Posted on 05/17/2007 10:16:31 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON - A bipartisan group of senators reached agreement with the White House Thursday on an immigration overhaul to grant quick legal status to millions of illegal immigrants already in the U.S. and fortify the border against new ones.
One of the key negotiators, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., said he expects President Bush to endorse it.
The deal came after weeks of painstaking closed-door negotiations that brought the most liberal Democrats and the most conservative Republicans together with Bush's Cabinet officers to produce a highly complex measure that carries heavy political consequences.
It set the stage for what promises to be a bruising battle next week in the Senate on one of Bush's top non-war priorities.
This is a breaking news update. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.
WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican and Democratic senators huddled Thursday trying to close in on an immigration compromise to grant quick legal status to millions of undocumented immigrants while fortifying U.S. borders against new ones.
A group of lawmakers that has been haggling over the terms of agreement for weeks were reviewing language negotiated Wednesday night in efforts to nail down a deal. Among the final sticking points was a stubborn dispute over how much family ties count toward green cards under a new "point system." The plan prioritizes advanced skills and education levels for future immigrants.
Two of the lead negotiators, Sens. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., and Lindsey Graham (news, bio, voting record), R-S.C., booked time for Thursday afternoon in the Senate's radio-TV gallery for an announcement.
But Kennedy said some were hanging back as an agreement inched closer.
"There are just some people who don't want to close on this. There comes a time in every negotiation where people have to close," Kennedy said. "Today is it."
Kennedy said Thursday was likely the last chance for a compromise before senators scattered for a three-day weekend.
"The immigration reform legislation has come to a boiling point," Sen. Arlen Specter (news, bio, voting record), R-Pa., said just before going into Thursday's meeting. "We've tried to come to a consensus and I think we are very, very close, but every time we grasp it, it eludes a final resolution."
If no deal emerged, Senate Democrats were to vote Monday evening to bring up an immigration measure that passed last year over the objections of most Republicans, who have said they will block it. That would be a highly partisan start to the immigration debate, which divides the two parties and exposes fissures within their ranks.
Even with a bipartisan agreement, the immigration debate could easily devolve into a free-for-all in the unruly Senate.
Majority Leader Harry Reid (news, bio, voting record), D-Nev., has said he wants to complete a bill before Memorial Day, and President Bush says he wants to sign one by summer's end.
You are correct, but one's opinion on the rule of law does. Conservatives are pro-legal immigration and anti-illegal immigration. It appears that you don't care if they're legal or illegal.
You're one of the more informed posters on this subject, so I'll direct a few questions your way:
1. How long have Europeans been in N American?
2. How long has the region incorporated within the Louisiana purchase been part of the USA?
3. How long has the southwest been part of the USA?
4. How long have the states of AK/HI been part of the USA?
The reason for these questions is that in the long run, the borders & racial makeup representing the ideals of this country have been in a constant state of flux.
Why should the dawn of the 21st century be any different? Who decided that history must stop? Now, I'm not advocating relinquishing the SW to Mexico. Rather, I'm asking the question: why don't we annex Mexico?
Who would be the winners in such an exchange? We would. Mexico has over 10k miles of virgin coastline. If there were title, financing, insurance & property protections, there would be an explosion of migration southward the likes the world has never seen.
The problem with looking at only one side of the amnesty bill is that we're playing the patsies. It's time to exert our historical dominance.
I have NO argument with your premise.
If so many Mexicans want to be Americans, we SHOULD annex Mexico.
Everyone would be better off.
As a matter of fact I suggested it a number of times on this forum and was shot down.
The Isthmus of Tehauntipec is a lot shorter than our current southern border and would be far easier to defend.
We have always been a melting pot of many different ethnic groups.
Our ability to survive and function in the successful way we have has been due to our ability to assimilate newcomers, and incorporate their skills.
I have no brief with Mexicans per se. They are, for the most part, decent people trying to better themselves.
But the key here is ASSIMILATION and the desire to be Americans.
What I most resent is the fact the current administration is seeking to reconstitute a form of economic peonage with a permanent underclass of expolited foreigners who will have no motivation or desire for assimliation. They loyalties will continue to be elsewhere.
Take over ALL of Mexico and the problem will be resolved. We will acquire new territory and resources and the Mexicans will get jobs and learn English.
