Will The Immigration Bill Die Today?

[red states rule]

I hope this amnesty bill dies a quick death today. Hopefully there will be enough Republicans to stand tall and tell Pres Bush along with some Dems this is wrong, and lets enforce the laws we already have


Rough road ahead for immigration bill
By Stephen Dinan, S.A. Miller and Christina Bellantoni
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
June 26, 2007


The White House says it has the votes to resurrect the immigration bill on the Senate floor today, though enough senators said they may change their minds in other votes later this week to leave the bill's ultimate fate in doubt.

To pass the Senate, the bill must earn 60 votes today, survive a series of amendments, earn 60 votes in a follow-up vote likely to come Thursday, and then pass with majority support — all difficult tests on an issue that deeply divides both parties, and American voters.

"Our intelligence suggests that there will be the votes there to move on to the bill and to begin considering amendments," White House Deputy Chief of Staff Joel Kaplan told reporters yesterday as President Bush and his administration make a final push for the bill's passage.

The bill collapsed on the Senate floor nearly three weeks ago, when half of the Senate — Republicans and Democrats — voted to block it, demanding more time to pass amendments. But Republican and Democratic leaders, prodded by Mr. Bush, have decided to resuscitate the bill and have agreed to a limited debate that would allow for consideration of about two-dozen hand-picked amendments, split between the two parties.

Rank-and-file conservative Republicans said the process is stifling. Sen. Jim DeMint, South Carolina Republican, said leaders are attempting to "take the nation's most emotionally charged issue and try to ram it down America's throat."

They blamed Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, for this week's unusual floor procedures, which include rewriting the bill into a brand-new version, bypassing the usual committees and preventing consideration of all but the limited set of amendments.


for the compelete article

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070626/NATION/106260076/1001

 

[Annie]

I hope this amnesty bill dies a quick death today. Hopefully there will be enough Republicans to stand tall and tell Pres Bush along with some Dems this is wrong, and lets enforce the laws we already have


Rough road ahead for immigration bill
By Stephen Dinan, S.A. Miller and Christina Bellantoni
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
June 26, 2007


The White House says it has the votes to resurrect the immigration bill on the Senate floor today, though enough senators said they may change their minds in other votes later this week to leave the bill's ultimate fate in doubt.

To pass the Senate, the bill must earn 60 votes today, survive a series of amendments, earn 60 votes in a follow-up vote likely to come Thursday, and then pass with majority support — all difficult tests on an issue that deeply divides both parties, and American voters.

"Our intelligence suggests that there will be the votes there to move on to the bill and to begin considering amendments," White House Deputy Chief of Staff Joel Kaplan told reporters yesterday as President Bush and his administration make a final push for the bill's passage.

The bill collapsed on the Senate floor nearly three weeks ago, when half of the Senate — Republicans and Democrats — voted to block it, demanding more time to pass amendments. But Republican and Democratic leaders, prodded by Mr. Bush, have decided to resuscitate the bill and have agreed to a limited debate that would allow for consideration of about two-dozen hand-picked amendments, split between the two parties.

Rank-and-file conservative Republicans said the process is stifling. Sen. Jim DeMint, South Carolina Republican, said leaders are attempting to "take the nation's most emotionally charged issue and try to ram it down America's throat."

They blamed Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, for this week's unusual floor procedures, which include rewriting the bill into a brand-new version, bypassing the usual committees and preventing consideration of all but the limited set of amendments.


for the compelete article

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070626/NATION/106260076/1001

I don't hold out much hope. Letters from Senators to Reid:

Reid's response:

Monday, June 25, 2007

Washington, DC—Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid sent the following response to Republican Senators who earlier today expressed their objection to the return of the immigration bill to the Senate floor. The text of the letter is below:



June 25, 2007



The Honorable John Cornyn
The Honorable David Vitter
The Honorable Elizabeth Dole
The Honorable Jeff Sessions
The Honorable Jim DeMint
United States Senate

Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senators Cornyn, Vitter, Dole, Sessions and DeMint:

Thank you for writing to me earlier today about my efforts to bring the comprehensive immigration reform bill back to the Senate floor.

