Posted on 06/09/2007 7:53:17 AM PDT by indcons
Supporters of immigration reform launched new talks to save their tattered bill yesterday, with the chief architects of the bipartisan compromise confident that they could resurrect it -- even as recriminations flew over its stunning collapse.
The rescue mission was dispatched moments after the vote was tallied Thursday night. Sixty votes were needed to end debate and pave the way for final passage, but only 45 senators voted yes. Republican and Democratic negotiators believe they can reach agreement by early next week on the official sticking point: which conservative amendments would be considered before final passage. The list must be short enough for time-conscious Democrats, yet substantive enough for Republicans demanding to be heard.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
One of the reasons this bill is failing is that many Democrats can not tolerate the idea of AMERICAN union workers getting undercut by cheap immigrant labor.
So the president and his big business buddies who want cheap labor are not going to get it legally, at least.
Not only should we be pressing our Republican senators to keep killing this bill, but also we need to support those Democratic senators who are rightly concerned that Americans will lose jobs if this travesty becomes law.
Tax all Western Union remittances that flow back to Messico and Central America (3+ billion a year).
Not one cent of American taxpayer monies needs to be spent.
HEAR HEAR!
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security
One other note; if anyone doubts how these signers intended the role of the federal government, I think the answer can be found at the end of the declaration when they referred to themselves as the "united States", not "United States".
He [Congress] has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages [illegal aliens], whose known rule of warfare [slave/drug running], is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
I think the Rasmussen Reports put it best:
“...The immigration bill failed because a broad cross-section of the American people are opposed to it.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1847400/posts
“...Elite newspapers and countless bloggers are writing their own explanations of why the compromise immigration legislation failed last night. Most of the write-ups discuss legislative tactics, an amendment offered by Senator Byron Dorgan (D), or some particular provision of the bill dealing with amnesty or guest workers.”
“The reality is much simpler and has nothing to do with legislative tactics. The immigration bill failed because a broad cross-section of the American people are opposed to it. Republicans, Democrats, and unaffiliated voters are opposed. Men are opposed. So are women. The young don’t like it; neither do the no-longer-young. White Americans are opposed. Americans of color are opposed...”
According to the Catholic Catechism, the following conditions must be met before an armed response is legitimate:
"Armed resistance to oppression by political authority is not legitimate, unless all the following conditions are met:
1) there is certain, grave, and prolonged violation of fundamental rights;
2) all other means of redress have been exhausted;
3) such resistance will not provoke worse disorders;
4) there is well-founded hope of success; and
5) it is impossible reasonably to foresee any better solution. (#2243)"
These conditions are not something peculiarly Catholic. They are identical with the Just War Doctrine's jus ad bellum requirements for a nation going to war, with one important omission. For a nation, there is an additional condition that must be met: war must be declared by competent authority. This omission is critical to any discussion of the morality of armed revolt. It is impossible to prescribe a “competent authority” to call for a revolt. Only the people, who retain the right to govern themselves, can undertake revolt when the above-listed conditions are met.
How do the people undertake a revolt? It has to start somewhere. In the case of the American Revolution, it started at Lexington and Concord, when the British sent troops on a gun-control mission. The local militia resisted, and the war was on. The Continental Congress, a body representing the thirteen colonies, took over management of the revolution. In South America, “resistance juntas” were formed when Napoleon made Joseph Bonaparte King of Spain and its colonies. Simon Bolivar, a member of one of the juntas, took over military leadership of the revolt. The war was long and bitter, but the South American countries eventually gained independence from Spain.
What is true of these two revolutions is true in general. There has to be some spark, some incident, that triggers a revolt. Someone has to decide that his particular “line in the sand” has been crossed. Whether the revolt grows, or instead peters out, depends on the actions of others. If others join the revolt, it may grow. If no one else is willing to take up arms, or is not yet ready, the revolt dies (at least for the time being).
Although the existence of the prior Continental Congress was important in organizing the American Revolution, it's not necessary that there be a formal organization at the start. One person "shooting back" may be sufficient to inspire others to copy his action. It's important, in that case, that the word get out quickly, or the incipient revolt can be suppressed by the authorities simply by preventing anyone else from knowing that it happened.
