Cloture passes and I re-assess my patriotism

[Annie]

Umm, no, actually it was not supported by Liberals. Hence why Reid kept asking Bush for support from Republicans. The Democrats who were against this bill were the far left ones...the ones you continually denigrate and insult.



Just curious...considering our unemployment is quite low at the moment, where do you propose making up the sudden shortfall of 12 million workers?

Some food and construction costs have already gone up because of increased deportation of illegals...and as you admit the government has barely done anything so far.

The whole argument that they are doing the jobs Americans won't, has always been wrong. Truth of the matter, they are doing the jobs Americans won't, for the pay the illegals are doing so.

I don't think either the Americans or illegal immigrants are doing wrong, well except for the 'illegal' part, put that aside for a moment. The Americans, even 16 year olds, can make as much or more at less demanding, more interesting work, so it makes sense they won't work for the illegals salaries. As for the illegals, they can only do the work they can get, for a price that is better than they can at home.

If the states/localities hit the employers, the illegals will go home, they are here to work and better themselves. On the other hand, the shortage of workers will cause the salaries to rise, then Americans will do the job. Yes, the price of the goods will go up.

 

[Care4all]

Are you dense? Perhaps cognitively impaired?

This is not some scheme that only Bush wanted. It was supported tooth and nail by Liberals. More importantly NEITHER party really wants to deport anyone.

Democrats see making illegals legal as a vote winning strategy now AND in the future. Republicans see allowing illegals to flood the work sector as a means to cheap labor.

NEITHER National Party wants a real change. Clinton aided and abetted the weakening of enforcement and made it so that local authorities were shut out on enforcement of deportation, he made it clear his admin was not interested in sending many people home that were illegal. Bush made it even worse, he completely shut down enforcement of and fines for employers hiring illegals. For at least 4 years under Bush there were almost NO cases brought.

This problem is not a single party problem, the entire powers that be, BOTH parties want no enforcement and no secure border.

I assure you those Senators did NOT get the message. From either party.

I can't disagree with what you have said regarding the issue coming from both sides of the aisle.

I was trying to add in to this discussion the creation of the North American Union and the highway that comes with it from Mexico to Canada that President Bush is ushering through under the table, so to say....

But this is another topic, so I will drop it.

Care

 

[hjmick]

...get us those names and a link to their voting records.

I believe this was Monday's vote.


The 64-35 roll call by which the Senate voted to reconsider a bill to grant legal status to millions of unlawful immigrants.

Voting "yes" were 39 Democrats, 24 Republicans and 1 independent.

Voting "no" were 9 Democrats, 25 Republicans and 1 independent.

Democrats Yes

Akaka, Hawaii; Biden, Del.; Bingaman, N.M.; Boxer, Calif.; Brown, Ohio; Cantwell, Wash.; Cardin, Md.; Carper, Del.; Casey, Pa.; Clinton, N.Y.; Conrad, N.D.; Dodd, Conn.; Durbin, Ill.; Feingold, Wis.; Feinstein, Calif.; Harkin, Iowa; Inouye, Hawaii; Kennedy, Mass.; Kerry, Mass.; Klobuchar, Minn.; Kohl, Wis.; Lautenberg, N.J.; Leahy, Vt.; Levin, Mich.; Lincoln, Ark.; Menendez, N.J.; Mikulski, Md.; Murray, Wash.; Nelson, Fla.; Nelson, Neb.; Obama, Ill.; Pryor, Ark.; Reed, R.I.; Reid, Nev.; Salazar, Colo.; Schumer, N.Y.; Webb, Va.; Whitehouse, R.I.; Wyden, Ore.

Democrats No

Baucus, Mont.; Bayh, Ind.; Byrd, W.Va.; Dorgan, N.D.; Landrieu, La.; McCaskill, Mo.; Rockefeller, W.Va.; Stabenow, Mich.; Tester, Mont.

Democrats Not Voting

Johnson, S.D.

Republicans Yes

Bennett, Utah; Bond, Mo.; Brownback, Kan.; Burr, N.C.; Coleman, Minn.; Collins, Maine; Craig, Idaho; Domenici, N.M.; Ensign, Nev.; Graham, S.C.; Gregg, N.H.; Hagel, Neb.; Kyl, Ariz.; Lott, Miss.; Lugar, Ind.; Martinez, Fla.; McCain, Ariz.; McConnell, Ky.; Murkowski, Alaska; Snowe, Maine; Specter, Pa.; Stevens, Alaska; Voinovich, Ohio; Warner, Va.

Republicans No

Alexander, Tenn.; Allard, Colo.; Barrasso, Wy.; Bunning, Ky.; Chambliss, Ga.; Coburn, Okla.; Cochran, Miss.; Corker, Tenn.; Cornyn, Texas; Crapo, Idaho; DeMint, S.C.; Dole, N.C.; Enzi, Wyo.; Grassley, Iowa; Hatch, Utah; Hutchison, Texas; Inhofe, Okla.; Isakson, Ga.; Roberts, Kan.; Sessions, Ala.; Shelby, Ala.; Smith, Ore.; Sununu, N.H.; Thune, S.D.; Vitter, La.