As you know, the Senate was unable to complete action on the immigration bill earlier this month because a handful of Senators, including several of you, objected to my repeated efforts to call up further amendments to the bill. Following the unsuccessful cloture vote on June 7, a group of Senators including Minority Leader McConnell, Republican Conference Chairman Kyl and Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Specter, came to see me with a request that I bring the immigration bill back before the Senate under a procedure under which a large number of additional amendments could become pending to the bill.

The so-called “clay pigeon” procedure is unusual, and I would not have considered employing it in this instance without the full support of Senator McConnell. It seems to me appropriate for the two leaders to work together to overcome the tactics of a small number of Senators in order to allow the full Senate to debate an important national issue like immigration. The White House made clear that it also favors such a procedure, since the immigration bill is one of President Bush’s top priorities.

I respectfully disagree with your assertion that I intend to “shut off the debate” and that the procedure in question will “silence amendments instead of facilitate their debate.” On the contrary, I am working to facilitate debate on more than twenty additional amendments to the bill. In contrast, several of you objected when I tried to call up as few as five amendments during the earlier debate. The American people can see clearly who wants to debate immigration reform and who wants to shut off that debate.

Moreover, your claim that the Senate will only debate amendments which I “hand select” is plainly untrue. The dozen or so Republican amendments that will become pending to the bill have been selected by the Republican leadership, not by me.

In sum, I appreciate the concerns expressed in your letter but consider them misplaced. Senator McConnell and I have worked together in good faith to ensure a full, open and productive debate on a bill of overriding national importance that is supported by many Republicans and endorsed by President Bush.



Sincerely,



Harry Reid

 

[red states rule]

It is not mover util the votes are cast. Sen Reid is using some underhanded tactics to get it passed - even if it passes - it must get through the House

I do hope any Republican who votes for this is held accountable on Election Day

 

[Annie]

It is not mover util the votes are cast. Sen Reid is using some underhanded tactics to get it passed - even if it passes - it must get through the House

I do hope any Republican who votes for this is held accountable on Election Day

As you can read above, he's not the only one being underhanded.

 

[red states rule]

As you can read above, he's not the only one being underhanded.

Agreeed

I hope ALL of them are held accountable by the voters. We are being invaded and the tab keeps growing

 

[CSM]

Seems like a lot of smoke screening going on...the bottom line is that eventually there has to be a vote taken ... the results of that vote will either kill the bill or not...

 

[red states rule]

Seems like a lot of smoke screening going on...the bottom line is that eventually there has to be a vote taken ... the results of that vote will either kill the bill or not...

No question where Ted "Swimmer" Kennedy stands

http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=2085

 

[Annie]

Seems like a lot of smoke screening going on...the bottom line is that eventually there has to be a vote taken ... the results of that vote will either kill the bill or not...

Not really, the Senate figures they can wait for the furor to die down if they can stop the bill from being killed, that is what cloture is about. Then they can slide it through, when people are not paying attention.

 

[red states rule]

Not really, the Senate figures they can wait for the furor to die down if they can stop the bill from being killed, that is what cloture is about. Then they can slide it through, when people are not paying attention.

As long as members of both sides do not get their wish and censor talk radio and the internet - I doubt if people will stop paying attention

 

[CSM]

Not really, the Senate figures they can wait for the furor to die down if they can stop the bill from being killed, that is what cloture is about. Then they can slide it through, when people are not paying attention.

That is precisely what I meant...even then, eventually they MUST vote.

 

[Annie]

That is precisely what I meant...even then, eventually they MUST vote.

That is true. Question, when has the Congress acted on something like this bill, when the overwhelming majority of the electorate disagree? More to the point, 'the people' do what illegal immigration addressed, they recognize this is not the way to do it?

Back to the point of thread, related:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NzJiNmI1ZjVlYjJjNGY2ZDFkNjNiMmIzMzhkOTE1Njk=

DeMint [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

Senator DeMint was on Morning in America talking about the immigration bill. He wasn't too optimistic that cloture fails today, but he is determined to make sure the bill does not become law. As long as the American people are with us (those who oppose the bill), there's no reason it should, he said. He sounds like a guy ready to do what needs to be done (including procedurally). Good luck.

