Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Senate OKs Border Fence, Backs Citizenship
AP ^ | 05/17/2006 | By DAVID ESPO

Posted on 05/17/2006 4:21:08 PM PDT by notes2005

WASHINGTON - The Senate agreed to give millions of illegal immigrants a shot at U.S. citizenship and backed construction of 370 miles of triple-layered fencing along the Mexican border Wednesday, but prospects of the legislation clearing Congress were clouded by a withering attack against President Bush by a prominent House Republican.

"Regardless of what the president says, what he is proposing is amnesty," said Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and the lawmaker who would lead House negotiators in any attempt to draft a compromise immigration bill later this year.

He said Bush had "basically turned his back" on a tough border security bill after encouraging the House to pass it last year.

Sensenbrenner's blast underscored the deep Republican divisions on immigration, and coincided with a clash among GOP senators on the Senate floor.

"This is not amnesty, so let's get the terms right," Sen. Chuck Hagel (news, bio, voting record) of Nebraska lectured fellow Republicans who condemned the bill. "Come on. Let's stop the nonsense."

"It sort of reminds me of the famous line, `Methinks thou dost protest too much,'" responded Sen. David Vitter, R-La., who repeatedly described the legislation as an amnesty bill for lawbreakers.

Ironically, the votes on the Senate floor gave fresh momentum to legislation that closely follows Bush's call for a broader bill that addresses the legal status of illegal immigrants as well as providing for a new guest worker program. Senate passage appears likely next week.

The political wheels turned as demonstrators massed within sight of the Capitol demanding greater rights for immigrants, the latest evidence of rising passions in connection with efforts to write the most significant overhaul of immigration law in two decades.

With the administration eager to emphasize its commitment to border security, officials continued to flesh out details of Bush's Monday night announcement that he would send up to 6,000 National Guard troops to states along the Mexican border.

Lt. Gen. Steven Blum, chief of the National Guard Bureau, raised the possibility that Guard members could be sent over the objections of a state's governor.

"If a governor truly did not want this mission performed in their state, then the option is there for the president and the secretary of defense to federalize the Guard. And then the mission would be conducted, and then it would be without the control of the governor," he said.

Vitter led the drive to strip from the bill a provision giving an eventual chance at citizenship to illegal immigrants who have been in the country more than two years. His attempt failed, 66-33, at the hands of a bipartisan coalition, and the provision survived. In all, 41 Democrats joined with 24 Republicans and one independent to turn back the proposal. Opponents included the leaders of both parties, Sens. Bill Frist, R-Tenn., and Harry Reid, D-Nev. Thirty-one Republicans and two Democrats supported Vitter's amendment.

The vote to build what supporters called a "real fence" — as distinct from the virtual fence already incorporated in the legislation — was 83-16. It marked the first significant victory for conservatives eager to leave their stamp on a measure that looks increasingly like it is headed toward Senate passage.

Construction would send "a signal that open-border days are over. ... Good fences make good neighbors, fences don't make bad neighbors," said Sen. Jeff Sessions (news, bio, voting record), R-Ala. He said border areas where barriers are in place have experienced economic improvement and reduced crime.

"What we have here has become a symbol for the right wing in American politics," countered Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill. He said if the proposal passed, "our relationship with Mexico would come down to a barrier between our two countries."

All Republicans and more than half the Senate's Democrats supported the proposal. A core group of bill supporters who have held off other more serious challenges in the past two days made little attempt to fight this one, judging it far less damaging than the attack on the citizenship provision or an attempt on Tuesday to strip out a guest worker program.

The Senate labored to complete work by next week on immigration legislation that generally follows an outline Bush set out in his nationally televised speech this week.

The measure includes provisions to strengthen border security, create a new guest worker program and crack down on the hiring of illegal immigrants as well as the controversial steps offering illegal immigrants an eventual opportunity to become citizens.

Supporters of the Senate measure credited Bush's prime-time Monday night speech with giving fresh momentum to the effort to pass long-stalled legislation.

Across the Capitol in the House, the story was different. Republicans pushed through a border security bill last year, and several members of the rank-and-file have criticized Bush for his proposals. To calm their concerns, the White House dispatched Karl Rove to discuss immigration with the House Republicans at their weekly closed-door meeting.

