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."

[steel_resolve]

because you couched your point in a slanderous insult. Duh.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Meanwhile Mexico itself maintains some of the most rabid immigration laws on the planet.

A point that the pro-open borders lobby and RNC hacks fail to understand.

[Jameison]

"Interesting that the Senate vote turned out like it did. Either the Senators who voted "yes" are ignoring their voters, or they voted in response to what they are actually hearing from their constituents and not relying on internet blogs. "

# 1. Republican majority in the Senate voted against the Senate Immigration Bill.

#. All RATS Senators voted for the evil Senate immigration Bill apart from 4 of them.

# 3. Those only 4 RATS that voted against the immigration Bill, were all up for reelection this year.

Even the RATS can hear what voters are telling them...sometimes.
You don't really have a point, dude.

[clawrence3]

The Senate bill would allow up to 3 million such immigrants per year - you think we need MORE than that?

[Rokke]

"our son will be a freshman in high school this fall and wants to attend the Naval Academy as well"

Then he's starting his preparations at the right time. It is worth the effort it takes to get in.

[ncountylee]

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.

[clawrence3]

# 1. Republican majority in the Senate voted against the Senate Immigration Bill.

If that were true, it would not have passed.

[clawrence3]

We've actually homeschooled him up to this point, so he is way ahead - time for AP classes and sports, etc. See you around.

[hedgetrimmer]

Thanks for the history lesson,

You're welcome. But not one word about the culpability of the rest of the states for nominating activist judges to the federal courts?

You want liberal judges. Vote democrat. Apparently, California is happy with the judges they have.

I wouldn't say that.

[hedgetrimmer]

Dick Mountjoy, is running against Feinstein? Time for Californians to put their votes where their mouths are.

Will he be supported by the Republican party, or will they pull the rug out from underneath him, like they did to McClintock to put in socialist democrat Arnold Schwarzenegger as governor?

[Jameison]

"You are just making stuff up aren't you? Most of those legal immigrants are house cleaners and nannies. End of story"

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

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/imm_net_mig_rat

Guess who's making stuff up here?

[sinkspur]

From your link:

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.

This matches a Gallup poll from earlier in the month.

I guess it's just not true that most voters, indeed, most Republicans, support an "enforcement only" approach.

And "no bill" could cost the GOP the House.

[khnyny]

You misunderstood my point. I am against illegal immigration and "amnesty". Standards about who is allowed to immigrate to the US have to be maintained and enforced. That's not happening now. Currently, we have chaos, thanks to our folks in Washington and Mexico.

If we have rampant crime, increased poverty and taxes, talented people will think twice before deciding to immigrate to the US. The continued wave of illegals from Mexico will eventually lower the standard of living and reward the Rats with more "voters". Why reward illegality? Educated, talented people from countries other than Mexico have to jump through hoops in order to get to the US.

[churchillbuff]

Please clarify your position. Are you saying the USA is doomed unless we allow the inflow of people in limitless numbers, regardless of skills, literacy, education, poverty, criminality, or health? With illegal immigration, that's what we have at the moment. Would you just like to make it official policy?""""

How long will the Republican Party survive if we allow tens of millions of underclass immigrants to come to the US legally over the next decade or two? I don't think Kennedy has proposed this bill because he expects these newcomers to vote Republican. Do either of you - JJ or B#1 - expect these folks to be anything other than reliable Democratic voters? If you don't, you're smoking something. Bottom line: Underclass immigration on the scale that the Senate Bill would permit, would mean an end to the GOP, an end to American traditions of limited government, and a new era of Mexican-style socialist corruption in vast parts of the US.

[babygene]

"Uh, most Americans don't want to be part of your movement..."

You seem to be attributing some silly thing that Blake#1 said in post 13 to me.

Wake Up Boy!

[Vision Thing]

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.

Yup, it looks like it was taken on the US side, about 3 miles west of the Imperial Beach shoreline, facing west.

[Rokke]

"# 1. Republican majority in the Senate voted against the Senate Immigration Bill."

Yet, it wouldn't have passed without Republican support. Are you saying that the Republicans who voted for it blissfully ignored the desires of their constituents?

"Those only 4 RATS that voted against the immigration Bill, were all up for reelection this year."

First, that isn't true. 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. Only Stabenow from Michigan could be considered vulnerable.

"You don't really have a point, dude."

Yet, I keep disproving what you say.

[babygene]

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

[Jameison]

"If that were true, it would not have passed"

It is, and it did, with massive suppiort from RATS vermin.


"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

[Rokke]

"But not one word about the culpability of the rest of the states for nominating activist judges to the federal courts?"

First, States don't nominate Federal Judges. Presidents do. And the rest of the States aren't blaming California for their problems. Instead, they are trying to elect Presidents who will appoint more conservative judges. I'm sure they would appreciate it if California would help in that effort.