Posted on 03/16/2006 1:51:16 PM PST by VU4G10
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Under pressure to produce broad immigration reform legislation by the end of the month, a U.S. Senate panel on Thursday neared agreement on a proposal that would give some of the 12 million illegal aliens living in the country an opportunity to earn citizenship.
Although no vote will be held until after a weeklong congressional recess, the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday appeared ready to back a proposal by panel member Sen. Edward Kennedy, a Massachusetts Democrat, who has worked on the issue with his Republican colleague John McCain of Arizona.
The panel, which is working on comprehensive immigration and border security legislation, will also consider a related proposal that would allow foreigners to enter the United States as legal guest workers and then have a chance to earn permanent status.
Republicans are divided over immigration policy, and the Judiciary Committee plan is likely to spark a firestorm from conservatives who oppose regularizing the status of illegal immigrants, saying they would be rewarded after breaking U.S. immigration law.
But backers cite both economic and security reasons. They say that providing a path to permanent residency and eventual citizenship will avoid creating a permanent underclass of workers and help bring illegals aliens out of the shadows.
Sen. Charles Grassley, an Iowa Republican who opposes giving permanent status to illegals, said after the meeting that the panel would probably vote for the Kennedy plan.
"The votes are there," Grassley said.
NO AMNESTY
Kennedy told the committee the proposal was not an amnesty. People seeking legal status would have to pay a $2,000 fine, apply for a six-year temporary status, have a job, pay taxes, learn English and show an understanding of U.S. government.
They would not get permanent status faster than the three million foreigners awaiting legal entry, he said.
"There is no moving to the front of the line, there is no free ticket," Kennedy said. "This is not amnesty."
Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, quipped that the requirements "probably exclude half of my family."
The panel also reached tentative agreement on a guest worker program sought by President George W. Bush has said he wants. A compromise struck between Kennedy and Sen. John Cornyn, a Texas Republican, would give future temporary workers an opportunity to seek permanent status after four years.
U.S. business groups favor creating a temporary worker program to help fill jobs that Americans either cannot or will not do. Both business and labor groups also favor giving current undocumented workers a way to legalize their status.
Committee members said details would be worked out during the recess.
The panel is working against a deadline set by Majority Leader Bill Frist. The Tennessee Republican, and possible contender in the 2008 presidential race, wants the Senate to take up a bill addressing only enforcement and border security. He threatened to do that on March 27 if the Judiciary Committee failed to reach agreement on comprehensive legislation.
Whether Congress will finalize immigration legislation before the November congressional elections is unclear. Both Democrats and Republicans are likely to use the issue to gain advantage.
The House of Representatives has voted for tough border security and enforcement legislation with no guest worker program. The two sides would have to work out their differences before a bill could be sent to Bush for his signature.
The new agents on the border came from Congress, over his repeated opposition. He then would submit budgets to Congress that don't provide for the agents that they themselves authorized, forcing Congress to have to up the level back to where it needed to be. Don't even try to tell me that he's pushed for good border security.
you have been a 3rd party supporter all along.
What of it? Still doesn't change the fact that a lot more conservatives have started to see things my way than they did in 2002.
Horse Hockey....the only thing that will happen is what always happen when these bloated liars spew their verbal flatulence...
A huge bureaucracy will be formed...to waste more money...nothing will be done....or enforced...no fines will be paid no one go to jail of any consequence and they will all pat themselves on the back at some well publicized ceremony...and the tax payer will get screwed as per usual
imo
What of it? Still doesn't change the fact that a lot more conservatives have started to see things my way than they did in 2002.
My point is you have never been one of those conservatives who you claim are now starting to "see things your way." I however have been a strong supporter of the GOP and remain so.
He signed the bill that included border security because it contained other things that he wanted, but didn't want the border security provisions included. He lost that fight (no big surprise, given that he was going so diametrically against public opinion), and then proceeded to do everything he could to undermine those provisions. He has absolutely zero credibility on border security.
My point is you have never been one of those conservatives who you claim are now starting to "see things your way."
Doesn't change the fact that they do exist, in increasing numbers. Close your eyes to it if you want, but it's obvious from reading border threads especially.
If you had read the posts on FR prior to the 2000 elections you would have been certain Buchanan was going to win. You should expand your horizons beyond the immigration threads.
