"The moment the presidential signing pen meets the paper these funds will be available," Graham said in a statement welcoming Bush's remarks.
Posted on 06/14/2007 3:55:45 PM PDT by Alaphiah123
Key senators tentatively agreed on a plan to revive a stalled immigration bill on Thursday, aided by President Bush's support for a quick $4.4 billion aimed at "securing our borders and enforcing our laws at the work site."
Officials who spoke on condition of anonymity said Republican and Democratic supporters of the bill were presenting their proposal to the Senate's top two leaders, who in turn arranged an early evening meeting to discuss it.
Precise details to be presented to Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., were not disclosed.
In general, according to officials familiar with the discussions, Republicans and Democrats would each be accorded roughly a dozen chances to amend the measure, with the hope that they would then combine to provide the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster by die-hard opponents. The officials who described the emerging plan did so on condition of anonymity, saying the negotiations had been conducted in private.
The legislation has generated intense controversy, particularly for provisions envisioning eventual citizenship for many of the estimated 12 million immigrants now in the country unlawfully. The bill also calls for greater border security and a crackdown on the hiring of illegal employees.
"We're going to show the American people that the promises in this bill will be kept," Bush said, two days after launching a personal rescue mission.
Any agreement is subject to approval by Reid, who has said repeatedly it is up to Bush and Republicans to line up the votes needed to advance the measure if it is to be brought back to the Senate for debate. Reid, who has expressed misgivings about elements of the bill, sidetracked it last week after supporters gained only 45 of the 60 votes needed.
Republicans accounted for only seven of the 45 votes, and Reid said earlier this week, "We'll move on to immigration when they have their own act together."
Bush's decision to personally announce support for the accelerated funding reflected concerns expressed by Republican senators at a closed-door meeting on Tuesday. Several told him their constituents doubted the government was capable of following through on a commitment to enforce immigration laws.
In a letter sent to Bush before the meeting, Georgia Republican Sens. Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson wrote, "This lack of trust is rooted in the mistakes made in 1986, and the continued chaos surrounding our immigration laws. Understandably, the lack of credibility the federal government has on this issue gives merit to the skepticism of many about future immigration reform."
Under the legislation as drafted, money for border enforcement would be collected gradually as illegal immigrants pay the fines and fees needed to achieve legal status. The letter asked Bush to secure the border before other elements of the immigration measure go into effect, and the president agreed in his remarks to the Associated Builders and Contractors.
"One common concern is whether the government will provide the resources to meet the goals in the bill. They say, 'It's fine to talk about it, are you actually going to do something?'" he said.
"To answer these concerns I support an amendment that will provide $4.4 billion in immediate additional funding for securing our borders and enforcing our laws at the work site," he said.
"By matching our benchmarks with these critical funds, we're going to show the American people that the promises in this bill will be kept."
Two Republican supporters of the legislation, Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Jon Kyl of Arizona, had previously proposed advanced funding.
"The moment the presidential signing pen meets the paper these funds will be available," Graham said in a statement welcoming Bush's remarks.
But Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., an opponent of the legislation, took a different view. "I appreciate the effort to fund border security, but there's simply no reason why we should be forced to tie amnesty to it. If the administration was serious about fulfilling the border security promises, then this funding should have been supported all along, not offered at the last minute to attract votes to a bad bill."
Even a decision to return the bill to the Senate floor does not guarantee its passage, given the intense opposition. "We've got people out there on both sides really ready to burn the place down," said Sen. Trent Lott of Mississippi, the second-ranking Republican. "I don't think we ought to let that happen."
The calendar, too, presents obstacles to any attempt to pass the measure before the Senate begins a scheduled vacation in two weeks. Should they choose, critics of the immigration measure could slow progress on other measures Reid wants debated in the next two weeks. The effect would be to further reduce prospects for passage of the immigration bill.
Partisan rubbish.
You sound like a robot.
On the partisan rubbish front - sounds like another Harry Reid answer, nothing productive, pure negativism.
We will swing from their best friends to their worst enemies if this POS passes.
Especially when Edward Kennedy said the same things about the 1986 bill that he's saying about this one.
Where is the 700+ miles of fence!?
"The moment the presidential signing pen meets the paper these funds will be available," Graham said in a statement welcoming Bush's remarks.
They sure do..........and they will have hell to pay if they do it wrong !
I have decided to NOT vote for any congressional incumbent in 2008........I am tired of the good ole boy, “give’n take, wino’s club we pay eternal dues for.
Time for a major house cleaning in DC IMHO....
