Posted on 06/06/2007 10:02:57 PM PDT by doug from upland
That is the headline on Drudge and all he has for now. Since Matt is undoubtedly in bed on the East Coast, we can probably thank Andrew Breitbart.
The immigration bill is on the brink of collapse in the Senate. Let's hope for some more developments soon.
I don’t know what DOrgan wanted, but it is clear opponents saw this as their best shot at killing it. Because if you were going to PASS a bill, sunsetting the point system is a very BAD thing. The point system is one of the few good parts of the bill.
And yet Sessions voted to sunset it. That means HE saw the vote NOT as a welcome change to the bill, but a way to kill the bill.
So we could put pressure on them to build the fence.
If this bill does die then I want to thank everyone who called Congress and wrote comments exposing this bill for what it is. This bill is an attempt to destroy the U.S. by flooding it with 200 million illiterate, uneducated socialist/Democrat voters who would turn the U.S. into socialist Venezuela.
This site is still influential and I think this site along with other conservative blogs is what stopped this bill if it is dead. It's not over till its over.
I like Kentuckians....very similar to the way TN is split west-middle-east
Thank God
Fred Barnes has always been a social moderate/lib....since when he wrote for Free Republic....which is true of many NeoCons.
Britt’s show is NeoCon Central.
Never mind. That’s was a DIFFERENT amendment. This amendment was to sunset the guest worker program, not the point system.
And I think it’s OK to sunset the guest worker program, because that means that in 5 years you have to justify it again on its own merits. However, since I support a guest worker program, I’d rather see a more pro-active re-authorization provision rather than a sunset provision that requires a new law to re-up the program.
South Dakota Senator John Thune on trying to amend the immigration bill.
The Hugh Hewitt Show
http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/Transcript_Page.aspx?ContentGuid=2c08d5f2-345d-40bb-b475-33082475e98b
(snip)
HH: That is certainly good news. It was very sad news that one of your colleagues, Craig Thomas, Senator from Wyoming, passed away this week as well, so unusual times in the United States Senate. Let’s get to the legislation, Senator Thune. You’re going to offer an amendment. I don’t think it’s already been offered, which is crucial to fixing this bill. Can you tell people what it is and where we are in this process?
JT: Well, where we are, Hugh, is we’ve got a bill, and there have been a lot of good amendments offered, some this afternoon, that have been voted down. Jim DeMint offered an amendment that would require people coming into the country illegally to have some health care coverage, and John Cornyn offered an amendment that would have banned people who are here, and have been caught in criminal activities from being able to be legalized under this process, and that got defeated. So it seems like common sense is in rare supply around here. But what my amendment simply does is it just says that the immediate legalization that comes when the bill is enacted, because of this probationary visa that people can get, that before they can get that immediate legalization, they have to, the triggers have to be met. In other words, we have to have the border security component done, there has to be a certification that we’ve got the border agents, that the fence has been built, that there’s an employee verification system in place, the catch and release program has been ended. And I think that’s very straightforward. And frankly, it’s what I think most people in this country want us to deal with first, and that is let’s get this border under control, and then we can deal with these other issues. So we don’t think that we ought to be putting people who’ve come here illegally at an advantage relative to those who’ve played by the rules
(snip)
HH: When do you expect the Thune amendment to get a vote?
JT: Well, I’ve been trying to get it called up, Hugh, now, for, since last week, and the Democrats have blocked it from being called up, which means until I can get it called up, I can’t get it voted on. And so what we’re trying to do, and I asked the question this afternoon down there on the floor of Harry Reid as to when some of these other amendments are going to be allowed to be called up. And we think that we’re going to get in the queue here in the next few days. But they’re really, they’re kind of jerking people around who have amendments, particularly amendments that they don’t want to vote on, from getting those considered. So I’m hopeful that we’ll get a vote on it, and when we do, that we’ll get a majority vote on it, but based on the way some of these amendments have gone so far, I have my doubts about whether we’re going to be able to improve this bill at all as a result of the amendment process.
