Let alone the "Chuck Schumer Republicans."
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.
Obama doesn't care what immigration law says, and neither did the fed govt. after the 1986 amnesty. GOP administrations are not necessarily better.
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.
None of that matters. You believe that the feds are going to start following the law after 25 years of ignoring it?
McCain did (in fact. he has never stopped) and he got 32%
So, it’s POSSIBLE to get 40+% of Hispanics to vote for a Republican that appears to give a shit about them?
It's never happened since 1980. I would say somewhere in the 30s unless it gets worse. Dems are going to tell Hispanics that the GOP is going to lynch them.
I don’t believe it’s written that 70+% of current Hispanics will vote D in 10+ years.
Maybe it will be in the 60s. That's what it usually is. I don't pretend to know the exact number.
Pardon me, what the Hell are you talking about? This is a bill welcomed by Chuck Schumer, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Bambi, and the entire democrat Marxist leadership.
What POSSIBLE good could come of that?
This is typical of those who are confused about the issue, like SomeCallMe Tim. The border is a national security and law enforcement issue not an immigration issue. Read the GAO reports. Wake up and get a clue.
The President, Congress and anyone else in the Fed gov cannot claim they are serious about countering terrorism and keeping America safe when they are not securing the border.
‘stricter English-language requirements’
What a joke, they’re illiterated in their own language and we expect them to learn English!
Open borders, one of the last steps to a one world government.
What makes Rubio a unique politician is not that he speaks out of both sides of his mouth is that he does it in two different languages!
It's been running about 30 already... I doubt it can get MUCH worse.
W got at least 40%.. maybe a little higher. It's possible... But, it will take a candidate who at least TRIES to relate to them... a little.
At this point, I really think the political effect is over-stated... in BOTH directions. If 11 MM are added to the voter rolls in 13 years... and, they vote 70% Dem, that's a 3MM voter advantage for them. We could more than make that up JUST by having a conservative candidate who brings out the base.
Sometimes... our elected Reps need to do whats GOOD FOR THE COUNTRY... and, let the politics work themselves out. Our current immigration system is horrible... the HUGE numbers of illegal, and undocumented people living here is a security issue. We NEED to be able to bring in more skilled labor. There are a LOT of things that COULD be improved in a real, overall reform.
That said... I am NOT saying I support the current bill... because it's NOT yet finalized. It depends on the final form: what makes it, what doesn't. A fair amount of it looks decent to me. But, the last few issues remaining (like a border security trigger BEFORE citizenship) are important and difficult for both sides.
This is a KEY point for me.. and, as far as I know.. NOT yet decided. Rubio has been saying, all along, that the border MUST be declared "secure" BEFORE citizenship is granted.
If THAT doesn't make it into the final bill.... NO WAY JOSE for me. And, frankly... as stated by others, I'm not sure I would trust anyone in government to make an honest effort at securing the borders. NO ONE seems interested in even trying.
This is a KEY point for me.. and, as far as I know.. NOT yet decided. Rubio has been saying, all along, that the border MUST be declared “secure” BEFORE citizenship is granted.
..........
he has been saying that in english.
in spanish he says that the amnesty is granted period. the border will be secured sometime later.
Possible but unlikely. That number was from an outlier poll in 2004. The average of pre-election polls was Bush 32%. GWB got low 30s in every one of those polls except Gallup 6/30 (38%). I made some html formatting to make the data from the pdf file more readable:
The Latino Vote in the 2004 Election
Table 1 Latino Political Preferences in Pre-Election Polls
Survey Sponsor Date N Bush Kerry
Bendixen & Associates 6/3/2003 800 34% 48%^ Democracy Corps 2/16/2004 1,564 34% 56%
Miami Herald/Zogby 4/01/2004 1,000 33% 58%
Gallup 6/30/2004 500 38% 57%
Washington Post/TRPI 7/16/2004 1,605 30% 60%
Pew Hispanic Center 7/20/2004 751 32% 62%
Democracy Corps 7/22/2004 1,000 30% 61%
Bendixen & Associates* 9/20/2004 900 29% 64%
Washington Post/TRPI 10/15/2004 1,603 30% 60%
Miami Herald/Zogby 10/24/2004 1,000 33% 61%
2004 Survey Average 2/04–10/04 9,923# 32% 60%
^Poll of 6/3/2003 compared a Bush vs. Democratic nominee match-up in the 2004 election. *Poll of 9/20/2004 was a four-state survey in the Southwest including Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, and Nevada. #Combined survey sample size of 9,923 Latino registered voters carries a margin of error of 0.98%.
At this point, I really think the political effect is over-stated... in BOTH directions. If 11 MM are added to the voter rolls in 13 years... and, they vote 70% Dem, that's a 3MM voter advantage for them. We could more than make that up JUST by having a conservative candidate who brings out the base.
70%-30% would be a margin of 40%, so it depends on how many were voting age at that time. If nearly all of them could vote (and in 13-15 years that would likely be the case), that would be over 4 million. But do you really believe that 11 million is accurate? They have been quoting that number for a very long time.
Remember that the amnesty proponents in 1986 promised only 250,000 would be amnestied. LINK: Chuck Schumer says making that claim. (What a coincidence! Schumer is at the forefront of this amnesty too!) The real number was 10 times bigger.
Our current immigration system is horrible.
And in 1986 the amnesty was going to fix that. Think Charlie Brown, football, Lucy.
I'm glad to hear you say that, son!
I don't think that's correct.. He said, in Spanish, that LEGALIZATION comes first... that's NOT citizenship. He's ALWAYS been saying that. It's an important distinction.
You're correct.. I forgot to add that I assume no more than 75% of them would actually vote... so, more like 3MM.