“...the will and consent of the governed...”
You’d think that that was somehow missing in the general consensus, right???
Somewhere in that Constitution thingy we keep hearing about...
You think we should not protest wholesale flounting of this nation's current laws?
You might want to remember the people have the right to replace a bad government with a different system;the idea is mentioned in the Declaration as well.
They are not forced to come here. I agree that we need to crack down on the employers as well as secure our borders, including having a system to track down visa overstays and repatriate them.
People going through the legal system are much more likely to have success, as most hard-working Catholic families have historically in this country. How many successful, religious, family oriented people will vote for pro-abortion, anti-military, higher tax politicians - please tell me.
What is going on now is unprecedented in our history. We are importing millions of high school dropouts. If you look at the facts, we are importing poverty.
When you look at the birth rate for unwed Hispanic mothers and high school drop out rates for Hispanics, you get a much different picture of what is really happening and what the future portends for this country. Demography is destiny.
"The dimensions of the Hispanic baby boom are startling. The Hispanic birthrate is twice as high as that of the rest of the American population. That high fertility rate – even more than unbounded levels of immigration – will fuel the rapid Hispanic population boom in the coming decades.
By 2050, the Latino population will have tripled, the Census Bureau projects. One in four Americans will be Hispanic by midcentury, twice the current ratio.
It's the fertility surge among unwed Hispanics that should worry policymakers. Hispanic women have the highest unmarried birthrate in the country – over three times that of whites and Asians, and nearly 1 ½ times that of black women, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Every 1,000 unmarried Hispanic women bore 92 children in 2003 (the latest year for which data exist), compared with 28 children for unmarried white women, 22 for unmarried Asian women, and 66 for unmarried black women.
Forty-five percent of all Hispanic births occur outside of marriage, compared with 24 percent for whites and 15 percent for Asians. Only the percentage for blacks – 68 percent – is higher. But the black population is not going to triple over the next few decades.
What is going on today is unprecedented in our nation's history. Here are some facts gleaned from Bureau of the Census data that provide an indication of what is really happening:
-- The 35.2 million immigrants (legal and illegal) living in the country in March 2005 is the highest number ever recorded -- two and a half times the 13.5 million during the peak of the last great immigration wave in 1910.
-- Between January 2000 and March 2005, 7.9 million new immigrants (legal and illegal) settled in the country, making it the highest five-year period of immigration in American history.
-- Immigrants account for 12.1 percent of the total population, the highest percentage in eight decades. If current trends continue, within a decade it will surpass the high of 14.7 percent reached in 1910.
-- Of adult immigrants, 31 percent have not completed high school, three-and-a-half times the rate for natives. Since 1990, immigration has increased the number of such workers by 25 percent, while increasing the supply of all other workers by 6 percent.
-- The proportion of immigrant-headed households using at least one major welfare program is 29 percent, compared to 18 percent for native households.
-- The poverty rate for immigrants and their U.S.-born children (under 18) is 18.4 percent, 57 percent higher than the 11.7 percent for natives and their children. Immigrants and their minor children account for almost one in four persons living in poverty.
One-third of immigrants lack health insurance -- two-and-one‑half times the rate for natives. Immigrants and their U.S.‑born children account for almost three-fourths (nine million) of the increase in the uninsured population since 1989.
Prior to 1965, the US was taking around 178,000 legal immigrants annually. In 1965, Congress replaced the national origins system with a preference system designed to unite immigrant families and attract skilled immigrants to the United States. With these changes and some subsequent ones, the result was that most of our legal immigrants now come from Asia and Latin America, and not Europe. Chain migration designed to unite families has also brought in aged parents, children, uncles, etc., many of whom are not contributing to our society and in fact, require more social services. Even with quotas in certain immigration categories, we are now legalizing the status of over one million people annually and millions more are waiting in lines overseas for their turn to come in. Chain migration has also changed the "mix" of immigrants, making it less diverse.
Mexico accounts for 31 percent of all immigrants, with 10.8 million immigrants living in United States, more than the number of immigrants from any other region of the world. Immigrants from Mexico, Central and South America, and the Caribbean account for the majority of immigrants, with 54 percent of the foreign‑born coming from these areas. Of those who arrived 2000 to 2005, 58 percent are from Latin America. This lack of diversity has hindered assimilation and could well result in the Balkanization of the country by language and culture.