Others Yes

Lieberman, Conn.

Others No

Sanders, Vt

 

[Larkinn]

Are you also cognitively challenged? Reid ask for help because there are NOT 60 Liberals in the Senate. Lets see, Kennedy sponsored the bill, are you now claiming he is NOT a Liberal?

32 Democrats and 13 Republicans voted for it in the end. In the earlier votes it was about even I believe. The far left Democrats didn't like the bill, nor did most of the Republicans. Actually nobody did, just the Democrats were more willing to compromise.

By the way, I counted the independent Lieberman as a Democrat.

Yes, it was more Democrats than Republicans and far rights had more of a problem than far lefts, but the statement that the left fought for this "tooth and nail" is an untruth.

 

[Vintij]

I dont see why the defeat of this bill should be a celebration.

First of all I was for this bill, despite the extra baggage that came with it.

Without this bill what do we have? AMNESTY. The bill, would have funded extra money to secure the boarders, sent more reserves to the boarders, and would not cost tax payers a dime. 12 million illegals are here, weather you like it or not. They are not going anywhere. This bill would have put them through at least some type of process other than the status quo. Sure they would be temporarily legal, but what exactly are they now? Because they are not being deported thats for sure.

This bill would have logged almost every single illegal immigrant into the federal IRS system to pay taxes, which also makes it easier for us to find out where the criminals are and deport them using the money that future legals would have to pay. We are paying millions upon millions of dollars, arresting and housing these illegal immigrants and we are not getting a dime in return. The bill would have (at the bare minimum) allowed the states to recoup the money lost fighting a losing war against immigration.

So I dont understand why you people are celebrating. Is it a good thing when nothing gets done? Is the status quo that desirable?

Do any of you have a better idea of what to do with 12 million undocumented people?

 

[Annie]

I dont see why the defeat of this bill should be a celebration.

First of all I was for this bill, despite the extra baggage that came with it.

Without this bill what do we have? AMNESTY. The bill, would have funded extra money to secure the boarders, sent more reserves to the boarders, and would not cost tax payers a dime. 12 million illegals are here, weather you like it or not. They are not going anywhere. This bill would have put them through at least some type of process other than the status quo. Sure they would be temporarily legal, but what exactly are they now? Because they are not being deported thats for sure.

This bill would have logged almost every single illegal immigrant into the federal IRS system to pay taxes, which also makes it easier for us to find out where the criminals are and deport them using the money that future legals would have to pay. We are paying millions upon millions of dollars, arresting and housing these illegal immigrants and we are not getting a dime in return. The bill would have (at the bare minimum) allowed the states to recoup the money lost fighting a losing war against immigration.

So I dont understand why you people are celebrating. Is it a good thing when nothing gets done? Is the status quo that desirable?

Yes, the status quo is better than worse law. The government could enforce the 1986 laws, that have never been. Perhaps an energized base could put pressure on the local enforcement agencies, as well as their federal representatives. End the sanctuary cities.

I'm not for deportation, I am for our borders and removing the incentives, (jobs) to encourage the illegal crossings.

 

[Vintij]

Yes, the status quo is better than worse law. The government could enforce the 1986 laws, that have never been. Perhaps an energized base could put pressure on the local enforcement agencies, as well as their federal representatives. End the sanctuary cities.

I'm not for deportation, I am for our borders and removing the incentives, (jobs) to encourage the illegal crossings.

I agree on a few things but let me ask you, how do you feel we can recoup even half of the money the states are losing for locking up illegals and paying them off tax free, without some type of system of identifying these people? Do you think they are all just going to turn themselves in or do you think we need certian types of incentives to allow them to come to us. Would you rather know that we have 12 million immigrants, or would you rather know who and where these 12 million immigrants are and how we can take the next step of securing our boarder?

 

[Annie]

I agree on a few things but let me ask you, how do you feel we can recoup even half of the money the states are losing for locking up illegals and paying them off tax free, without some type of system of identifying these people? Do you think they are all just going to turn themselves in or do you think we need certian types of incentives to allow them to come to us. Would you rather know that we have 12 million immigrants, or would you rather know who and where these 12 million immigrants are and how we can take the next step of securing our boarder?

No. I don't think the states should be 'actively seeking illegals.' I think the states/counties should be actively identifying employers hiring illegals. I think they should heavily fine them, 1st and 2nd times, then incarcerate with 3rd conviction. If the jobs dry up, the illegals, most of whom are just looking for a better life, would go home.

However, when law enforcement has cause to arrest illegals for DUI, gang/gun charges, driving without insurance, etc., hold and deport.