Reid kills Senate Immigration reform bill on 3rd day.

[Clementine]

We don't need border security.

We need laws that punish corporations for hiring illegals. Once those laws are enforced there won't be any reason to come to the US illegally. We can lay off border guards and a lot of people providing government paid services to illegals and move the country forward to fiscal responsibility.

Too late for that. They used to come to work, but now they are coming now simply for the amnesty and the welfare.

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

I just did a word search in the 844 page bill, as it is right now prior to any amendments.

Interesting facts.

Waivers - 48 times
Waiver - 13 times
Except - 106 times
Exception - 25 times
Exceptions - 8 times
Required - 123 times
Not Require - 3 times
Not Required - 6 times.

Conclusion: sieve.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Build the fence. Enforcement first

-Geaux

Hasn't Mexico built a fence on its southern border?

Funny you should mention that.

 

[idb]

Without border security in the bill, there can not be a reform bill.

The border security amendment wanted by Sen. Grassley is a poison pill. The cost associated with what he 'wants' is too great and would never get by the H. of Rep. He knows this and is simply being dishonest.

Why not at least let it come to the vote?

 

[candycorn]

The whole bill is a worthless exercise. It pretty much shows how delusional the Senate has become.

 

[candycorn]

Just how long have we talked about this damned fence and border security? If anyone in Washington was serious about working on the problem, that fence would have been built by government give aways long before this.

Of course we need a fence and we have to maintain security at the border. Fines for companies hiring illegals is a no brainer. The real perplexing problem is getting Senators and Representatives to work instead of playing political games.

 

[Geaux4it]

Build the fence or repeal the law.

-Geaux

 

[gallantwarrior]

We don't need border security.

We need laws that punish corporations for hiring illegals. Once those laws are enforced there won't be any reason to come to the US illegally. We can lay off border guards and a lot of people providing government paid services to illegals and move the country forward to fiscal responsibility.

We need both border security and controls on corporations hiring illegals. Actually, we need to enforce the laws we already have that address both issues. Border guards and border security should not be neglected. And we shouldn't have government paid services to illegals, unless it's to finance their deportation, or the prisons needed to house them for their criminal activities, including illegal entry into this country.
The "fix" is not as simple as one single issue, there are many facets to the illegal invasion and how to stem the tide of criminals washing into the US.

 

[Unkotare]

We don't need border security. ...

That was a remarkably stupid comment.

 

[Geaux4it]

We don't need border security.

We need laws that punish corporations for hiring illegals. Once those laws are enforced there won't be any reason to come to the US illegally. We can lay off border guards and a lot of people providing government paid services to illegals and move the country forward to fiscal responsibility.

We need both border security and controls on corporations hiring illegals. Actually, we need to enforce the laws we already have that address both issues. Border guards and border security should not be neglected. And we shouldn't have government paid services to illegals, unless it's to finance their deportation, or the prisons needed to house them for their criminal activities, including illegal entry into this country.
The "fix" is not as simple as one single issue, there are many facets to the illegal invasion and how to stem the tide of criminals washing into the US.

Look- I live in a farming community full of illegals. They stand-out like a boil on the nose. Until the FEDS get out of the way, and let the police start enforcing federal law, nothing changes. And I am all for hammering business that hire these cancers.

But Obama spits on the African American Community for the sake of increased tyranny. He don't need them anymore, no value added.

-Geaux

 

[gallantwarrior]

Without border security in the bill, there can not be a reform bill.

The border security amendment wanted by Sen. Grassley is a poison pill. The cost associated with what he 'wants' is too great and would never get by the H. of Rep. He knows this and is simply being dishonest.

Why not at least let it come to the vote?

Good question. Ask Harry Reid why not.

 

[Unkotare]

Without border security in the bill, there can not be a reform bill.

The border security amendment wanted by Sen. Grassley is a poison pill. The cost associated with what he 'wants' is too great and would never get by the H. of Rep. He knows this and is simply being dishonest.

Why not at least let it come to the vote?

So, according to what some liberals on this site have said, this means that Harry Reid hates Hispanics?

 

[Geaux4it]

The border security amendment wanted by Sen. Grassley is a poison pill. The cost associated with what he 'wants' is too great and would never get by the H. of Rep. He knows this and is simply being dishonest.

Why not at least let it come to the vote?

So, according to what some liberals on this site have said, this means that Harry Reid hates Hispanics?

McDonnell is a twit with no conviction. He just let this sham come together.

As a caller on Mark Levin said yesterday- Why do we need two parties when they vote for the same crap?

-Geaux

 

[RoadVirus]

Without border security in the bill, there can not be a reform bill.

The border security amendment wanted by Sen. Grassley is a poison pill. The cost associated with what he 'wants' is too great and would never get by the H. of Rep. He knows this and is simply being dishonest.

Why not at least let it come to the vote?

Because Harry Reid is the Dictator of the Senate.

 

[OriginalShroom]

And it continues to fall apart..

Leaky Leahy is the problem this time.

Rubio: ?I?m done? if immigration bill includes gay couple amendment

Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio, a co-author and key proponent of the Senate immigration bill, said he will revoke his support if an amendment is added that allows gay Americans to petition for same-sex spouses living abroad to secure a green card.

"If this bill has in it something that gives gay couples immigration rights and so forth, it kills the bill. I'm done," Rubio said Thursday during an interview on the Andrea Tantaros Show. "I'm off it, and I've said that repeatedly. I don't think that's going to happen and it shouldn't happen. This is already a difficult enough issue as it is."

The amendment, introduced by Vermont Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy, would grant green cards to foreign partners of gay Americans. Leahy originally introduced the measure during the Senate Judiciary Committee markup of the bill, but he withdrew it under pressure from Republican lawmakers who said it would reduce the chance of the bill passing.

The effort underway in Congress to overhaul the nation's immigration system is a bipartisan one, and its success hinges on a fragile coalition of political, business and religious groups that span the ideological spectrum. Opponents of Leahy's amendment have said repeatedly that his proposal would cause some key groups to withdraw their support and kill the bill. Rubio's exit would be especially devastating to its survival.

 

[idb]

And it continues to fall apart..

Leaky Leahy is the problem this time.

Rubio: ?I?m done? if immigration bill includes gay couple amendment

Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio, a co-author and key proponent of the Senate immigration bill, said he will revoke his support if an amendment is added that allows gay Americans to petition for same-sex spouses living abroad to secure a green card.

"If this bill has in it something that gives gay couples immigration rights and so forth, it kills the bill. I'm done," Rubio said Thursday during an interview on the Andrea Tantaros Show. "I'm off it, and I've said that repeatedly. I don't think that's going to happen and it shouldn't happen. This is already a difficult enough issue as it is."

The amendment, introduced by Vermont Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy, would grant green cards to foreign partners of gay Americans. Leahy originally introduced the measure during the Senate Judiciary Committee markup of the bill, but he withdrew it under pressure from Republican lawmakers who said it would reduce the chance of the bill passing.

The effort underway in Congress to overhaul the nation's immigration system is a bipartisan one, and its success hinges on a fragile coalition of political, business and religious groups that span the ideological spectrum. Opponents of Leahy's amendment have said repeatedly that his proposal would cause some key groups to withdraw their support and kill the bill. Rubio's exit would be especially devastating to its survival.

I'm confused.
Do amendments to bills have to be proposed at the introduction of the bill?
Can't amendments be made to bills after they are passed?
Or can't the amendments be voted on separate to the bill itself so that the central bill still carries on?

It seems a terribly inefficient system as it stands where the whole debate can be scuppered by these amendments.
It seems crazy to