Immigration bill in doubt

Die, bill, die.

Just say NO to Amnesty!! Before it’s too late!!

U.S. Senate switchboard: (202) 224-3121

U.S. House switchboard: (202) 225-3121

White House comments: (202) 456-1111

Find your House Rep.: http://www.house.gov/writerep

Find your US Senators: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

I hope Dorgan’s amendment is enough to kill this thing.

I hope Dorgan’s amendment is enough to kill this thing.

I could care less HOW it dies so long as I see it DEAD, DEAD, DEAD!

clinton can’t even get an amendment passed.

If it fails you just kmow Ried will come out and say “America has spoken!”. (/snort)

Here’s the whole piece.

Immigration Bill in Doubt After Vote
3:28 AM EDT, June 7, 2007
By CHARLES BABINGTON, Associated Press Writer
http://www.courant.com/news/nationworld/custom/ats-ap_top11jun07,0,5022578.story?coll=hc-nationworld-heds-breaking

WASHINGTON — 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.

That Associated Press article was from the Hartford Courant, by the way.

I've been holding back, both here and on other boards, but I finally pitched in over on Hotair. This was my post: While I agree that the Illegal alien issue is one that needs to be addressed, it’s something to which a solution needs to be found, not a compromise made. To many this may seem to be a distinction without a difference, but I assure you it is not. On most issues the congress-critters deal with, compromise is a good thing and required to make the Republic function. But there are some things that shouldn’t and can’t be compromised such as our national sovereignty, or from the point of view of the Congress-critters, the essential responsibilities of their oaths of office. How does “compromising” the security of our national borders and the enforcement of our laws already on the books, something which all who have sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States are responsible, serve anything but the interests of businesses wanting to pay sub-standard wages, and the interests of self serving politicians wanting to artificially increase their constituencies? We have laws on the books detailing the handling of illegal aliens. We have laws on the books detailing the penalties of employing illegal aliens. We have laws on the books calling for the securing the southern border and a billion dollar already appropriated to build it. But it’s been official policy to ignore the laws governing illegal aliens and of employers who hire them for so long, both written and unspoken, that Hollywood shows it in movies and television every day and its both presented and taken as simply the natural course of events. And the 700 miles of border fence that has been approved for more than a year? So far just two miles have been built. Given this lack of respect for the laws already on the book, what fool would believe that a new set of laws would have any effect at all, other than to “compromise” more of our national sovereignty? The public arguments in Congress have been drug down to questions of false compassion and self serving expediency. If we are to believe these Congress-critters, in the name of compassion, we should and are spending massive amounts of national treasure supporting central America’s poor while cutting the jobs and wages of native-born Americans, building or rebuilding schools (Madrasas) in the Muslim nations in clear violation of the first amendment, support through “humanitarian aid” Palestinian schools that teach the next generation of Jihadis and the TV stations that broadcast the spectacle, and a host of other self destructive pet projects both at home and abroad. In the name of expediency we are to allow this travesty of an amnesty bill to supersede the laws already on the books that these same Congressmen have refused to enforce, to find a solution to an issue that they themselves have both created and encouraged. What will it take before the American people stand up and demand that their representatives not compromise on those things that can’t be compromised if we are to remain a nation? What will it take to force the Congress to respect the national laws that they themselves wrote? Our congressmen aren’t losing the nation, they’re compromising it away to foreign interests both here illegally and abroad. As Ben Franklin was leaving the first Continental Congress, he was asked if a Constitution had been agreed upon. He said “Yes, you have a nation, for as long as you can keep it.” If this amnesty passes, it may not be the end of the nation, but it will be a massive nail in the national coffin. The solution is simple. Our congressmen need to do their jobs by supporting and defending the Constitution and the laws now on the books, and thereby the support and defend nation and its people.

Which Senators should we call to keep this thing divided? Do you have a record of their vote? I’m looking for it on thomas.loc.gov...

I agree. So far this is the only so-called “killer amendment” the pro-criminal axis lost the vote on. Hopefully, the good guys will have a better day tomorrow.

Follow the “Roll Call Votes” link at the bottom of the page.

1-800-417-7666. (English number) will direct you right to your Senators . . . please tell them you oppose this bill.

People should be more upset that than they are (it was barely on the news last night) that they killed an amendment to the amnesty bill that would have barred giving legal residence to felons. In other words, 600,000 felons who are currently illegal and could be deported will be given the right to remain in the country legally. They did pass Kennedy’s amendment that will bar sexual offenders from residence . . . which he put in to kill the stricter amendment barring all felons . . . but the Senate then voted to allow murderers, armed robbers, credit card fraudsters (which is how a lot of the Muslim terrorists fund themselves), and all other felons to be given the Z visa and stay. Here in Florida, where I live, we will probably get over 10% of them . . . over 60,000 new criminals to legally walk our streets with full rights when they get out of jail. It’s horrible to think about but they will be walking the same streets as my daughter.

Then follow the most recent (110th) under “Senate” (on the Roll Call Votes page).

To get information about texts and discussions of a bill, it’s best to have the bill number and enter it in the text box on the front page of the Thomas site. You can find info by way of keyword searches, but that usually takes more time.

Try these for keywords.

Secure Borders Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 2007

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00201

I found it.

Scratch my suggestion for searching the Thomas site. Simply get the bill and amendment information from the Roll Call Vote record links. Just have a look at the vote rosters (behind links) and follow the information links to the Thomas site from there.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_110_1.htm

Out-of-touch, condescending, understatement of the year:

“Oh sure there's some who don't like it... like the conservatives and their base.” -Fred Barnes, 06/06/2007

The concrete between Fred's ears appears to be of superior quality... and steel-reinforced.

"I found it."

Good. Do have a look at the information and links behind the following, though. ...should also find all that you'd like to know about amendments (along with who voted for what) there.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_110_1.htm

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.

Even if this Bill fails, we must NEVER forget the 51 Senators (including my two Republican Senators from AZ) who voted in support of granting Amnesty to Illegal Felons.