But this is not what the Mexican government or this government and the expoliters of cheap foreign labor are pushing for here. The globalist corporate interests want a source of cheap FOREIGN labor they can exploit, and the Dems hope to be able to use this leverage for the Hispanic-American vote. The Mexican govnernment - dominated by a small coterie of modern day creoles wishes to maintain a permanent superclass of dominant Euro-Mexican elites and a permanent underclass of masses of exploited mixed race Mexicans. They view America as a safety valve for the failures of their administraion to emerge into the light of the 21st Century and a source of dollars to keep their economy running. Its a marriage made in hell.
Thanks for the compliment, but there are a lot of intelligent posters here although being fre-thinkers, frequently disagree on a number of issues, but not core conservative values.
When Newton Gingrich pulled out of Congress (the one who said he “melted” in the presence of B. Clinton), conservatives disagreed, and the “moderate” Isakson won the special election. He has been there since with solid conservative support. Most conservatives only know to rubber stamp “friendly” incumbents. They have been told that all they have to do is vote “R”, and everything will be alright. They let others do their thinking for them, the way liberals have done for years. Chambliss knows no conservative of stature will oppose him in a primary, and he is “reaching out” for Democrat votes that he won’t get in 2008.
The last person to propose the annexation of Mexico was Secretary of State James Buchanan. He said that he wanted the U.S. to “hold and civilize” Mexico, his exact words. Not too many took Buchanan up on his novel proposal, but others like Henry Cabot Lodge, I, later wanted to annex Canada.
At the end of the day, power is still controlled by the voting both. Who's to say that the battle cry of "Annex Mexico" doesn't become a future rallying point for conservatives & liberals alike?
Mexico is screwed up for one reason and one reason only: it doesn't follow the rule of law. Impose our judicial system, including due process & private property protections, and the resulting home building, financing, insurance, etc sectors would literally explode. This satisfies both labor & capital (ie Dems & Repubs).
Most of the bellyaching on this board is a poor reflection of the spirit that originally drove the creation of this country. It's all about 'what's happening to us' as opposed to 'let's roll'.
Every time I go down to Baja and have to sit in that ridiculus TJ border-crossing line, I get more & more irate. It would mean something if there was an actual difference once you crossed the 'line', but there ISN'T any!
It's all Anglo south and Hispanic north - if we're going to make the effort to formalize illegals, then we should reciprocate the favor.
The country is on a terminal path. Socialism is a cancer. It can be managed and minimized if you fight it correctly, and the country can live a long fruitful life while infected...and we can keep much of our 'freedom' from incrementally eroding if we manage our politicos correctly. Maybe if we're perfect small-c Burkian conservatives, another 50 years of "no worse" than today would be a big win.
But Ron Paul and Duncan Hunter are homeopathic distractions promising a cure that cannot deliver. In fact, wasting time on them only enables Hillary etal to flourish.
You aren't going to do any good trying "teach your body a lesson" and punish it for getting cancer. And you can't do anything in today's America but choose from bad and worse.
Reagan and Goldwater were remissions, but even Reagan cut-n-ran from Beirut, etc. And Goldwater begat LBJ and a 'mandate' for the "Great Society" cancer that eats at us still.
Again, I'll give you that Hunter and (some of) Paul's plattitudes about goals and principles are great. But even if they could win, their idealism would be melted, pruned, and immolated by the massive Federal bureaucracy that the boomers have installed into the heart of America by the end of inauguration day.
And if you make a noble gamble and they lose, and hand the Dem/socialists another "mandate" then the Great Society will be eclipsed by a socialist slide like we've never seen.
goodbye america. The republic is over. This is sad.
This will break the back of our nation!
Entitlement cost will skyrocket.....along with your taxes to support it.
Shakin my head! Feelin betrayed!
“Mexico is screwed up for one reason and one reason only: it doesn’t follow the rule of law. Impose our judicial system, including due process & private property protections, and the resulting home building, financing, insurance, etc sectors would literally explode. This satisfies both labor & capital (ie Dems & Repubs).”
Part of the problem in Mexico is the same as the problems in all of Hispanic America.
In North America, the English never really transported their aristocracy here. They sent their “undesireables” here and their worker classes. We never had the burden of dealing with an entrenched aristocracy ruling over masses of Indians. blacks and mixed races as the majority of the population. Our revolution was a success in part due to this factor - those elements were never here.
