Senate kills Grassley’s border-security amendment — with all 4 Republican Gang of Eight members

Hotair ^ | 06/13/2013 | AllahPundit

[USS Johnston]

The Republican “Gang” members conceivably could have voted no to try to show conservatives that they were striking a blow for tighter border security, even though they knew their votes would mean nothing and that Grassley’s amendment would fail anyway. They didn’t, because the Gang’s vowed to stick together on tough votes as a show of solidarity.

Bi-Partisan treason. And anyway -- there are 50 Senators -- NOT eight. Why is this nonsense allowed to stand??

[sheana]

Lemme see.....

PG&E has asked for a rate increase that will make my $600 a mnth in the summer electric bill even higher.

I am spending about $400 mnth on groceries for 2 people now.

My car is broke and in the shop and the $4 a gal gas is killing us anyway.

We are now spending 13% of our gross income on health insurance.

Illegal alien amnesty is not even near the top of my list of important things to achieve. Even if I agreed with it which I don’t.

[SharpRightTurn]

I sent money to Dupio’s campaign when he ran against SunTan Charlie.

If Dupio runs again, I’ll scrape together at least twice as much to send to any conservative that will run against this phony who talks out of both sides of his mouth.

My first clue that he was not who he portrayed himself to be when he ran for the Senate was when he refused to join the Tea Party Caucus after being elected—he didn’t think it was necessary. This guy is nothing but a bag man for lobbyists.

[ckilmer]

It’s a silly amendment and deserved to be voted down. We need legalization and registration immediately precisely because the borders are NOT secure. Anyone who comes AFTER registration? No dice.
...........
There are currently mountains of laws on the books —including the 1986 law that call for border security.

None of them are being enforced.

Neither will the current bills border security WEAK border provisions be enforced. The dems will merely pocket all the amnesty provisions of the current bill and ignore the rest. Then they’ll take the new current law and use it for a jumping off point to grant citizenship to the new people in legal limbo.

Really brother. You need to get a clue as to how the game played. Otherwise you’re just another democrat shill.

[lonevoice]

One of the best things that happened yesterday was Rubio’s staff calling Limbaugh’s show before airtime and trying to get Rush to have Rubio on to explain that his remarks at Univision were not a contradiction. Limbaugh wasn’t having any of it, and he let his audience know about the call. When Limbaugh won’t let you on his show anymore, you know you’re done. That left Rubio to go whine on Hannity for his airtime, which Hannity, of course, gave him.

Today, when the Grassley amendment was tabled, Limbaugh said (without naming Rubio, but it was clearly to and about him), “It’s sad when someone tries to take advantage of me.”

[SomeCallMeTim]

I hope you are being sarcastic. You really want to import 10s of millions of leftist voters?

No.. not being sarcastic. Just pointing out the flaw in THAT part of the law.

I really don't know whether I support this bill, or not... No one actually knows WHAT it is yet. IF, these 10-12 million cannot VOTE for 10-13 years?? As they go through the same process as others do... I'm not so sure they would all be Democrats in 10 years.

[tsowellfan]

I’m at the point where I hope Rubio loses even if to a liberal democrat.

[SomeCallMeTim]

You, Rubio, McCain, Schumer, DiFi, and the rest of the One-World Globalists won't be happy until we're Pressing "1" for Espanol, "2" for Spanglish, "3" for Arabic, and "4" for Redneck.

LOL.. Me? Voting with Rubio and McCain? That's a laugh.

Our immigration system is FUBAR. I have serious doubts whether this bill will do ANYTHING to improve it.. but, some parts of it DO seem better.

LEGALIZING... (NOT CITIZENSHIP)... defines who's here, now... As far as I know, NO ONE gets CITIZENSHIP, until the border is "secure". That means.. NO NEW DEM VOTERS until the border is declared "secure"...

MY PREFERENCE?? Build a Freaking Fence... three layers thick, with hell-fire missile drones... and, then PUNISH businesses who hire illegals. But, I'm NOT King. This bill might be a chance to improve things... still waiting to see.

I BELIEVE in "self-deportation". I BELIEVE it works just as well as "self-importation".

Not sure where I'm at on this bill... we're just now getting to the final, important, details.

[SomeCallMeTim]

Otherwise you’re just another democrat shill.

ROFL!!! It's NO FUN until you get called a "Democrat shill".

It will take a LOT for me to like ANY bill that Chuck U Schumer supports... But, I'm willing to at least watch, and listen. It NEVER made any sense to delay some sort of "legalization" until the border security is done. FOR SURE, NO citizenship until the border is secure....