Initiating a revolution has grave consequences, which should be considered carefully before underaking such a violent act. However, allowing creeping tyranny to grow also has grave consequences. These consequences must also be taken into account in making decisions about initiating armed revolt.
I make no judgment here about whether the conditions listed above have been met, or are on the verge of being met. I present them for information only.
For what it's worth, I teach Just War Doctrine at Yorktown University, an on-line university witha politically and culturally conservative orientation. I am also the author of A Fighting Chance: The Moral Use of Nuclear Weapons, which was published by Ignatius Press (a Catholic publishing house) as a reply to the American Catholic Bishops' blatantly pacifist pastoral letter on war and peace.
But not those who never apply for that "permanent temporary visa."
Many will prefer to remain in the shadows for a variety of reasons (felons, known terrorists, those running illegal businesses and paying no taxes, and those who simply fear losing their jobs to the next wave of illegals, to name a few). There's no deadline set, or any mention made in the bill, of deporting anyone who refuses to register. On the contrary, from the minute the bill is signed into law, all illegals will be presumed eligible until proven otherwise (even those currently judged deportable by court order), and that "hands-off" status will continue as long as registration is open -- which could be years, or indefinitely, since the DHS director is granted plenty of latitude in the bill.
If, according to St. John of Tucson, "we don't know who's here," then we can't possibly know how many are here. But the 12 million figure (a guesstimate that's years old) will come in handy if they get somewhere close to that number to register -- then our overlords can claim success, in full denial of the fact that the number of actual illegals, given the almost total lack of border enforcement in recent years, is (or will be) most likely double, triple or even quadruple that figure.
Let us true conservatives and patriots rally and build our resolve against wayward politicians based on this bedrock tenet. Thanks jdub.
This too is our clarion call to action against elitist, tyrannical government leaders who would foist shAMNSETY on us against our collective will = Despotism (absolute power).
Building a fence is closing the barn door after the horse has gone.
The money would be better spent on workplace enforcement. If illegal immigrants can’t earn money, they’ll go home. There’s no need for deportation - illegal immigrants won’t stay if they can’t earn money and if they can’t get government benefits like food stampe, welfare and the earned income tax credit.
re condition 4.....I do believe that Patrick Henry covered it well enough for Patriots, whatever denomination....
ROFLMAO!
I’d buy one of those if it were offered in black and the message printed in mexico’s flag colors ;’}
McConnell knows full well that if he and Lott were to push the conservatives "too hard", that they would likely be voted out of the leadership and replaced as Republican Leader and Whip by these very same conservatives in a very short period of time.
McConnell likes being the Senate Republican Leader and wishes to remain so for a while longer. He doens't want to face to public disgrace of being fired as Leader or forced to resign his Leader post in lieu of being fired by his own caucus.
He and Lott MUST HAVE the support of 25 out of the 49 members of their caucus for them to keep their jobs if they are challenged and have to face a no-conficence vote by their own caucus. If 25 or more of their own caucus vote against them, then they are out!!!
If these conservatives were to fire McConnell and Lott from their leadership positions over this "compromise" Amnesty Bill, then I hope they replace them with dedicated opponents of the bill, such as Sessions. Sessions has been around long enough to be elevated to the Leader position.
You are absolutely right. In my mind the key vote on the Senate legislation were those offered by Sen. Dorgan of North Dakota. He first offered an amendment that would eliminate entirely the guest worker provisions of the bill, which are strongly opposed by unions. That amendment was objected to by Sens. Reid & McConnell. Subsequently, Dorgan offered an amendment to cut the number of additional guest workers in half with the help of some conservative Senators who realized the without the support of unions, particularly the AFL-CIO, the overall legislation would not pass. As it turned out by working with Dorgan, who obviously lives in an Red State, they were able to convince Reid to bring it to a vote, and it passed the Senate by one vote. This did not satisfy the AFL-CIO however and they continued to insist that all the guest worker provisions be dropped, and continued to apply heavy pressure on Sen. Reid whom they attacked relentlessly. The unions were also concerned, under the radar, about the instant amnesty provisions of the bill since a great many of their individual members oppose that portion of the bill as well, particularly those in the private business sector. That is why you saw Senators Boxer, Rockefeller, Byrd, Landrieau, McCaskill and Snowe (R-Maine) vote against cloture as that group is heavily supported by unions within their respective States.
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.
