>>Vitter is irrelevant. The south’s position on Mexicans is no different than their position on blacks.<<
Give me a break!! Time limits on visas are “irrelevant” because you say so? The vote defeating the Vitter amendment was 49 to 48, and you think, therefore, that half the senate is racist for voting for something that any sane nation would have as a policy? You will have to make a better argument than that, or you can debate with yourself.
>>In 2009 there will be more legislation and it will be worse than the legislation of 2007, 2006, and the Bush Plan.<<
If the Bush plan was acceptable to you, and you say that new legislation will be “worse,” then you must think that being shot 120 times will make you more dead than being shot 100 times. But also, if it does get “worse,” that increases the chances that it will not pass, all other things being equal. You did not mention that amnesty passed the senate in 2006 but not in 2007, even though the Dems gained a senate majority in November 2006. It just might be the case that some Dems might not be as willing to sell us out as you think.
You're wrong in two ways.
First, in 2007 the amnesty part of the legislation did pass. The bill failed because the union asserted itself over the guest worker part of the legislation. And those GOP senators who voted with the union did so because they were trying to stop amnesty and voting with the union was the only way that they could stop amnesty.
Second, I have consistently pointed out to you that as the power has shifted to the dems, there have been changes, and there will be more changes.
There has been enough votes in the Senate and the House, since 2005, to pass amnesty. As you pointed out, the Senate passed a bill with amnesty in 2006. At that time, the bill failed because of the Hastert Pledge.
Same in 2007, there were enough votes to pass amnesty but the bill died because those GOP senators voted with the union on the guest worker part of the bill.