Rep. Steve King (news, bio, voting record), R-Iowa, an outspoken opponent of the Senate bill, derided the effort. "I didn't see it was a persuasive event. If it was about Karl Rove seeking to convince members of Congress after debate that he's right and we're wrong it would have been better not to have the meeting," he said.

King said Rove told lawmakers Bush is sincere about enforcement. But, he added, "The president doesn't want to enforce immigration law because he's afraid he'll inconvenience someone who wants to come into the country for a better life."

Rep. Peter King (news, bio, voting record), R-N.Y., agreed that Rove did not seem to have been persuasive. "It's not the kind of issue you can compromise on; either you're giving amnesty to people who are here illegally or you aren't."

The National Capital Immigration Coalition organized the afternoon demonstration on the National Mall a few blocks from where lawmakers debated the issue they cared about.

"This is a critical moment. We oppose the militarization of the U.S-Mexican border," said Juan Jose Gutierrez, one of the event's organizers.


TOPICS: Government; Mexico
KEYWORDS: 109th; aliens; borderfence; southernborder
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-86 next last
To: Jorge
Huh? How about the many years longer that those wishing to immigrate legally spend waiting their turn, while illegals jump ahead of them and establish longevity, property ownership, a dozen anchor children, and hundreds of thousands of dollars in wages?

A criminal can never be rewarded for their crime without screwing an honest law abiding citizen and making a complete mockery,of both letter and intent of the law that was scorned.
61 posted on 05/17/2006 5:50:06 PM PDT by F.J. Mitchell (A government that will not enforce the laws of the land, is a government standing on quicksand.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Popman; All
Cheer up Popman!
Do you have any idea how long and how hard many people have worked to force our federal elected government to start seriously addressing to this particular problem?
Many good FReepers have been banned, and/or labeled racists by demanding everyone pay attention and resolve this very serious problem that affects every single citizen in this country.
It is possible to step over the posting guidelines when one feels passionate about any issue, but it happens.
I have had a time out or two myself, on various topics.
President Bush made his position clear prior to his election in 2000, and has never varied from his stance on this issue.
I disagree with his stated position vehemently, but I also wholeheartedly applaud him for having the integrity and guts to not only maintain his oft stated position, but also to force other politicians, and this entire country, to finally fully address this pervasive problem, and resolve it.
He has had one or two very high priority, and unanticipated, crisis issues to deal with since his first election...
62 posted on 05/17/2006 5:56:23 PM PDT by sarasmom (To all political staff lurkers: SECURE THE BORDERS, OR YOU'RE FIRED!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: F.J. Mitchell
We were so lucky to be here back in the old days when it was proper to discuss such matters. It gives us a lot more in-site as to what is going on.
63 posted on 05/17/2006 5:59:54 PM PDT by Revel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: notes2005

"What we've got here is...a failure to communicate.."


64 posted on 05/17/2006 6:01:20 PM PDT by Windsong (Jesus Saves, but Buddha makes incremental backups)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: F.J. Mitchell
A criminal can never be rewarded for their crime without screwing an honest law abiding citizen ...

Nonsense.

Giving a speeder a warning instead of a ticket doesn't screw those who obey the speed limit one bit.

Nor does the fact a speeder might arrive at his destination a few minutes earlier than those who obey the speed limit.

If I agree to work all day for a certain wage, and my boss hires somebody who works half a day and gives him the same pay, that has not cost me a thing.

According to your argument nobody should ever be given a break for anthing.

Frankly it's childish.

65 posted on 05/17/2006 6:01:22 PM PDT by Jorge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: All
Immigration Reform Bill of 1986 2006

Hey! Look! A shiny new immigration law to ignore! Hurray!

Famous one liners:

"Take my wife.. please!"

"To qualify as legal residents the 'undocumented workers' will have to obey the law, learn English, stay employed, pay a big fine, and pay back taxes."

