Posted on 03/19/2008 3:27:57 PM PDT by Delacon
0Supporters of the Secure America with Verification and Enforcement (SAVE) Act (HR 4088) need 218 signatures on a discharge petition to bring the bill to the floor for a vote. The legislation, sponsored by Congressmen Heath Shuler (D-North Carolina) and Brian Bilbray (R-California) would beef up border security, as well as crack down on illegal immigrants and employers who hire them.
Rosemary Jenks, director of government relations for Numbers USA, says Democratic leaders are blocking the bill because they do not want an enforcement-only measure to pass Congress. Those legislators, she argues, realize that the only way to get any form of amnesty or increase in visas for temporary or permanent workers is to attach it to an enforcement measure.
"[T]hey know that the American people want enforcement and will hold them responsible if they pass something that does not look like an enforcement bill," says Jenks. "So essentially they are trying to negotiate a deal to attach various kinds of visas, including amnesty visas, to this bill."
Democratic leaders, she contends, are speaking out of both sides of their mouth on the issue of illegal immigration. "The [Congressional] Hispanic Caucus is driving the negotiations to attach an amnesty to the SAVE Act," she explains. "They want something that they can go home and tell their special-interest constituents that they voted for in terms of amnesty."
At the same time, she notes, Democratic leadership was quick to point out that the recently approved tax rebates would not go to illegal aliens. "[But] in fact, the way the House passed that economic stimulus package, illegal aliens would in fact have been eligible for rebates," Jenks continues. "It was partially fixed in the Senate with an amendment, but there are still going to be some illegal aliens who get tax rebates."
Jenks predicts House Democrats will eventually allow a vote on the bill before enough signatures are collected for the discharge petition -- so Republicans will not be given control of the floor. So far, only a handful of Democrats have signed the discharge petition.
Thanks.
I am so fortunate. My wonderful Representative, Gingrey, ALWAYS does the right thing.
The Rep. I had before redistricting, Tom Price, was wonderful as well.
Who is your rep if you mind my asking? Mine is Mike Castle who is the most frustratingly moderate republican you can find. But he gets elected in this very purple state and knows where the wind blows. He signed the petition.
Pete Visclosky, (Money), NW Indiana. I believe he ran unopposed last time out.
Having my Congressman there is as good as having me voting. Thank you, Todd Akin.
From the great red state of Indiana? And two of the 9 dem reps out of the whole country to sign the petition come from Indiana? Ellsworth and Donnelly have signed the petition? Call that bad boy up.
Thanks.
>>So are you agreeing or disagreeing with the intrepid levotb that it is better to have Obama or Hillary than McLame? Still confused.:)<<
OK, you know what “Beating a dead horse” means, right? It used to mean that someone kept b*tching about something that had already received plenty of negative comments, as if killing an animal that was already dead.
Nowadays, it usually means that you see 2 parties argue and not agree about something, and then you see the same arguments again, and they don’t agree, repeat, repeat, repeat. Saying someone is “beating a dead horse” does not imply that you agree or disagree with his arguments, but more like you are tired of hearing them.
Several FReepers have complained that, no matter what the subject is, “McCain haters” hijack the thread.
I get all that. Where do you stand? Btw the phrase “beating a dead horse” connotes the issue is settled. In light of the presumptive dem nominee associating with hate America racists, the horse ain’t dead by a long shot.
I won't vote for either Hillary or Obama. I will definitely support and vote for conservative candidates in races other than POTUS.
I know that many good people are planning to vote for McCain.
The problem with McCain is that, so far, he does not seem to be keeping his promise about securing the borders that he made at CPAC. In fact, he seems to be going out of his way to show that he won't. He skipped town when he could have voted for an excellent border enforcement amendment last week, and he is telling other Republicans not to be tough on enforcement. If he won't keep that promise, will he keep the others, like appointing conservative judges? I still have not decided whether I will vote for McCain.
I am hoping that he will change his behavior so that I can vote for him. What I see is that the Dems running would be hideously bad as POTUS. McCain might be better, and he might not.
Whatever the outcome in November, we will need conservatives in congress to fight a rogue POTUS. Everyone should study the candidates, find out who the good guys are, support them in every way you can, and VOTE!
>>Btw the phrase “beating a dead horse” connotes the issue is settled.<<
Some people use that phrase to to describe an issue that is not settled, and will never be settled, at least for the adversaries who keep arguing about it. I think in all cases, it means that continuing to argue about it will not accomplish anything except make the opposing factions more determined.
For example, Arlen Specter might claim that arguing about abortion is "beating a dead horse" because it is so difficult to amend the consitution, "Stare Decisis," etc. But how can that be true if, as I believe, that most people in the USA think that abortion is almost always wrong? Sometimes you have to compromise to get things done, but on some issues, you have to draw a line based on principles. Yes, I know that some people will vote for or against McCain because they believe he is pro-life, at least to some degree.
>>In light of the presumptive dem nominee associating with hate America racists, the horse ain’t dead by a long shot.<<
I believe that people who would vote for Obama in November are wrong. If you are saying that people who vote for conservatives, but do not find any of the POTUS candidates worthy of their votes, are "associating with hate America racists," I disagree.
Why does Obama get pounded for associating with Wright, but it's OK for McCain to have someone on his staff who thinks it's OK to steal US citizens' social security numbers? Suppose Obama said, like, McCain about Hernandez, "I don’t know what his previous positions are or other positions are, he supports mine. I have nothing to do with his."
January 2008:
QUESTION: Senator McCain, I thank you so much for your service … as an Irish … my parents and my grandparents both came here to become immigrants … I so much want to vote for you, I have one concern … your straight talk … it is you have an outreach - Hispanic outreach person - on your staff, Juan Hernandez, and he has said that he understands why Social Security numbers are stolen … because we don’t allow the immigrants to get their own, so it’s ok for him that we steal other Americans’ Social Security numbers. He also has written a book called “The New American Pioneers” about comparing illegal immigrants, not legal immigrants, to become the “New Pioneers”… I wonder if you agree with his policy? If so, explain it to me and if not why is he on your staff?
SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN: He’s on my staff because he supports my policies and my proposals and my legislative proposal to secure the borders first. No one will receive social security benefits who is in this country illegally. I don’t know what his previous positions are or other positions are, he supports mine. I have nothing to do with his. He has volunteered to help me with outreach to our Hispanic citizenry as I outreach to every citizen in America. I’ve been very clear on my position on immigration; I’ve been very clear on my position on Social Security. Of course I am grateful that so many people came from Ireland to the United States of American and anybody else who come here legally and that’s the only system I will ever support. I have no idea but I will check in to the information you’ve given me. I promise you, I will secure our borders, I will not allow anyone to come here illegally, I will not allow anyone to receive Social Security or any other benefits because they have come here illegally and broken our laws.
“The [Congressional] Hispanic Caucus is driving the negotiations to attach an amnesty to the SAVE Act,” she explains.”
Great Post. I read the above quote about the SAVE Act, and to my knowledge, it already contains some language that grants amnesty to churches who harbor illegals (Elvira). Anyone know if that’s been amended (taken out)?
>>Passing more immigration laws will only result in more inaction on the part of Congress.<<
I disagree.
1) You know that the La Raza Dems will keep attaching pro-illegal amendments to everything they can, not just enforcement bills. The good guys should attach clear enforcement amendments to bills. Otherwise the bad guys will have an unfair advantage. One example is Chambiss’s “zero tolerance amendment” that passed this month by a healthy margin in the senate, despite the fact the McCain did not vote.
2) The Schuler bill puts pro-illegal congresscritters on the spot.
>>would cut off all means of support for illegals by preventing any business, individual or government to aid, abet or harbor illegals.<<
I’m very busy this weekend, but I think you are overlooking the over 1000 ICE (I think 4000 would be better) and CAP officers, more detention facilities, 13 additional judges and 2 temporary judges in border states. Also requires employers to use EEVS.
Clearly, we don’t want another “comprehensive” bill like the one last year. You are correct that there is always a danger that some treasonous congresscritters will try to swindle us, and you are correct that current immigration laws have been ignored. But I see some new and useful features in the SAVE act.
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.