries like the US and Canada.

Sigh. Why do I bother.

[Rokke]

"The states elect the senators who confirm the nominations. There is culpability there."

Yes there is. Which just reaffirms my point. How long is California going to keep reelecting Boxer and Feinstein (and for that matter Pelosi)?

[Jameison]

creating a path to citizenship for the illegals already here -- as supported by 80% of Americans and over 75% of Republicans

Not a chance.

What matters is what Republican congressmen going home for Memorial day weekend, and back in Wsahingnton are hearing OVWEWHELIMNIGLY from their constituents who actually out them there.

Nope.
Its not what drive-by media think that matters.
We don't elect congressmen to vote for Mexican interests and against the interests of those who put them in power.
They are there to serve OUR interests. and the message is getting through loud and clear.
Kill The Senate Bill.
The evil Senate Bill is DOA.
As luck would have it, we are in the majority in Washington. :)

[Rokke]

"Byrd is vulnerable alright."

Let me guess...this is from another one of your secret polls. Real polls indicate he currently enjoys a 65% approval rating in his state.

[Jameison]

"You do realize that the site you linked me to shows the "net" migration numbers for each country don't you?"

I do.
The point being we have huge net immigration INto this country.
And Taiwan doesn't.
Exactly my point. So sorry old bean.

[Jameison]

"Let me guess...this is from another one of your secret polls."

From the same place you get your polls.
The drive-by media.
Ole Byrd has been as quiet as a lamb since then.
He used to scream Bush-hate all the time.

[sinkspur]

They are there to serve OUR interests. and the message is getting through loud and clear.
Kill The Senate Bill.
The evil Senate Bill is DOA.

So is the House Bill. And, Tom Davis, R-Va., said this morning that no bill is worse than the Senate bill. The Republicans will be held responsible for no immigration reform by the voters that want immigration reform.

[hedgetrimmer]

You could send some money to Dick Mountjoy to help him out with his campaign.

[Jameison]

"So is the House Bill"

We will see won't we? :)



"Tom Davis, R-Va., said this morning that no bill is worse than the Senate bill"

He got it the wrong way round.
A heinous, treacherous Senate Bill is far, far far worse than no BILL at all.
That Senate Bill will do irreparable damage to this country.
It will not pass.

[ncountylee]

How long is California going to keep reelecting Boxer and Feinstein (and for that matter Pelosi)?

Boxer, I believe, is up in 2008 and can be beat by a strong RINO candidate. Would not give a conservative much chance, sigh.