66 posted on 05/17/2006 6:28:45 PM PDT by WilliamofCarmichael (If modern America's Man on Horseback is out there, Get on the damn horse already!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: notes2005
I really want to be happy about the fence, but how can I be? This sucks...
67 posted on 05/17/2006 6:30:05 PM PDT by Zeon Cowboy (.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Algernon Sidney
Bush is a War President with a mandate. As Patriotic Americans, we must trust him in his role as the Decider. Questioning him in a time of war only gives aid and comfort to our enemies.

Bush is giving aid and comfort to an invading force that will do more potential harm to America than all the terrorists in the middle east!

A once great nation is selling out it's culture and traditions to a swarm of locusts.

I'm afraid Bush will rank right up there with Jimmy Carter when the dust settles senor.

68 posted on 05/17/2006 6:45:07 PM PDT by CROSSHIGHWAYMAN (I'm a proud GRINGO......is Bill Clinton still the president?...Seems that way sometimes!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: CROSSHIGHWAYMAN

Bush is becoming Jimmy Carter the second. Never have a seen a President that is totally working against America's interests. Ronald Reagan would be rolling over in his grave. If he were alive, he would certainly see what a mistake his 86 bill was try to change it.


69 posted on 05/17/2006 7:46:04 PM PDT by lone star annie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Jorge

Thanks for the laughs, Jorge,but such inane comparisons is indicative of over exposure to the brain eating fungus of liberalism.



70 posted on 05/17/2006 7:48:44 PM PDT by F.J. Mitchell (A government that will not enforce the laws of the land, is a government standing on quicksand.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

Comment #71 Removed by Moderator

To: lone star annie

The good provisions of the 1986 bill, including enforcing employer penalties, were never enacted...only the amnesty part. And who was VP at the time, and became president 2 years later... ? And son is president now, with the drastically lower scores on employer sanctions than Clinton...


72 posted on 05/17/2006 8:30:32 PM PDT by La Enchiladita (God Bless Our Troops...including U.S. Border Patrol, America's First Line of Defense)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: truthkeeper
>>"King said Rove told lawmakers Bush is sincere about enforcement. But, he added, "The president doesn't want to enforce immigration law because he's afraid he'll inconvenience someone who wants to come into the country for a better life."

This is a joke, right? Somebody please tell me it's really 1975 and Chevy Chase is reading this line off the teleprompter.

Please?

Sadly, no.

Depressing isn't it? Why can't anyone talk some common sense into Dubya? Hello, Laura....?

73 posted on 05/17/2006 8:38:04 PM PDT by Cyropaedia ("Virtue cannot separate itself from reality without becoming a principal of evil...".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: La Enchiladita
It really makes you wonder doesn't it? It's disgraceful the way he'll try to stand up to anyone else on a varitey of issues but he capitulates again and again to Fox on this critical front....
74 posted on 05/17/2006 8:43:11 PM PDT by Cyropaedia ("Virtue cannot separate itself from reality without becoming a principal of evil...".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Cyropaedia

At one time, I believed he was our cowboy on a white horse. Our John Wayne. And ol' Wayne was tough on illegals, way back when....

*sigh*


75 posted on 05/17/2006 8:55:18 PM PDT by La Enchiladita (God Bless Our Troops...including U.S. Border Patrol, America's First Line of Defense)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: notes2005

"The best defense is a good $1,000,000,000-fence."


76 posted on 05/18/2006 9:41:54 AM PDT by mikrofon (A fencive strategy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: F.J. Mitchell
Posting juvenile insults tells me you are unable to articulate a coherant rebutal to my arguments.

I'm not surprised.

77 posted on 05/18/2006 3:27:28 PM PDT by Jorge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Jorge

I really was laughing at your argument, I didn't mean it as an insult, juvenile or otherwise.


78 posted on 05/18/2006 7:13:02 PM PDT by F.J. Mitchell (A government that will not enforce the laws of the land, is a government standing on quicksand.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Revel

BUMP!


79 posted on 05/18/2006 7:15:58 PM PDT by F.J. Mitchell (A government that will not enforce the laws of the land, is a government standing on quicksand.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: notes2005

Iam glad my Father didn't live long enough to see this day.


80 posted on 05/18/2006 7:21:15 PM PDT by heights
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-86 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson