Senators to Revive Immigration Bill

Key senators tentatively agreed on a plan to revive a stalled immigration bill on Thursday, aided by President Bush's support for a quick $4.4 billion aimed at "securing our borders and enforcing our laws at the work site."

Officials who spoke on condition of anonymity said Republican and Democratic supporters of the bill were presenting their proposal to the Senate's top two leaders, who in turn arranged an early evening meeting to discuss it.

Precise details to be presented to Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., were not disclosed.

In general, according to officials familiar with the discussions, Republicans and Democrats would each be accorded roughly a dozen chances to amend the measure, with the hope that they would then combine to provide the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster by die-hard opponents. The officials who described the emerging plan did so on condition of anonymity, saying the negotiations had been conducted in private.

The legislation has generated intense controversy, particularly for provisions envisioning eventual citizenship for many of the estimated 12 million immigrants now in the country unlawfully. The bill also calls for greater border security and a crackdown on the hiring of illegal employees.

"We're going to show the American people that the promises in this bill will be kept," Bush said, two days after launching a personal rescue mission.

Any agreement is subject to approval by Reid, who has said repeatedly it is up to Bush and Republicans to line up the votes needed to advance the measure if it is to be brought back to the Senate for debate. Reid, who has expressed misgivings about elements of the bill, sidetracked it last week after supporters gained only 45 of the 60 votes needed.

Republicans accounted for only seven of the 45 votes, and Reid said earlier this week, "We'll move on to immigration when they have their own act together."

Bush's decision to personally announce support for the accelerated funding reflected concerns expressed by Republican senators at a closed-door meeting on Tuesday. Several told him their constituents doubted the government was capable of following through on a commitment to enforce immigration laws.

In a letter sent to Bush before the meeting, Georgia Republican Sens. Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson wrote, "This lack of trust is rooted in the mistakes made in 1986, and the continued chaos surrounding our immigration laws. Understandably, the lack of credibility the federal government has on this issue gives merit to the skepticism of many about future immigration reform."

Under the legislation as drafted, money for border enforcement would be collected gradually as illegal immigrants pay the fines and fees needed to achieve legal status. The letter asked Bush to secure the border before other elements of the immigration measure go into effect, and the president agreed in his remarks to the Associated Builders and Contractors.

"One common concern is whether the government will provide the resources to meet the goals in the bill. They say, 'It's fine to talk about it, are you actually going to do something?'" he said.

"To answer these concerns I support an amendment that will provide $4.4 billion in immediate additional funding for securing our borders and enforcing our laws at the work site," he said.

"By matching our benchmarks with these critical funds, we're going to show the American people that the promises in this bill will be kept."

Two Republican supporters of the legislation, Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Jon Kyl of Arizona, had previously proposed advanced funding.

"The moment the presidential signing pen meets the paper these funds will be available," Graham said in a statement welcoming Bush's remarks.

But Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., an opponent of the legislation, took a different view. "I appreciate the effort to fund border security, but there's simply no reason why we should be forced to tie amnesty to it. If the administration was serious about fulfilling the border security promises, then this funding should have been supported all along, not offered at the last minute to attract votes to a bad bill."

Even a decision to return the bill to the Senate floor does not guarantee its passage, given the intense opposition. "We've got people out there on both sides really ready to burn the place down," said Sen. Trent Lott of Mississippi, the second-ranking Republican. "I don't think we ought to let that happen."

The calendar, too, presents obstacles to any attempt to pass the measure before the Senate begins a scheduled vacation in two weeks. Should they choose, critics of the immigration measure could slow progress on other measures Reid wants debated in the next two weeks. The effect would be to further reduce prospects for passage of the immigration bill.

All I can saw is walk in the other man’s shoes - if a law is not enforced, should it be respected? Do you think Mexico educates their citizens in US law? How many foreign countries do you know the details of their immigration or border laws?

If a government can not or will not enforce it's laws, should it be respected? Whether or not Mexico educates their citizens on any topic is no concern of mine. When those same citizens choose to go to another country, it is their responsibility to educate themselves about requirements to do so, the responsibility belongs to no one else. If I choose to enter a foreign country, I will also choose to obey it's laws, it's called common courtesy.

Mexico - a dump - well parts are for sure, but is 100 years of corrupt rule with few very rich and many very poor possibly a cause? Can in individual citizen change a corrupt government? Have you seen the destruction of Venezuela in just the last 10 years?

One person can do a lot for good or ill. It merely takes the will to do so. Mexicans need to take care of their corrupt government, not violate our laws then demand our "respect".

Mexico has voted twice for the more conservative - pro business leader, but regardless of good intentions, change can be very difficult when much of the rest of the government is still run by the socialists and the corrupt families. You could get the hint when Mexico’s equivalent of Al Gore (Lopez Obrador) tried to declare the last election invalid and tried to take over through protest. In case you didn’t notice, it DID NOT succeed, so there is progress.

Mexico, no matter the muttered platitudes of who ever is in power at the moment, will never change. There will always be corruption. In Mexico no one seems to care. Obrador thought he was more immediately politically stronger than he was, this was his major mistake.

We are the ones responsible for our border, a far more organized, more powerful and more free country, but yet YOU have not kept the border safe. We all might like to, but we have families, jobs and businesses.

Incorrect. I charged my, and your, agent, the government, with the responsibility of maintaining the border. The exact reason I as why should a government that for whatever reason does not enforce it's own law be respected. A country with a government in such a state is either in anarchy or slipping into it.

Anyone who comes here illegally is a felon. For starters; these people must never have the priveledge of the 'vote'. Forget the $5,000 (sure. ..) penalty. It is an insult to all those who come here legally. No, they must relinquish a right to acquire voting rights. They can be 'commonwealth' status citizens; or somesuch; at sometime. . .but only 'Legal entry' gains one voting rights.

Again, for starters; but a most important point, IMHO.

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.