(snip)
HH: What about the procedure now? Senator McConnell has made noise that if all the amendments don’t get in, he’s not going to agree to bring the party along for cloture. Is that your understanding?
JT: That is correct. He at least wants to allow for more amendments to be considered. We expect that Senator Reid is, you know, he’s wanting to get to cloture to cut off debate on this. So far, Senator McConnell has stood strong on that. But I think that when you’re talking about something this complex, this massive that has these types of implications for the future, and that these kind of national security implications, with all these moving parts, that we ought to be spending an adequate amount of time on this, we ought to be debating amendments, and trying to improve the bill. So we need that appropriate amount of time on this, and as of right now, they’re trying to shut it off.
HH: Okay, a couple of last questions, Senator Thune. If it clears the Senate, goes to the House, it’ll be amended, and it comes back to conference, and the conference report comes out. Do the Republicans retain the right to filibuster a conference report?
JT: You can filibuster a conference report. You just can’t amend it. So whatever comes back from the conference, we would have an opportunity. And if we can get 41 votes, and if we think it’s an unacceptable product, to stop it. But the way this thing has, the momentum this thing has behind it right now, I don’t know if we would be able to do that. I expect there’s going to be a lot of debate about this, and probably a lot tougher sledding when this gets to the House. But frankly, in a lot of ways, we can’t take a flawed system and fix it with a flawed bill. And there are things that we are doing in this bill that could make matters worse rather than better, and that would be a big mistake.
HH: Do your colleagues hear what the base of the Republican Party is saying? Have they gotten an earful?
JT: I’d like to think they have, Hugh. I really, I question sometimes whether or not they’re listening. I know in my case, in South Dakota, all the communication that we’ve had on this, which is about 700 pieces of mail in the last week or two, there are all but two have been opposed on this. And so I think it’s a no-brainer when it comes to people around this country, and certainly the Republican base. But I also think there are a lot of independent Democrats out there who look at this, and just say this doesn’t make any sense. What are we doing putting illegal immigrants at an advantage relative to people who are playing by the rules and respecting our laws? And I think that’s why people are weighing in, and I hope that my colleagues here in the Senate are hearing that. But it certainly, there’s such a head of steam behind this thing, I just don’t know anymore if there’s, if common sense can prevail. But I hope we still have a chance.
HH: And last question, Senator Thune, the proponents of the bill are talking like it’s a done deal. Do you think it’s a done deal in the Senate?
JT: I think that they have, my view is that there may be a chance that the Democrats, because they’re getting a lot of pressure now from labor unions on their left, that maybe they don’t want a bill after all. I think that it’s not a done deal, but boy, I’ll tell you what, it’s going to be hard, as I said, to stop this thing. And so we’re doing everything we can to make it better. But we will keep fighting the fight.
(Snip)
Not THAT much difference between them.
And they ALL know there are very solid majorities against this bill in THEIR state.
I pray it collapses onto itself creating a little black hole singularity.
I hope they kill this immigration bill once and for all then all the one trick ponies can gallop on to other important issues. 800 miles of fence is already law and everyone should be blasting Homeland Security to get it done.
I think the turning point on this immigration bill was the video of the Wall Street Journal meeting where the snobs there, led by Paul Gigot, acted like a bunch of arrogant elitists discussing this bill.
1-800-417-7666
Whatever worked on getting it killed works for me and hopefully it falls into the Dubai of bad moments here on FR and the other threads will stop getting turned on their heads of subject matter.
I phoned Sen. Alexander’s (TN) office and the lady that took my call stated Lamar will vote against cloture. She said he had already made the announcement on the radio this morning. Can I assume the hundreds of phone calls he received “influenced” his decision?
news home | top | world | intl | natl | op | pol | govt | business | tech | sci | entertain | sports | health | odd | sources | local
Presidential • Cabinet • Congress • Supreme Crt • Other US Govt
Immigration Bill in Doubt After Vote
Email this Story
Jun 7, 6:41 AM (ET)
By CHARLES BABINGTON
(AP) This video frame grab taken from C-SPAN2 television shows Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J. speaking on...
