>>These Dorgan types are all against millions of immigrants being non-union non-citizens, but are all for making millions of new union Democrat-voting citizens out of the same group of people.<<
Doesn’t make sense to me. You say he wanted “Dem-voting” workers but the passage of amnesty would have created plenty of them, and Kennedy and Feinstein surely would have tried again for guest workers later. Why didn’t Dorgan vote for the amnesty?
>>If they passed his amendment, he’d vote for the Z visa.<<
I don’t know. I’m not a mind reader. I know the senate voted down Cornyn’s amendment to bar gang members/terrorists/etc the first time, and I believe it never passed. Would Cornyn have voted for amnesty if his amendment had passed? I don’t think so, but I could be wrong.
>>Dorgan’s proposal was a huge imposition on business, and the most intrusive wage rules since the New Deal.<<
Do you have a link? I was looking at what I thought was the text of the amendment but couldn’t find the “huge imposition on business.”
You have to distinguish between amnesty (Z visa) and guest worker program. Dorgan didnt want a guest worker program, but that provision is SEPARATE from the Z visa amnesty. So if they passed Dorgan’s amendment and then the bill, they’d have had amnesty but no guest worker program, which leaves the system open for more illegal immigration. It was a deal-killer, but my point is that Dorgan was not specifically against amnesty:
“Shortly after midnight, the Senate voted 49-48 to end a new temporary worker program after five years. The vote reversed the one-vote outcome on the same amendment - offered both times by Sen. Byron Dorgan (news, bio, voting record), D-N.D. - two weeks ago. Six senators switched their votes, reflecting the issue’s political volatility.”
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1180960631511&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Cornyn tried to make the Z visa overall less offensive, but failed:
“The Senate voted 51-46 to reject a proposal by Sen. John Cornyn (news, bio, voting record), R-Texas, to bar criminals - including those ordered by judges to be deported - from gaining legal status. Democrats siphoned support from Cornyn’s proposal by winning adoption of a rival version that would bar a more limited set of criminals, including certain gang members and sex offenders, from gaining legalization. The Senate backed that amendment 66-32.”
I also not that Obama was key sponsor of continuing ‘chain migration’:
The other, offered by Sen. Barack Obama (news, bio, voting record), D-Ill., would have ended a new point system for those seeking permanent resident “green cards” after five years rather than 14 years.”
Cornyn also went after another offensive anti-law-and-order aspect to the system:
“Cornyn prevailed on another matter opposed by the grand bargainers, however. His amendment, adopted 57 to 39, would make it easier to locate and deport illegal immigrants whose visa applications are rejected.
The bill would have barred law enforcement agencies from seeing applications for so-called Z visas, which can lead to citizenship if granted. Cornyn said legal authorities should know if applicants have criminal records that would warrant their deportation. “
You have to distinguish between amnesty (Z visa) and guest worker program. Dorgan didnt want a guest worker program, but that provision is SEPARATE from the Z visa amnesty. So if they passed Dorgan’s amendment and then the bill, they’d have had amnesty but no guest worker program, which leaves the system open for more illegal immigration. It was a deal-killer, but my point is that Dorgan was not specifically against amnesty:
“Shortly after midnight, the Senate voted 49-48 to end a new temporary worker program after five years. The vote reversed the one-vote outcome on the same amendment - offered both times by Sen. Byron Dorgan (news, bio, voting record), D-N.D. - two weeks ago. Six senators switched their votes, reflecting the issue’s political volatility.”
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1180960631511&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Cornyn tried to make the Z visa overall less offensive, but failed:
“The Senate voted 51-46 to reject a proposal by Sen. John Cornyn (news, bio, voting record), R-Texas, to bar criminals - including those ordered by judges to be deported - from gaining legal status. Democrats siphoned support from Cornyn’s proposal by winning adoption of a rival version that would bar a more limited set of criminals, including certain gang members and sex offenders, from gaining legalization. The Senate backed that amendment 66-32.”
I also not that Obama was key sponsor of continuing ‘chain migration’:
The other, offered by Sen. Barack Obama (news, bio, voting record), D-Ill., would have ended a new point system for those seeking permanent resident “green cards” after five years rather than 14 years.”
Cornyn also went after another offensive anti-law-and-order aspect to the system:
“Cornyn prevailed on another matter opposed by the grand bargainers, however. His amendment, adopted 57 to 39, would make it easier to locate and deport illegal immigrants whose visa applications are rejected.
The bill would have barred law enforcement agencies from seeing applications for so-called Z visas, which can lead to citizenship if granted. Cornyn said legal authorities should know if applicants have criminal records that would warrant their deportation. “
A few more points:
“>>Dorgan’s proposal was a huge imposition on business, and the most intrusive wage rules since the New Deal.<<
Do you have a link? I was looking at what I thought was the text of the amendment but couldn’t find the “huge imposition on business.””
I misspoke on this. There was a separate amendment. It that was put together by - get this - OBAMA ... and it was in the 2006 bill. extending Davis-Bacon to private sector workers is an imposition of wage regulations not seen since the New Deal. It comes from the same union-mindset though:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjIyYmRjMjMxZTViNWFlOWRmZWYyMGVhM2Y3Njk1MWI=
The bill extends Davis-Bacon “prevailing wage” provisions—typically the area’s union wage that applies only to construction on federal projects under current law—to all occupations (e.g. roofers, carpenters, electricians, etc.) covered by Davis-Bacon. So guest-workers (but not citizen workers) must be paid Davis-Bacon wage rates for jobs in the private sector if their occupation is covered by Davis-Bacon. Presumably because Senate Democrats’ union bosses thought this provision too modest, an amendment by Senator Barack Obama, approved by voice vote, extended Davis-Bacon wages rates to all private work performed by guest workers, even if their occupations are not covered by Davis-Bacon.”
A few more points:
“>>Dorgan’s proposal was a huge imposition on business, and the most intrusive wage rules since the New Deal.<<
Do you have a link? I was looking at what I thought was the text of the amendment but couldn’t find the “huge imposition on business.””
I misspoke on this. There was a separate amendment. It that was put together by - get this - OBAMA ... and it was in the 2006 bill. extending Davis-Bacon to private sector workers is an imposition of wage regulations not seen since the New Deal. It comes from the same union-mindset though:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjIyYmRjMjMxZTViNWFlOWRmZWYyMGVhM2Y3Njk1MWI=
The bill extends Davis-Bacon “prevailing wage” provisions—typically the area’s union wage that applies only to construction on federal projects under current law—to all occupations (e.g. roofers, carpenters, electricians, etc.) covered by Davis-Bacon. So guest-workers (but not citizen workers) must be paid Davis-Bacon wage rates for jobs in the private sector if their occupation is covered by Davis-Bacon. Presumably because Senate Democrats’ union bosses thought this provision too modest, an amendment by Senator Barack Obama, approved by voice vote, extended Davis-Bacon wages rates to all private work performed by guest workers, even if their occupations are not covered by Davis-Bacon.”