Senate amnesty bill dead?
Posted by : Drew McKissick June 8, 2007 - 11:20am
Is the bill dead...or just severely wounded...or perhaps playing possum? After failing to invoke cloture yesterday, (and then a second attempt), which amounted to a test vote of sorts, Harry Reid pulled the bill from the floor. From the AP:
WASHINGTON - The Senate divisions that derailed a White House-backed immigration bill - for now, at least - mirror the U.S. society's deep differences over the issue, according to polling data, lawmakers and analysts. Those gaps will challenge any effort to get the measure back on track.While most Senate Democrats appeared to back the bill, several liberal members said it did too little to keep immigrant families together and protect jobs for U.S.-born workers.
The split in the Republican Party was more obvious. The issue pitted social conservatives, who insisted that illegal immigrants not be granted "amnesty" for entering the country unlawfully, against business groups hungry for willing workers in hotels, restaurants, construction sites and other comparatively low-wage, low-skilled workplaces.
A bipartisan group of senators tried for weeks to bridge the chasms, but fell glaringly short Thursday night. Needing 60 votes to end debate and schedule a final vote on the bill itself, they won only 45. Senate leaders set aside the legislation until further notice.
Further notice? That's what scares me. Yes, we appeared to have beaten this 
thing back again, just like last year's victory in the House...but the point is WE HAD TO DO IT AGAIN. In Washington, bad ideas don't die. You think you kill them, but just like some creature in a horror movie, just when you think it's dead, it comes back to life again...or at least for a sequel next year.
The only way we're likely to take enough steam away from the supporters of all that's bad about this bill is if we push another bill that does all the things we want..and that the American people want in overwhelming numbers. For instance, a bill that would provide REAL border enforcement and security and would provide REAL verification and documentation of foreign workers who are here LEGALLY and then fine and punish businesses that hire illegals. That turns off the magnet that brings them here to begin with and makes it more difficult to get in...and makes it more difficult (and less desirable) for those who are here illegally to stay.
The problem with the current bill (and the one we defeated last year) is that the proponents of amnesty and cheap labor try to use just enough of what we want in the bill (more border guards, etc.) to get all of what they want. The "Grand Bargain" they call it. More like a Grand Hustle. The bottom line is this is a battle we're likely to have to keep fighting until the guys on our side can either pass a better bill like I described, or we simply apply the resources to enforce existing law. But I'm not holding my breath.
Keep an eye on that bill...it'll be back.
***
The WaPo blames a "flawed political culture" and good conservatives like SC Senator Jim DeMint for trying to "derail it".
Blogger reacts:
* Newsbusters notes ABC's all torn up about the bill going down
* Captain Ed:
Procedurally, the Senate can revisit the legislation any time they want. However, it seems unlikely that they will try again this session. The members of the coalition took a beating from their constituents over the last three weeks, and for some, the political moment has passed. They do not want to sail back into those waters, at least not without a guarantee of achieving something that would make the journey worth the pain. ...If they paid attention at all, they would understand that they need to rebuild credibility by tackling the issues in order. Build the security fence they passed last year first, and bolster the Border Patrol. Fix the visa management system that had been mandated for completion two years ago. Once those border-control solutions are in place and working, then debate normalization -- and I think they will find the American public more willing to work with them.
Right Wing News has an insider account on how it went down:
A GOP Aide, who's one of my sources in the Senate, gave me the rundown on what happened to the Senate bill today.
After the 2nd cloture vote failure at noon on Thursday, Harry Reid could not get unanimous consent to call up amendments to the bill because Jim DeMint refused to give his consent. This was extremely problematic for Reid because he wanted to get in votes on 6 more amendments before the last try at a cloture vote.
At that point, all the senators who were participants in the "Grand Compromise" AKA the "Masters of the Universe" by the opponents of the bill, leaned on DeMint to try to get him to give consent for the bill to move forward. Unfortunately for them, DeMint wouldn't budge. This essentially killed the entire afternoon that the pro-amnesty side hoped to use to shore up support for the bill.
More: Polipundit - Sister Toldjah - Captain Ed - Right Wing News - Bluey Blog - Blogs for Bush - Outside the Beltway
Bookmark/Search this post with:
- Drew McKissick's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- Email this page
Printer-friendly version
Follow the Outpost! 
Immigration
The discussion has become redundant but as long as the amnesty (let's call it what it is) proponents continue to try to ram this unwanted bill down the throats of the legal Americans who voted them into office to do their will in the first place, then the facts need to continue to be repeated, and the more quietly the amnesty elitists craft what is becoming a notorious piece of legislation, the louder those legal voters need to state the facts:
1. It is impossible for fair-minded people with a modicum of common sense to believe that newer, tougher enforcement laws will be enforced when the already plenty-tough laws are not. This is simply utterly basic. No mystery, no subtle translucent nuance, no superior-intellects-need-apply complexities. How can anyone believe that the new laws will be enforced when the old ones - some of which are perfectly good if albeit weak given the urgency of the situation - will not. The common-sense answer is simple: the odds are they won't. That spells disaster of every type, from the societal fabric of this country to its larger financial infrastructure. Bottom line on number 1: This amnesty bill is just too big a gamble to even realistically consider for even the briefest moment.
2. We are a country which not only prides itself on racial fairness, but we often beat ourselves up about it out of a misplaced sense of guilt about mistakes made by people in the past, now long dead and buried. Where then, is our similar outrage on behalf of the fairness of Asians and east and west Indians, for the oppressed people from truly hurting areas of the world, for all those who have waited dutifully in line for years while people who break our laws blatantly step ahead of them, in an arrogant display of contempt for the rule of law in the county they claim to want to love, simply because fate handed to them a geographical advantage in which their home country wasn't separated by an ocean like so many others who are in so much greater distress.
3. Prove the rule of law matters. Build the fence, catch the hiding deportees, make criminal activity of all manner a deportable offense and prove, proudly and with conviction, that there is meat and substance to the promises being made in support of this amnesty bill so we can believe that future laws, too, shall be obeyed and enforced (remember, ethically speaking, when officials do not enforce the laws they were sworn to uphold, they are just as guilty ethically as those who commit acts in violation of those laws.)
4. Without a fair and unbiased media, we must err on the side of caution. More and more Hispanic power trippers, giddy with the possibility of skyrocketing to six-figure-income speaking engagements and talking head superstardom on the political wonk circuit, are being trotted out by the mainstream as "experts". They are taking on an often annoying similarity: they sit, smiling broadly, gentle in manner and reassuring in voice and tell us untrue things, often unchallenged, such as implying via their voiced observations that we do not have rules in this country assuring a pathway to citizenship - we do, it's called current immigration procedure, and here in Vermont, at a grade school ceremony, forty-some-odd people from around the world, including an elderly Chinese couple, all of whom played by the rules, got their dream the right way.
These Hispanic talking heads also reassure us that the people who break our laws are good, well-meaning people looking for a better life. Our parents used to call people who broke the law for monetary gain greed criminals.
The common sense perspective is that we in no way, shape or form should want a single one of these illegal immigrants. They are people clearly predisposed to breaking our laws. The people from Mexico we should want are the people who have resisted the temptation to break our laws (which are already generous compared to most of the world) and are waiting quietly at home because they believe in law, and/or don't want to disrespect the country they long to live in, and/or feel that God is judging them, etc. Whatever their reason for playing by the rules, the fact is they do, and they are, and it is at them that this country, its Senate and its President spit willfully and arrogantly, and to them and respect for them, that this amnesty fraud, this immoral, unethical cheat against the people and laws of this land and those who play by the rules to come here, should be struck down. Unapologetically struck down, except perhaps with apologies to those who would be so disgustingly and dishonorably treated if it were to pass, forever having been considered in the first place.
R