Full Image
Google sponsored links
Canadian Immigration Law - Beware, Special Laws Can Help You. Call Today - Canada to US only
www.RealPropLaw.com
MN Immigration Law Firm - Serving the Legal Needs of Non- Citizens,Their Families & Employers
www.YorkImmigrationLaw.com
WASHINGTON (AP) - A fragile compromise that would legalize millions of unlawful immigrants risks coming unraveled after the Senate voted early Thursday to place a five-year limit on a program meant to provide U.S. employers with 200,000 temporary foreign workers annually.
The 49-48 vote came two weeks after the Senate, also by a one-vote margin, rejected the same amendment by Sen. Byron Dorgan. The North Dakota Democrat says immigrants take many jobs Americans could fill.
The reversal dismayed backers of the immigration bill, which is supported by President Bush but loathed by many conservatives. Business interests and their congressional allies were already angry that the temporary worker program had been cut in half from its original 400,000-person-a-year target.
A five-year sunset, they said, could knock the legs from the precarious bipartisan coalition aligned with the White House. The Dorgan amendment “is a tremendous problem, but it’s correctable,” said Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa. The coalition will try as early as Thursday to persuade at least one senator to help reverse the outcome yet again, he said.
Until the Dorgan vote was tallied, Specter and other leaders of the so-called “grand bargain” on immigration had enjoyed a fairly good day.
They had turned back a bid to reduce the number of illegal immigrants who could gain lawful status. They also defeated an effort to postpone the bill’s shift to an emphasis on education and skills among visa applicants as opposed to family connections.
And they fended off an amendment, by Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., that would have ended a new point system for those seeking permanent resident “green cards” after five years rather than 14 years.
All three amendments were seen as potentially fatal blows to the bill, which would tighten borders, hike penalties for those who hire illegals and give many of the country’s estimated 12 million illegal immigrants a pathway to legal status.
The Senate voted 51-46 to reject a proposal by Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, to bar criminals - including those ordered by judges to be deported - from gaining legal status. Democrats siphoned support from Cornyn’s proposal by winning adoption, 66-32, of a rival version that would bar a more limited set of criminals, including certain gang members and sex offenders, from gaining legalization.
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., alone among his party’s presidential aspirants in backing the immigration measure, opposed Cornyn’s bid and backed the Democratic alternative offered by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass.
Senators also rejected a proposal by Robert Menendez, D-N.J., that would have delayed the bill’s shift in favor of attracting foreign workers with needed skills as opposed to keeping families together. Menendez won 53 votes, seven short of the 60 needed under a Senate procedural rule invoked by his opponents.
Menendez’s proposal would have allowed more than 800,000 people who had applied for permanent legal status by the beginning of 2007 to obtain green cards based purely on their family connections - a preference the bill ends for most relatives who got in line after May 2005.
Meanwhile, Sen. Hillary R. Clinton, D-N.Y., fell short in her bid to remove limits on visas for the spouses and minor children of immigrants with permanent resident status.
While several Cornyn amendments failed, he prevailed on one matter opposed by the grand bargainers. That amendment, adopted 57 to 39, would make it easier to locate and deport illegal immigrants whose visa applications are rejected.
The bill would have barred law enforcement agencies from seeing applications for so-called Z visas, which can lead to citizenship if granted. Cornyn said legal authorities should know if applicants have criminal records that would warrant their deportation.
Opponents said eligible applicants might be afraid to file applications if they believe they are connected to deportation actions. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said in an interview that Cornyn’s amendment was “not a deal-killer” but would have to be changed in House-Senate negotiations.
And sucks all it's supporters into it.
Unfortunately you are right about Britt and co....my eyes have seen the light on that bunch....looks like I’ll just give up on FOX all together...I stopped watching TV for 5 years once and thinking about it again.
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.