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 ...
No, you were responding to the proposal of a 95% effective barrier. That barrier will not cause the economy to tank.
That's the problem here. You're incapable of making your point without putting words into people's mouths. Speaks volumes about the solidity of your own position.
Well geez, then a fence would be cheap enforcement. It's about time America went for cheap rather than the most expensive way of dealing with things!
Benefits for breaking the law. Now, what laws can we citizens get amnesty for? Hey, I know, TAX AMNESTY!!! For the next 5 years no American can be prosecuted for not paying taxes?! How's that?
Let me be clear.
I am for enforcement first!
All the paths to citizenship and the like, need to be put on the back burner until our borders are sealed and our laws are enforced.
GIVE IT TO ME AGAIN SWEETY....... AND THIS TIME, PUT SOME HEAT ON IT!!!!
Then why are people here against LEGAL immigration too? By asking the question, I was not equating the two, and I don't know of anyone who is in favor of not driving (maybe those Quakers ; )
Now, can you let FastCoyote answer the question?
A heap load of pissed off Americans?
I haven't seen one post stating anyone is against LEGAL immigration.
Back burner? "All this 'no amnesty under any circumstances' stuff is just childish foot stamping. If the bill we want doesn't have the votes, it doesn't have the votes. That's reality. Whining and taking our ball home isn't going to help anyone. All the folks who insist on no compromise may kill our chances to fix this problem."
"Do you also want to stop all LEGAL immigration too?"
I have zero problem with LEGAL immigration. I helped start a spanish TV station, a Mexican restaurant, and I'm fairly fluent in Spanish, so just forget the racist crap.
Highways cost $1 million a mile. $2 billion for a fence ought to do most of what is needed, a pittance amortised in a 2.7 Trillion dollar economy.
Which is why I asked the question, just so YOU can see it woth your own 2 eyes.
I am still monitoring the Senate ....I will let you know if I hear anymore about it...
Please cite the post where I called any dissenting opinion "nativist", "xenophobe", or "bigot". It can not be done, for I have not resorted to that tactic. I am not an open border advocate. I despise Marxism, Che, and the leftist idealogy. I am realistic about the situation as it exists. "IRS issues ITINs to foreign nationals and others who have federal tax reporting or filing requirements and do not qualify for SSNs." "ITINs are issued regardless of immigration status because both resident and nonresident aliens may have U.S. tax return and payment responsibilities under the Internal Revenue Code."
http://www.irs.gov/individuals/article/0,,id=96287,00.html#who
"To pay SE tax, you must have a social security number (SSN) or an individual taxpayer identification number (ITIN). This section explains how to:"
http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=98846,00.html
"A Social Security number (SSN) is a taxpayer identification number issued by the Social Security Administration. It does not represent permission to work and it is not proof of U.S. citizenship or permanent residence."
http://web.mit.edu/scholars/tin.html
Now, I can understand if you think the IRS and SSA are just bloated government agencies. MIT enjoys a very prestigious reputation. And their legal scholars have determined that a Social Security number does not prove citizenship or permission to work. If congress passes a law requiring everybody in America to prove citizenship or face deportation, you had better be ready to fund a huge government organization to demand certified birth records and passports. The leftists are jamming a national ID down our throats, and you and Lou Dobbs are on board. I am not worried, because I have a well-worn valid passport. Enjoy the intrusion into everyones personal life IF you get your way, Comrade.
Don't waste your time with these Qusilings cause most want a Hispanic majority here anyhow....guess why some do?
Duh.
They want to be the majority....
I've been following the immigration threads for quite awhile; never have I seen anyone post they are against LEGAL immigration. What they are against is lawbreaking to get in, and the encouragement of lawbreaking (i.e., amnesty) to get in.
It's not "racist crap" - I will get you and nicmarlo the link. Perhaps you missed where it would cost $80 billion, let alone what "sealing off the border" would mean to the rest of our economy?
"Now, can you let FastCoyote answer the question?"
I think you are a racist. You are only FOR uneducated illegals from Mexico, why aren't you for importing unchecked EDUCATED Russians?
You think $80 billion for the fence, and then a global recession, is "cheap"? Remind me never to take you out on a date ; )
I've stated several times my preference to increase levels of immigration from EVERY country.
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.