Legalization does NOT EQUAL citizenship. If the border NEVER gets secure? We NEVER have 11MM new Dem voters.

[SomeCallMeTim]

Really brother. You need to get a clue as to how the game played.

I have a good grip on "How the game is played".

I will admit, I haven't been paying SUPER CLOSE attention before now.. because, before now.. NOTHING MATTERED.

I have paid close enough attention to know that, there was ZERO chance the Democrats were going to delay 'legalization' before border security. Even Rubio was NEVER demanding that.

This amendment was STUPID. NEVER had a chance. I really don't even know why it was offered.. other than, maybe to give the R's some cover. THAT, brother... is HOW the GAME is played.

Let's see what the final bill IS... before hating or loving it.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

No.. not being sarcastic. Just pointing out the flaw in THAT part of the law.

The "flaw" is that it delays amnesty???

You can't see that importing foreign voters to create a supermajority for one party is on the same moral plane as stuffing ballot boxes or packing juries? Just on a much greater scale.

When Roosevelt tried to pack the Supreme Court with his cronies, a man from his FDR's own party said "This is more power than a good man should want or a bad man should have." Indeed, you can bet that Obama and company will use any greater power they acquire to ignore or destroy the Constitution. And the GOP is no better for helping them.

I'm not so sure they would all be Democrats in 10 years.

Not all, just the overwhelming majority (10s of millions). Many of them are very good people, but most of them vote to elect very evil people. What good is it to be "pro-life" when you vote to elect people who have no respect for unborn human life?

GOP share of Hispanic vote in POTUS elections since 1980:

1980: 38 percent

1984: 37 percent

1988: 30 percent (after the 1986 amnesty!)

1992: 29 percent

1996: 23 percent

2000: 36 percent

2004 (GWB's second term, in which he pushed hard for amnesty): The "official" number is 43 percent, but almost all the polls were under 40%.

2008: 32 percent with full-blown GOP amnesty candidate McCain

2012: 28 percent

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

If the border NEVER gets secure? We NEVER have 11MM new Dem voters.

You trust Obama and Napolitano to honor immigration law?

Big Sis: Obama Admin Can Pick Which Laws to Enforce

And look how well the govt. honored the "enforcement" part of the 1986 amnesty. You can count on them conferring citizenship though.

[ckilmer]

Let’s see what the final bill IS... before hating or loving it.
...........
There is no upside for republicans in this bill on any level.

The way to go is what’s being contemplated in the house.

You do things one part at a time. “Comprehensive” just doesn’t cut it.

[SomeCallMeTim]

You trust Obama and Napolitano to honor immigration law?

No.. but, we still have SOME voice in government. As I understand the proposed bill.. there is NO CHANCE for citizenship for either 10, or 13 years... after that, they can't have it until the border is deemed secure. That "deeming" part worries me.... I would like to see some metrics defined.

But.. the current situation is also FUBAR. Maybe, they can come up with something better...

[SomeCallMeTim]

There is no upside for republicans in this bill on any level.

Tightening down on WHO is here... is a good thing for all of us. Not sure they'd actually do that.

I agree with you... step by step would be better. But, that is NOT an option.

[SomeCallMeTim]

Bush didn’t push HARD for amnesty.. until AFTER the 2004 election. So, it’s POSSIBLE to get 40+% of Hispanics to vote for a Republican that appears to give a shit about them?

I don’t believe it’s written that 70+% of current Hispanics will vote D in 10+ years.

[ckilmer]

Tightening down on WHO is here... is a good thing for all of us. Not sure they’d actually do that.
...........
Take a look over at the NSA discussions.

I agree with you... step by step would be better. But, that is NOT an option.
.........
The senate bill has no chance in the house.
The house plan for step by step probably won’t make it in the senate.
No bill is better than a bad bill that only makes things worse. That’s what the senate bill does. It brings amnesty and leaves the border open.

[SomeCallMeTim]

No bill is better than a bad bill that only makes things worse.

Agree.. but, right now.. we still have NO BILL.

There ARE things that could be done to make things better. Still a ways to go with the current attempt to see what the final result COULD be.

[VerySadAmerican]

I saw mccain jacking his jaw today then yielded to “the senator from South Carolina”. I’m not sure but I think mccain bent over so Graham could climb out and start jacking his jaw.

[ckilmer]

There ARE things that could be done to make things better. Still a ways to go with the current attempt to see what the final result COULD be.
..............
Actually the current bill is chalk full of conditional words like “COULD” “should” “may” when it comes to border enforcement. However, Amnesty is mandated into the bill. There’s nothing conditional about it.

Rubio confirmed all this in SPANISH.

Really, if you put lipstick on a pig — its still a pig.