In Mexico and South America, there was always a islotated ruling elite made up of transported Spanish elites (Creole) ruling over masses of Indians, blacks and mized race peons who owned little or nothing, had no education and had no real common culture aside from what the ruling Spanish elites imposed or permitted to continue in altered form.
When revolutions struck south of the border, for the most part, the fighting was between the American ruling elite Spanish Creoles and the government back in Spain and thier agents here. When the revolutions succeeded, the only difference was a transfer from control from the Spanish Court to the American Spanish Aristocracy.
Take a good look at Vicente Fox. He looks European because he is. So are most leaders, rulers, and upper class wealthy South Americans. They comprise a minority ruling a majority. They don;t want to give up their power and use force and money to maintain it.
Those are additional cultural issues we would have to face in taking over MExico. What is really needed there is education, jobs, and something alien to our traditions - redistribution of wealth from this small handfull of rulling elites to their long-time subject populations.
We might be able to accomplish that with economic reforms, imposition of our income tax system (GASP!!!) and education of the masses. But it is the only way to assure that such an acquisition doesn’t become a powder keg.
The present administration in Washington is doing what its doing for two reasons:
1) Mainly to provide a large cheap labor source to heavy globalist corporate interests in America who want to avoid union problems, wage issues, benefits issues, etc. Consequnetly they DON’T want new citizens here - they want to expolit foreigners. The problem with this is twofold - it runs contrary to American principles of fair play and treatment of workers and the social service burden of having these people here, despite what the Administration is claimins will be passed onto the citizens here.
2) Secondarily, to gain Hispanic American votes. The flaw in this is these people won’t be able to vote. If eventually they become citizens, they will fill the lower ecnomic niches which traditionally provide Demcrats, not Republicans, with votes.
The Democrats are supporting this legislation for both of the above reasons - with more validity for their own purposes.
If all of Rudy's other anti-American/Anti-Conservative stances didn't make people see how liberal he was, his supporters are doing a good job of convincing us he is.
I stand by my original statements, Rudy-Supporters are Liberals who want nothing more then the breakup of the Republican party if not America.
While there is a certain attractiveness to the notion of annexing Mexico, because of the issues of language, corruption, drug trade, other crime, values, socialism, and the caste system in Mexico, it would be a disaster. The only way it could ever work would be to make Mexico a colony for 75 years, using the time to raise 2-3 generations speaking English and eradicating the existing corruption and the caste system - and keeping Mexicans out of the US until they have demonstrated an understanding of Anglo-Saxon institutions, the rule of law, and civic virtue.
After you posted this I did a little research, because even though my memory isn't what it used to be I remember something about you.Amazing what a little Googling can do
Turned out you were banned from FR by JR for all of your race baiting rantings on immigration threads. One of the conditions for your return was that you never post on another immigration thread here(sounds like you are violating that agreement).
I have a link to a site that you posted at along with your posts to that site, sent to me by a member. I am not going to give a link here because I am not sure if it's allowed, however if anyone here would like that link just drop me an email.
Why do not you and your allies ask Jim Robinson to ban me. Go ahead guys and do it.
Lol, Allies? If you mean American citizens, I could care less about your rantings it only proves how you think.What I do care about is someone outright lieing to me. Liers are at the top of my list as undesireable, right up there with Liberals.
Your hate PN is going to destroy you. I have seen so much hate on this thread. I am sure that right now you hate me more than you hate Bin Laden, do not you PN?!
Your point about economic exploitation is of course dead on accurate.
“2) Secondarily, to gain Hispanic American votes. The flaw in this is these people won’t be able to vote. If eventually they become citizens, they will fill the lower ecnomic niches which traditionally provide Demcrats, not Republicans, with votes.”
How long before millions and millions of “Z visa” holders” and their families are claimed as victims because they can’t vote? You can be sure that Hillary, Durbin and this ilk will be screaming that this has to be corrected.
They will be lined up elbowing each other to take credit for helping the “unrepresented” who’s voices need to be heard.
Without fully embracing the NAU conspiracy, I think there's a 3rd reason: the elites know our southern border is both artificial and un-defensible. It makes much more practical sense to extend our security zone to the isthmus.
We could never unilaterally annex Mexico without provocation (or absorb their population), but what happens when their population takes the initiative and moves here? I mean, aren't they forcing our hand? And besides, who's left in Mexico?
If/when amnesty is passed, I think the entire focus of this debate, by both the left & right, will shift southward. The money opportunity for both labor & capital is too immense to be ignored.
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.