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.
I disagree.
I would really like to know of this angry irrational mob why they did not remove Bush from office in 2004?
Bush got 62 million votes in 2004 but suddenly he is only public official in America responsible for illegal immigration.
The borders have never been closed in this country. We have never successfully deported people at this level. But we must do it at all costs.
I do not agree.
This is absolutely idiotic.
The idea that Bush is even similar to Carter is ridiculous and yet I think a high percentage of Freepers share your sentiment.
The same reason why we thought Benedict Arnold was a good guy until he betrayed us.
BTW, you crack me up. Please keep posting as you do add a lot of comic relief.
If this immigration bill passes, it could spell the very end of this country as we know it. Ann Coulter nails it: Bush's America: Roach Motel
Toss in CFR bill and prescription drugs and Bush may have done more to destroy this country than any President we have ever had.
Yeah, your probably right. Carter just gave away the Panama Canal - Bush gave away the entire country.
Hope you enjoyed what happened in Yugoslavia in the 1990s as the balkanization of America is coming.
LOL
Great cartoon!
Kerry received 59 million. Bush is the one who is pushing the legalization of 12 to 20 million illegal aliens. The buck stops with him.
The borders have never been closed in this country.
After 9/11 that is inexcusable and intolerable. Are we or are we not in a global war against Islamic fundamentalism?
FBI's Mueller: Hezbollah Busted in Mexican Smuggling Operation
Illegals from terrorist nations are crossing the border into Arizona.
We have never successfully deported people at this level. But we must do it at all costs.
Phony strawman. First we need to secure our borders, including tracking and repatriating visa overstays. There is no need to hold hostage secure borders to comprehensive immigration reform. Why hasn't Bush enforced the immigration laws on the books, including fining employers who hire illegals? He has done far less than even Clinton. Many illegals will go home if they can't find jobs.
One President did make an effort to repatriate large numbers of illegal aliens.
First, I defy you to back up your slanderous charge that the mainstream of the conservative movement, which opposes this monstrous bill, has become an "irrational mob."
Second, we did not remove Bush because in 2004 he was the lesser of two evils. Kerry would have been much worse.
Bush got 62 million votes in 2004 but suddenly he is only public official in America responsible for illegal immigration.
The constitution vests the executive branch with the power and responsibility to enforce the law. As president, Bush is the chief executive. Therefore, the primary blame for not enforcing the law lies with Bush.
But I suppose expecting the president to do his duty under the constition is irrational in your mind.
The borders have never been closed in this country.
Sure they were, between 1924 and 1965.
We have never successfully deported people at this level.
Sure we have. Eisenhower did it quite efficiently back in the 1950's. Google "operation wetback."
But we must do it at all costs.
No, I think the better strategy is attrition. Make life impossible for illegal aliens here and they will gradually leave on their own.
Unfortunately I live in Massachusetts, so writing my senators (Kerry and Kennedy) is a waste of time (but I did it anyway). I have a summer home in Maine so I wrote to Collins and Snowe (also a waste). I have written to McConnell, Kyle, Graham, and Lott (and Lieberman). Does anyone have list of senators for whom contacting them may actually do some good?
“The idea that Bush is even similar to Carter is ridiculous “
I don’t think Carter ever sent weapons and munitions to our enemies, the Pali’s who celebrated as the bodies of Americans cooled in NYC morgues, or a hospital boat to latin America to deliver the third world babies that Americans aren’t birthing, or offered up our nation, its people and treasure to the invading peasant army of a third world country.
So you’re right. It’s unfair to compare Carter to Bush:
George isn’t fit to wipe that t***’s nose or a** with his hand.
Well, 7 Repubs voted for cloture while 13 ‘Rat Senators voted against.
Seems they have more people off of their respective reservation than we do.
Harry has some housecleaning to do.
You have the republican position reversed. The "official" republican position on this bill is that they want it to PASS. The democrats and the republicans are on the same side on this bill - both senate leaders are trying get their members to vote FOR CLOTURE.
Reid delivered all but 13 while the GOP leaders (Bush, McConnell, Lott, McCain) could only muster a handful.
Yeah...here we go again!
I am not clear, sorry. I suppose I mean that the Representatives have strayed from their bases....and us in this case.
The 13 ‘Rats have strayed from the official DU, Daily Kos, Harry Reid position.
This is going to pass in some way shape or form. There is to much money (big business) pushing for cheap labor to drive wages even lower for it not to.
The old US had a good run, as Republics and Democracies go. Now we need to start thinking of what is going to come next.
And it will not be pretty.
Just the non answer I was looking for.
In 2004, the borders were not secure. You and the Pat Buchannan brigades could have thrown Bush out for the Bum you think he is— I don’t think that— never have never will.
You could have run another candidate— You didn’t.
The Mexican border was not the access point for 911.
It is fair to say that this is a diversion of material and political capital that will also increase the risk of terrorism.
I do not like the tone of these discussions.
It is not possible for enforcement legislation to be portrayed as anything but Shamnesty.
People talk about President Bush in a completely inappropriate manner— suggesting traitor, unpatriotic, worthy of impeachment. These are all ridiculous indications of an irrational mob. That is being nice. I think fascism is not far off target.
Bush believes this bill increases enforcement. I believe this bill increases enforcement. No waterfall of ad hominem will change that point for me.
To ask why immigration threads are viewed as irrational is odd in itself. Are there any other threads were emotions run higher?
Operation wetback removed far fewer people. It did not remove all illegal aliens. It did not stop all illegal immigration.
The 1950s were the 1950s and there is hardly a single policy of the 1950s that people have not harkened back to as some sort of ideal.
It ain’t happening and everyone here ought to know that. There is no conceivable way to remove 20 million people from the US. It has been difficult to incarcerate the record numbers we presently have in our prisons.
I do not think rational dialogue is taking place on this issue.
I for one am absolutely open to considering an amnesty plan at any date after the FIFTH anniversary of the completion of border control measures, including an effective employment verification system.
I am open to an amnesty plan after the flow of new illegals has been halted and we have seen significant attrition from the existing illegal population.
I am open to amnesty after - and only after! - federal judges start assisting local law enforcement agencies that wish to enforce the law rather than forbidding them to do so.
I am open to amnesty after a US president demonstrates a willingness to respond with some modicum of respect to the immigration concerns of the American public - and is not looking for any transparent gimmick that will get him from here to the bill signing.
Hey, here's a thought: Why doesn't President Bush condemn the decision by federal judge Colleen McMahon to require the town of Mamoreneck, NY, to pay $550,000 to illegal aliens and create a center from which they may violate the immigration laws of the United States conveniently, publicly, and with impunity? If ever one legal case destroyed what little "confidence" remained in the seriousness of the US government on immigration, this was that case. And the president has said ... what exactly?
If we have learned anything from the hard experiences of the recent past it is that amnesty must be the last step in any intelligent program of immigration enforcement. When it is the first step, it rapidly becomes the only step - or rather, the first step to the next amnesty and the next after that.
We have learned too that the political leadership in Washington wants a radically different outcome to this immigration debate from that desired by the large majority of the American people.
Confidence? Well in the words of an expert on the subject:
"Fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me - you can't get fooled again."
Ah... very interesting.
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.