We need a rational, sensible immigration policy for many reasons, some of them economic and some of them cultural, i.e., the ability to assimilate these massive numbers into our society. Since 1970, the population of the US has increased by 100 million; since 1990; by 53 million; and since 2000 by 20 million or the equivalent of our six largest cities. The Bureau of the Census projects that we will have 364 million by 2030 and 420 million by 2050 with one-quarter of the population being Hispanic.
The annual arrival of 1.5 million legal and illegal immigrants, coupled with 750,000 annual births to immigrant women, is the determinate factor or three-fourths of all U.S. population growth. These additional people will require infrastructure [roads, water, electricity, gasoline, etc.], and impact our schools, hospitals, social welfare systems, penal system, etc. Couple these increases with an aging US population faced with entitlement programs about to go belly-up in 10 years and you have some serious public policy issues that could threaten the future of this country.
The bottom line is that we creating a permanent underclass that is not assimilating into the general population. They depress wages at the lower end of the economic scale and act as a net loss for the society in terms of cost/benefits. When this country goes into a cyclical economic downturn and unemployment rises to 6%, the problem will be exacerbated. And you can bet that they will all be Dem voters looking for government handouts.
I think that it would make a fine amendment to the bill, don't you think? Then the current American citizens can go to Mexico, cross back over the border, and claim to be gay, and demand a Z-Visa. Then the Z-Visa holders can pick and choose what laws to folow (or not). If anyone dare try to arrest the gay Z-Visa holder, or try to make them pay a tax for example, the ACLU will sue on their behave. You know this group would need the ACLU, being a double minority (semi-legal status and gay) group. Any thoughts?
it is obvious you are a White House or Congressional hack. All your rationalizations are naive and laughable. Building a wall is the most important step. Nothing else matters. A Polesi-Reid version-- lol. Do you realize the ACLU and leftist judges will toss out much of these so called security measures you espouse. You don't seem to get it do you. (I think you do get it -- you are a government hack).
If this bill passes, it will truly mean the end of our Republic and a terrible future for our children. Our vile government leaders are about to destroy our country and you try to tell us we want 100%?? What a ridiculously patronizing statement. Your snobbish arrogance reeks of the DC elitists. You must live away from this problem. I see firsthand the destruction wrought by the illegal invasion.
“He is the weakest president in a long, long time”
As David Frum points out the latest National Review, the president has exhausted all of his political capital.
Now he’s maxing out his credit card.
If anyone wants to send free faxes to their senators, congressman, or the White House go to
http://www.numbersusa.com/.
I just sent 4 of them.
I don’t think I will. That is about as far as I want to take it. But if it happens, what can you do?
I have been trying to fax Senator Warner. No surprise that it is extremely difficult. I get either a busy signal or endless ringing that disconnects after several minutes. Calling his office is equally difficult. One way to skew the statistics is to make it impossible to communicate.
Over half your employees are Hispanic, yet its everyone else that is racist?
I didn’t think Hispanics represented half the American population, so why the unbalanced racial makeup of your workforce?
I feel for these folks, I really do, but there are legal ways for them to get here if that is truly their desire. Coming across the border illegally is not their only option. Or, they can stay and try to change the change the corrupt system that plagues their country, just as our patriots did.
The one lesson to be learned from this administration is that America can’t be expected to save everyone, everywhere. It’s not a fair or reasonable expectation, and some people, frankly, don’t want a hand-up, they want a hand-out.
It’s not being mean, or racist, or anything else to say why I should I allow the law to be broken when it will ultimately hurt me, my family, and my children? Charity and sympathy does not require suicide.
As for a Chavez-like dictator, well, we have ways of handling that if the situation presents itself.
test.
test
How many foreign countries distribute "comic books" instructing their uneducated, indigent citizens on how to break the laws of another country? According to Mexico since our borders are not enforced they should not be respected. Yea, tell that to Ramos and Campean.
Mexico - a dump - well parts are for sure, but is 100 years of corrupt rule with few very rich and many very poor possibly a cause? Can in individual citizen change a corrupt government? Have you seen the destruction of Venezuela in just the last 10 years?
Can in individual citizen change a corrupt government?
Can 12 to 20 million citizens change a corrupt government? The answer is "YES" as the U.S. is becoming a nation without the rule of law. Yes, our government is corrupt moreso than many thought.
Lopez Obrador was painted as the liberal candidate by the U.S. press and our "conservative" hahahahahahahaha readers on FR. Obrador wanted to do away with or rewrite NAFTA. He wanted Mexicans to stay in Mexico. We can't have that now can we. We must do what G. Bush tells us to do and think how Bush wants us to think. That is the Harvard way.
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.