06/26 07:05 AM

 

[red states rule]

Then we have the liberal perspective


A Defeat on Immigration Would Echo for Years: Albert R. Hunt

By Albert R. Hunt

June 25 (Bloomberg) -- American politics is usually a zero- sum game: When one side gains the other loses.

An exception is the current battle to overhaul immigration laws. The bipartisan effort is led by the unlikely duo of President George W. Bush and Senator Edward M. Kennedy. The fate of the legislation, which would grant a pathway for citizenship to 12 million illegal aliens and toughen enforcement of the borders, will be decided by the U.S. Senate this week.

If it passes, there is plenty of credit to share; if it fails both Bush and the Republicans and the Democratic-controlled Congress will be big losers.

Although a majority of the public is in favor of changing a chaotic system that makes a mockery of the law, it won't be easy.

The immigration bashers are winning the demagoguery war. Tom Tancredo, a Republican congressman from Colorado and a presidential candidate, has suggested immigrants come to the country to commit crimes and called Miami a Third World city. Lou Dobbs, a television host on the Cable News Network, has raised the specter of thousands of illegal immigrants spreading leprosy -- demonstrably untrue.

The roots are historic: nativism, or a fear that new arrivals will debase and threaten the American way of life. ``We've been down this road before,'' says Senator Lindsey Graham, the South Carolina Republican and a leading supporter of the comprehensive immigration measure. ``No Catholics, no Jews; the Irish need not apply.''

for the complete article
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=avHdzNBejttM

 

[90K]

This whole deal is just to try and take the focus off the real problem IMO. You can't actually have a immigration reform when you can't secure the border. Screw it and enact the draft and have every 3 out 5 new recruits be used in Border security detail for a minimum of 24 months. Every Male and Female in this country. Then after we establish a secure border round up these illegals and then work of a very firm immigration bill. I know this is a mere pipe dream but our borders have to be considered a bad idea or we'll never have any control.

 

[red states rule]

This whole deal is just to try and take the focus off the real problem IMO. You can't actually have a immigration reform when you can't secure the border. Screw it and enact the draft and have every 3 out 5 new recruits be used in Border security detail for a minimum of 24 months. Every Male and Female in this country. Then after we establish a secure border round up these illegals and then work of a very firm immigration bill. I know this is a mere pipe dream but our borders have to be considered a bad idea or we'll never have any control.

Poll after poll shows voters want enforcement first - then we will figure out what to do with the illegals

 

[90K]

Poll after poll shows voters want enforcement first - then we will figure out what to do with the illegals

If I could question all the candidates I'd ask why they can't enact the draft for homeland security with more resources going toward the build up of border security and lesser numbers to the armed services? I mean open the branch of the service called: Border Security Unit. As much travel as these elected leaders have done they should be able to respect the need for real border security. Arm it and deter human traffickers and illegal’s from coming over. Our security and way of life should depend on it. I mean this isn’t just Democratic or Republican votes this is our country and we should demand it be secured before you force some BS amnesty on us.

 

[red states rule]

If I could question all the candidates I'd ask why they can't enact the draft for homeland security with more resources going toward the build up of border security and lesser numbers to the armed services? I mean open the branch of the service called: Border Security Unit. As much travel as these elected leaders have done they should be able to respect the need for real border security. Arm it and deter human traffickers and illegal’s from coming over. Our security and way of life should depend on it. I mean this isn’t just Democratic or Republican votes this is our country and we should demand it be secured before you force some BS amnesty on us.

I would like to ask theim if they were building the fence, putting troops on the border if needed, and if not why?

 

[90K]

I believe first get the physical resources like bodies then address a serious wall for futher deterance.

 

[red states rule]

I believe first get the physical resources like bodies then address a serious wall for futher deterance.

We can do both at the same time

 

[90K]

We can do both at the same time

We can if we used our heads a little and looked outside the scope of things. The People want action and what better way than showing we are serious....

 

[red states rule]

We can if we used our heads a little and looked outside the scope of things. The People want action and what better way than showing we are serious....

They know we want action - but not the action they are trying to give us

That is why the VM's of Senators (and Congressmen) are full and they unplug their fax machines. They are getting swamped with comments from their coters, but for some reason they ignore them