Posted on 04/06/2006 8:33:43 AM PDT by STARWISE
WASHINGTON - In a last stab at compromise, Senate Republicans and Democrats reported progress Thursday toward agreement on legislation opening the way to legal status and eventual citizenship for many of the 11 million immigrants now in the U.S. illegally.
"There's been tremendous progress overnight," said Sen. Harry Reid (news, bio, voting record) of Nevada, the Democratic leader, while Majority Leader Bill Frist also expressed optimism that a long-sought compromise might be at hand.
There was no immediate reaction from President Bush, who has made immigration legislation a key priority.
The developments occurred after Frist unveiled a new bill late Wednesday night on the subject as the Senate headed into a test vote on the most sweeping immigration bill in two decades.
In general, the legislation would provide for enhanced border security, regulate the flow of future immigrants into the United States and settle the legal fate of the estimated 11 million men, women and children already in the country.
It was the fate of the illegal immigrant population that proved hardest to legislate, and it has left the Senate on the verge of gridlock for days.
(snip)
Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., as well as other key senators met before the vote to review terms of a proposed compromise.
In general, it would require illegal immigrants who have been in the United States between two years and five years to return to their home country briefly, then re-enter as temporary workers. They could then begin a process of seeking citizenship.
Illegal immigrants here longer than five years would not be required to return home; those in the country less than two years would be required to leave without assurances of returning, and take their place in line with others seeking entry papers.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Exactly. I would never vote for a democrat, if I could do that, I would be happy with the GOP's actions lately. If Tancredo does not win the GOP nomination and he runs as a 3rd Party, he has my vote for sure. I would consider Newt though.
I agree and it will probably be necesarry eventually. Right now it probably isn't politically feasible as it will wrongly be compared to the Berlin Wall.
Self-deportation is the answer as in cutting off all non-emergency social services coupled with giving employers of illegals jail time.
Hopefully with this supreme court, we can get a bill through that will deny education to the children of illegal immigrants.
Personally, I'd put Philip Martin from the University of California in charge of the program.
I didn't say Americans were too lazy to do anything. I said fruit and vegetable growers have not had much luck hiring white boys like you to do stoop labor. That has been the case for well over 40 years. I know you don't like that reality, but it IS reality.
If this bill passes, the GOP will be in the same shape it was in 1976 and 1992. The only ones donating money will be the party cheerleaders and the employers of illegal immigrants.
Even with stringent and strong enforcement, both with manpower, the strength of a double layered fence, and sheer technological wizardry, we'll slow it down, but we'll never cut the flow off entirely.
This notion of a impenatrable wall, real or imagined, is just a pipe dream.
Now you're changing the rules/laws all over again. There are already rules/laws in the books. They simply need to be enforced. This isn't like a marriage where the husband and wife have agreed to live with each other and have made a commitment to each other and their children. This is the sovereignty of a country, with laws to control its borders and processes in place to allow immigrants to legally enter.
What has happened is political correctness/greed run awry. Greed & p.c. have twisted the situation around to make it appear as though the illegal aliens are part of the U.S. family, whose feelings and well-being should come first and foremost. Rather than treat the illegal aliens as the criminal invaders they are, with punishments meted out, the rules/laws are being questioned as "fair" because it may be hurtful to the invaders, and those who illegally employ them.
It's definitely feasible. It already passed the H.R. They're much closer to the views of the people than the Senate.
It's not an all or nothing proposition. If the wall just cut illegal immigration to a trickle then it would be fine.
It's not like we have this same mentality on every other piece of legislation.
Seeing as how the employers of illegal immigrants belong in the unions, I doubt it.
1.
The most important aspect of immigration reform is to secure the border.
The media and the pro-illegal agenda have created the myth that we can’t secure the border unless we do something for the 11 million. All of the bills being proposed in the US Senate only delay the House bill that deals directly with the border problem.
2. American voters want to remove the 11 million out of this country.
• The recall election of Pro-illegal immigration Governor Grey Davis was won by Arnold Schwarzenegger, who also got 31 percent of the Hispanic vote after opposing SB60 (drivers licenses for illegals) and having Pete Wilson in his camp. Bustamante, the most popular pro-illegal candidate, got only 52 percent of the Hispanic vote and of course lost.
• In Arizona Proposition 200, another law blocking illegals from welfare, passed easily with a 56 percent yes vote, including 40% of the Hispanic vote
• California, a liberal blue state, voted for Prop 187 which would have denied illegals welfare. This resolution was voted for by 25% of hispanics.
• Illegal immigrant groups challenge these propositions in courts because they know that millions of illegals depend on welfare to stay in the US
3.
Forcing illegals out of this country will not destroy the US economy
• Illegals are less than 5% of the workforce, they are not a majority in any industry nor are they “the backbone” of the economy.
• Many of the companies that hire illegals make billions in profits and could easily increase their wages to hire the majority of US workers in their industry.
• The same economic excuse to defend illegal labor was used to successfully defend slavery in the US for decades, resulting in the Civil War.
4. Republicans will not get the “Hispanic Vote” by pandering to the illegal agenda
• Hispanic activist groups are loyal to Mexico first and the socialist agenda second. The National Hispanic Leadership Agenda give democrats over 90% favorable rating. A Conservative has no chance of gaining favor with these groups
• Propositions that cut welfare to illegals are supported by Americans, including many hispanics. Even more support is for securing the borders.
• The way for Conservatives to reach out to hispanics is the same way they reach out to the rest of America, by speaking and voting Conservative.
• The Hispanic Vote is only 6% of the voting population
True, but unfortunately both the Senate and President oppose it. Even if it made it out of the congress, Bush (standing next to his master, President Fox) would veto it and the Senate wouldn't have the votes to override.
For all intents and purposes, the House bill is DOA. It'll lose it's teeth once both houses of Congress goes into conference to hammer out a compromise.
Probably the biggest evidence of its effectiveness lies in the fact that the sellout politicians in Washington hate the idea.
There has been ample documentation and tons of links-on this thread, as on other related threads-and it hasn't done anything to persuade the FROBLs here that they might just be wrong.
Do you know why?
Because they do not base their beliefs upon any empirical data, or tangible, documented facts, but rather on an illusory faith.
We could provide you with copious data demonstrating the deleterious impact untrammeled immigration has on our economy and our society.
We could post study after study conducted by Professor George Borjas, demonstrating that mass immigration did not have a net positive effect on our economy.
We could cite Camorata, and Huntington, and Brimelow, and it would not make a whit of difference, because the belief in open borders is akin to religious dogma, not something that can be disproved by such inconsequential things as "facts."
This is why I can't understand the people here who try to argue with Creationists.
I suppose on some level you have to grudgingly admire their tenacity, but what is the point?
You're arguing with people who believe that the planet is less than 6,000 yrs. old.
It's as absurd as trying to convince some FROBL that importing 20+ million people from backwater, economically undeveloped, third world nations is a wise idea.
Excellent post! The item quoted above should be read by all of those putting the price of lettuce above the future of the country.
I'm sure after yesterday's RPG attack on Israel, he got the last laugh.
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.