Posted on 06/27/2007 10:14:14 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON - The Senate on Wednesday killed a Republican proposal to require all adult illegal immigrants to return home temporarily in order to qualify for permanent lawful status in this country.
The vote was 53-45 to table an amendment by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, that was one of several proposals designed to respond to conservatives who decry President Bush's immigration bill as a form of amnesty.
The bill could grant lawful status to as many as 12 million illegal immigrants as long as they passed background checks and paid fines and fees. Heads of household seeking permanent legal residency would have to return home to apply for green cards, however.
Without her amendment, Hutchison said shortly before the vote, "the amnesty tag that has been put on this bill will remain. It is the key issue in the bill for the American people."
Republicans and Democrats were both seeking to add restrictions to the legalization program, from barring unlawful immigrants from getting green cards, to permitting only those in the U.S. four years or more to be legalized.
The revived immigration measure, which also would toughen border security and institute a new system for weeding out illegal immigrants from workplaces, is facing steep challenges from the right and left.
Conservatives call the measure too lenient toward unlawful immigrants, while liberals say it could rip apart families and doom guest workers to exploitation at the hands of unscrupulous employers.
Votes on key amendments were continuing Wednesday afternoon under a complex and carefully orchestrated procedure designed to overcome stalling tactics by conservative foes. It will allow votes only on a limited list of 26 amendments before a critical test-vote on the bill Thursday.
"It's going to be a rough ride," said Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., an architect of the bill. "We're in trench warfare."
Democrats, too, were seeking to limit the legalization program for unlawful immigrants. Also getting a vote was an amendment by Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., that would allow only those who had been in the country for at least four years to gain lawful status.
Webb said his proposal would raise the public's comfort-level with granting lawful status to illegal immigrants.
"People in this country who traditionally would be supporting fair immigration policies, but who are worried about the legalization process in this bill, would come forward and support this," Webb said.
His amendment would scrap the return-home requirement, which he called unrealistic and impractical.
Republican framers of the bill, seeking to sap support from Hutchison's amendment, were proposing their own, less burdensome return-home requirement for illegal immigrants. It would apply only to heads of household and would give them three years to meet the requirement.
Also expected to be voted on is an amendment by Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., that would bar illegal immigrants from eventually getting green cards.
Democratic amendments to give family members of citizens and legal permanent residents more chances to immigrate are also slated for votes.
___
The bill is S 1639
"Fair immigration policies?" Fair like allowing millions who have been hiding for four years become citizens while people wanting to be Americans the right way lawfully can wait their 10 to 15 years, pay their fees, take their courses and then be sworn in with others who just need a job to send money home to the family in Mexico.
One more thing, this is about Mexico not Hispanics. We should be sure to be specific. This bill is playing favorites to one nationality, not one race. Hispanic can be black Dominicans, white Brazilian or brown Mexicans.
Recalled and ripped to shreds by their constituents.
Sen. Lindsay “out of touch” Graham stands next to Chuckie Schmuckie Schumer, Enemy Number 1 of decent republicans.
“Doesn’t current law require the deportation of anyone found to be in the United States illegally?”
Yeah but it’s not enforced. In any event, this would do away with that requirement altogether.
When the Republicans were the majority they let the democrat minority run the Senate because they were too preoccupied with slopping at the trough.
Now they are getting a display of raw power by the majority but most are too stupid to realize what chumps they are.
THIS is exactly what has been going on in MA for years. I do not say, how does it feel, but I do say, as states go into the sewer, so goes the fed govt. Communism does not stay in one or two places, it spreads like a cancer. And it is spreading. Is it time yet to do something about it???
I hope the people of PA are proud of themselves. Santorum should never have supported Specter, and now he is out!
You know, the current law, had it been enforced, is theoretically just fine. It’s the lack of enforcement that has led to the coming amnesty. And let’s face it, the Senate today, as you point out, won’t stand behind the law as it exists TODAY! Amazing.
You have no idea just how badly I wish that were true Senator.
None at all.
L
I know that graphic is about senators...but...really, GWB should be somewhere in the pic.
If they didn’t have assurances it would get through the house, it wouldn’t be back. Don’t kid yourself.
We should all e-mail Judas Graham and tell him how great he looks standing with Chuckie Schumer
He said the amendments won’t even make it to the rotunda...meaning they’ll be stripped in the House/Senate conference if they pass now.
Betrayal by Congress & the Administration, once again.
Is that ever the truth. Throw in Lincoln Chafee, and one has to accept the fact of where W's political sympathies really lie.
We can only hope and pray that Duncan Hunter can rally enough support to defeat this evil bill in Congress. There’s much more than meets the eye behind the amnesty vessel. May there be men who cannot be swayed to cave, but stand to demand and end to this anti-American movement!
I said that I am not informed, that I have read several amendments in the bill and he says;" that's what everyone says".
If I could have I would have reached through the phone and grabbed him by his arrogant pencil neck.
We, the great unwashed, are just ignorant slobs. I know my IQ is far greater than that idiot bureacrat.
That's what I get when I type angry, I said I an not UNinformed....
This logic has always eluded me. So we're going to reward those who have broken the law longer. Do we let those who have committed more robberies have a lighter sentence than those who have just committed one? I've always failed to see how longer the longer an illegal is here means he's more entitled? To me, it just means he's been able to elude the law longer than the next guy.
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.