But do you really believe that 11 million is accurate?
Who the heck knows? I think, it was PROBABLY accurate a year ago.. I think a bunch of illegals "self-deported" when the economy tanked. But, from what I've heard... they're ROARING back here.. to be here in time for "amnesty".
It's not my first rodeo. ;-)
Our government is SO frustrating. There ARE things that need fixing... but, how can you do that, if there's NO TRUST at all.....
and.... HOW can anyone have ANY trust when you’re dealing with scumbags like Schumer?
Let alone the "Chuck Schumer Republicans."
I don’t think that’s correct.. He said, in Spanish, that LEGALIZATION comes first... that’s NOT citizenship. He’s ALWAYS been saying that. It’s an important distinction.
............
No its not. Why not? because that’s not the way things work. the instant the illegals are legalized—then all that happens is that the lines are redrawn. the democrats will now argue that the legal status without citizenship is like the 3/5ths compromise.
duh get it? so they will hold all border action until the legalized illegals are made citizens and the border is never secured because it is the source of new democrats—and they can do that without breaking a sweat because the language in the bill for border enforcement is pure mush. and the dems get a lock on the federal government by getting a lock on either Florida or Texas—which is all they need. they already have an inter-generational lock on new york Illinois California Massachusetts. Oh yeah. because the border is not secure a new batch of illegals will come through for which the whole thing will need to be done over again in 20 years. meanwhile republicans are put out of national office permanently.
the democrats believe they are negotiating with the republicans for total republican surrender forever.
mia dia I hope and pray you understand this.
That's silly.. There are LOTS of people already in the country, LEGALLY, who cannot vote. They don't count in re-districting lines.
The Cornyn amendment requires verification of border control BEFORE any of these new registries can be granted citizenship.
This is a complicated issue... NOT made easier when you post nonsense like that.
This is a complicated issue... NOT made easier when you post nonsense like that.
/////////
bull monkey. Try to understand something...anything about the way things really work. otherwise you’re just another silly republican suicide.
There are already three or four levels of laws that govern the border not least of which is reagan’s 1986 bill. That one’s still in force and its not being obeyed. It never was enforced. It never was obeyed. Except for the amnesty part. The border security part was just ignored.
The federal government just like Mexico’s or Canada’s federal government — has the responsibility to enforce the border. But they’re not doing it.
Why would another stinking border law cause them to change their behavior. The president enforces only the laws that please him.
it does not please him to control the border.
get it?
the only thing that would happen with the new law is that the democrats would pocket the amnesty (legalization) provisions and ignore the rest.
that’s it.
they have no incentive to do otherwise. rather they have every incentive to disobey the law as they are doing now. and there’s no one to stop them.
You sound like an intelligent man. why is this so difficult for you to understand.
I mean presumably you’re at the very least a republican.
Of course, if you’re a democrat — hey you’re within inches of getting ultimate inter-generational control over the federal bureaucracy. all you have to do is keep blowing smoke at silly supercilious pubbies.
of course giving the dems the keys to white house for a generation or two is a sure way to kill the republic in about the way Hugo Chavez and his heirs are doing so in Venezuela.
.. they have no incentive to do otherwise
Look... I GET that border enforcement has NOT happened. Obama has done LESS than nothing.. he's actually spending our money in Mexico ENCOURAGING illegal immigration. But, let's be real... W didn't do much about it either. NO President, or administration has done much about it, ever.
IMO, securing the border and/or controlling immigration is a two step process:
1) Physical security.... as best we can... with fences, drones, electronic surveillance. There are limits to this. It's a LONG border... and, there's one on the North too... and, miles and miles of shoreline. It's not possible to PHYSICALLY STOP EVERYONE from entering this country illegally. But, we can make it a LOT harder for them.... then,
2) Crack down on employers who hire illegals. That's a REAL problem right now... How do you crack down on an employer when they have no REAL, dependable way of verifying legal status? If the government can't tell who's legal and who isn't, why should we expect a business to do it?
There are provisions (and money) in the current bill to improve BOTH of these aspects. Money for beefed up physical security...and, a vastly improved E-verify system. Those are GOOD things. There's NO WAY to make any improvement is immigration control without them.
So, what incentive would anyone have to actually DO anything? Well, that's the final piece of this massive bill they're trying to work out: NO CITIZENSHIP until the border AND enforcement parts are in place.
It may well be, that the Dems will not accept this kind of link. If they don't? Then, screw it! No deal... Nothing will happen. Maybe, that's what they want... so they can use the issue to get MORE Dems elected and then do it they way they want. You think we'd like THAT result? I don't.
I'm slightly offended that you would equate my "intelligence" with being "Republican"... I am a CONSERVATIVE, who almost always (not always) votes Republican because they are usually the best of two evils.
I also follow politics pretty closely.... even at the "nuts and bolts" level... and, am interested in demographics. We've got a long-term problem that isn't going to be solved with this bill... but, would likely be WORSENED if nothing is done to improve our immigration control.
I STILL don't know how this bill will play out. I'm becoming more convinced, daily, that NO ONE really knows. It looks more and more like Obama is involved heavily in it... and, that means only one thing: The Dems aren't really interested in improving anything... other than their own vote counts.
I suppose that's always been the case.. and, it was always a pipe dream to think Congress could do ANYTHING worthwhile... but, I'm an eternal optimist. CHANGES NEED TO BE MADE in our immigration system. SOME of the things in the current bill seem good to me. The problem is, HOW to structure it in a way to make sure the RIGHT things are actually done?
If no one EVER believes ANYTHING can be done? Then, they might as well ALL go home, and let's shut the government down forever....
Oh, what a happy day that would be! :-)
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.