Posted on 06/13/2013 12:27:52 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Grassley's amendment was dead on arrival in the Judiciary Committee and it was dead on arrival on the floor of the Senate today. Why? Because it did the one thing Republican border hawks Must Not Do as part of this grand, glorious compromise on immigration: It demanded that the border be effectively secured before any form of legalization, including first-stage probationary legalization, is granted to illegals. That would be a true enforcement “trigger” for amnesty, something that would warrant a second look at the bill. But of course, Democrats will never, ever agree to it; they have no more faith in DHS efficiently securing the border than you do, and thus there’s no way they’re going to make legalization contingent upon it. That’s why even Rubio, since the very beginning of this fiasco, has insisted that probationary legalization come before border security. The bill would be dead if he didn’t make that concession, and he’d rather have a terrible bill that betrays his phony promises of “security first” than have no bill at all.
That’s also why he, McCain, Graham, and Flake — the four GOP members of the Gang of Eight — all voted yes on Reid’s motion to table Grassley’s amendment, along with devout RINO Lisa Murkowski. They were the only Republican votes that Reid got, and as it turns out, he didn’t need a single one of them. A motion to table requires only 51 votes to pass and Reid had 52 Democrats on his side. 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 in the name of preserving the horrible “compromise” they’ve struck. They’re now past the point, it seems, of even making a pretense of border enforcement for the benefit of angry righties. There’s something to be said for honesty, I guess.
Reid’s move infuriated opponents of the bill, who said their right to keep talking while they worked to build a coalition for their proposal had been stripped away without fair warning.
“This so-called open and fair process is a farce,” the top Judiciary Committee Republican, Charles E. Grassley, called out just before the roll call. “This is a very provocative act.”…
For Reid, the power to call for tabling motions gives him additional leverage to move the debate along at a relatively brisk pace — and with solid odds of keeping the bill to his liking. He can make ideas he views as poison pills go away with 51 votes, while the other side will need 60 votes to add language viewed as killer amendments by the Obama administration, the gang of eight and the coalition of business and labor groups pushing the measure.
Rubio will, I’m guessing, defend his vote to table Grassley’s amendment in two ways. One: He’ll try to pander to conservatives by driving a hard bargain on other hot-button stuff to distract them from the fact that he caved on allowing legalization before border security. His last pander was to demand stricter English-language requirements for illegals; today’s pander is to threaten Democrats that he’ll walk away from the bill if Pat Leahy’s amendment granting rights to the spouses of gay illegals passes. The fact that he’s willing to make a lame, boutique issue like that a dealbreaker but not the fact that Democrats refuse to secure the border before granting illegals probationary legalization tells you exactly how seriously he’s taking this bill from a policy standpoint. It’s an insult to serious border hawks, but as DrewM says, it’ll help Rubio with social cons in Iowa in 2016. And that’s what really matters, Rubio’s endless pronouncements that he’s only doing this because it’s the “right thing to do” notwithstanding.
Two: He’ll end up either backing Cornyn’s amendment demanding tighter border security before the second stage of legalization (the green-card process) or, if Democrats give him a firm no on that, he’ll cave on that too and then try to put together an even weaker border amendment of his own as a substitute. Sounds like that’s what’s in motion now, with Rubio working on a compromise while our old friend McCain tries to kill Cornyn’s bill before it even gets rolling:
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) is beginning to speak out forcefully against the Cornyn language, bombarding the Texas Republican with critical comments from the Senate floor. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) is lobbying other Republicans on potential compromises. And Rubio, although he said Wednesday that the Cornyn plan “dramatically improves the bill,” is working on a package that others in the Gang of Eight hope could emerge as an alternative…
Rubio, in an interview with POLITICO this week, would not describe his work with Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) and others as an “alternative” to the Cornyn plan.
“We certainly have ideas, and we’re sharing them with people, but if others want to take the lead on securing the border, that’s good,” Rubio said. “We’re in a game of addition. … The border security elements of the bill will have to be improved. The only issue is what is going to do that.”
Cornyn’s bill is better than the status quo but see Mickey Kaus for why it too is basically a fudge on real border security, beginning with the fact that it signs on to the Gang’s “legalization before security” scheme rather than Grassley’s “security first” proposal. And so now we wait: Will Democrats cave, allowing Cornyn’s ineffective but salable-to-conservatives border amendment into the bill? Or will they muscle Rubio into quitting on Cornyn and offering something that’s even more watered down? The fate of … nothing, really, depends on the answer.
Bi-Partisan treason. And anyway -- there are 50 Senators -- NOT eight. Why is this nonsense allowed to stand??
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
I’m at the point where I hope Rubio loses even if to a liberal democrat.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.