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 ...
The Senate does so at its own peril. We just have to keep the pressure up. The numbers in the general public are on our side. We can't let up.
I agree Bush did the best with Hispanic men (why do you think George P. is being groomed) and in the South. There are some conflicting exit poll data, but TV network-Associated Press national exit poll taken on Election Day gave Bush 44 percent of their votes, compared to 35 percent overall in 2000 - that's nothing to sneeze at: http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/naes/2004_03_hispanic-data-12_21_pr.pdf
Nice strawman. Even the Berlin Wall had escapes. We don't need to go that far.
If we make crossing the wall a 75 percent probability of getting caught, and seeking employment as an illegal a 50-50 chance of getting caught, then you have an 87.5 percent chance of getting caught. Since most border crossers have to pay a lot of money to coyotes, it makes it a poor investment - whereas now, the odds are, they won't get caught.
So we don't need to rise to your standard of an inpenetrable wall. Just one to signfiicantly slow the flow, when used in conjunction with additional enforcement within the country.
A wall doesn't have to 100% effective to have value. I doubt the person in Isreal climbed the wall anyway.
By your logic, if we lose one person in Afganistan then the mission was a failure.
That's right - I've never even READ an exit poll before ; )
Sure I will - he is pro-choice.
My point exactly. Strangely somehow you disagree.
You mean to tell me you're ready to go to war against illegals because they occupy FIVE PERCENT of the work force? I had no idea it was so low.
There is weeping and gnashing of teeth when 86% of the construction industry employs non-illegals?
Thanks for that statistic. It's going to come in handy.
Tell me. What is the job breakdown in "farming occupations"? How many American citizens are picking grapes and oranges, versus illegals?
Yep... LOL!! backatcha!! Are you a, "black boy"?
All concentrated in states that were already solidly GOP. Take out the Texas hispanic vote and he he didn't do well at all with hispanics.
Not exactly. But one unarmed citizen lost is one too many.
Although I considered working for VNS a few years ago, before they disbanded.
Wouldn't want the FACTS to get in the way of their FEELINGS now, would we, brohamie? ;o)
It's not clear why you insist that a wall must be 100% effective to be of value.
The Secret Service hasn't been 100% effective in protecting the President (Kennedy) - does that mean that the Secret Service protection is useless and should be disbanded?
Are either of you accusing the President of the United States of "treason"?
It had everything to do with the wall.
the wall will be stopping that in the future.
That wall will be useless if the attacks are carried out from within.
Since the first of the 12 million wouldn't be eligible for citizenship for eleven years, we've got plenty of time to work that out.
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.