A cursory perusal of immigration threads reveal the same malcontents who misjudged voter interest concerning immigration in 1998, and 2000, just as you did in in 2002, and 2004. 95% of Freepers avoid these threads because of the insipid sloganeering, circular logic, and personal slander used by the isolationist who live on those threads. There is no substance to be found.
Have you ever thought to ask yourself why the leaders of the anti-immigration movement can't get elected to statewide office much less be thought of as a national leader?
I would really love to read your explaination of this contradiction between your certainty that immigration is a make/break issue, and the last 50 years of elections.
While I have not agreed with you inquest, I do have to say you have done a remarkable job making the best arguement with the facts available for your opinion. Your persistence is admirable and your arguments are clearly understandable even if I remain unconvinced. You have also made your case without resorting to insulting personal remarks, something I am not always able to say about my posts.
The "close your eyes" comment is a little bit a chuckler for me because in 1992 I thought George HW Bush's defeat would usher in a re-awakened GOP. I idolized Bob Dornan and Alan Keyes, both of whom I met at the 94 Republican state convention. I was certain Clinton would be defeated in the next election. Even when Dole was defeated I assured myself that Dole was a bad candidate and massive voter fraud overcame the 200+ Clinton body count. The 98 GOP loses were a personal wake up call that ideology does not trump reality. Some day you will hear that call.
Not even close to the corruption of the democrat party in American unions, public education, foreign money, and race relations, however.
I highly doubt that. What you were most likely seeing back then was idealistic enthusiasm by a small but vocal number of devotees. What we have now is something quite different: massive disillusionment and anger over an issue that resonates with a huge proportion of the electorate.
A cursory perusal of immigration threads reveal the same malcontents who misjudged voter interest concerning immigration in 1998, and 2000, just as you did in in 2002, and 2004.
Just as I did when? If you can come up with a quote from me predicting a third-party upset in either '02 or '04, I'd be fascinated to see it, because I'm quite confident that I never made any such prediction for either of those two years. What I'm seeing now is a very significant change. It's not all the same people on the border threads then as now. The number has grown, including by people who were strong advocates of the President's reelection in '04, and who had mostly muted their criticism of him prior to that vote, thinking that he'd come around. He didn't.
Have you ever thought to ask yourself why the leaders of the anti-immigration movement can't get elected to statewide office much less be thought of as a national leader?
Because both parties have their reasons for being seriously hostile to border security, and that leaves voters mostly trapped. That's why it took voter initiatives to get laws like Prop 200 enacted.
The voters know that there's really only one viable way to break through that electoral stranglehold, and that is to vote third-party. They've avoided doing so for the most part, because they didn't want to give up their voice on other issues. But that's already begun to change. Jim Gilchrist's placing of 25% is a huge number for a third party, well enough to undo what might otherwise be a very comfortable victory by a Republican. The more people see how blatantly their "elected servants" are thumbing their noses at them, the more motivated they'll be to hit back at them.
The 98 GOP loses were a personal wake up call that ideology does not trump reality. Some day you will hear that call.
What "ideology" are you referring to here? I didn't know that obsession with Clinton's sexual escapades constituted an "ideology". The lesson from both '94 and '98, taken together, is this: When Republicans focus on what they believe - smaller government, personal responsibility, cultural sanity - they win. When they focus on partisan pounding against Democrats, they lose.
I'm not saying they shouldn't have called Clinton on his misbehavior; they definitely should have. But it's not a good idea for Republicans to make voters think that that's what they're all about.
Oh please. The Chinese Maoists only allow "private property" because:Totalitarian yes, communist no.1) they can take it or the "owner" any time they want
2) they know by observing us that they can seize more from a larger output than a larger share of a smaller output
The Chinese leaders have sold themselves further into corruption. They want a bigger economic pie so they can skim more for their personal benefit. Twas ever thus when the form of government is totalitarian/authoritarian.
Authoritarian yes, communist no.
Fascist yes, communist no.
Corrupt yes, communist no.
As Rush is fond of saying, words have meaning.
If the standard definition of communism--forceful abolition of private property--is tossed aside, then any government can be called communist in economic matters.
Kennedy and McCain's $2000 for amnesty bill.
No national figure has emerged to campaign on immigration because the Parties prevent it, and Gilchrist's showing is somehow the harbinger of doom for the GOP. I heard this same argument when Pat Buchanan ran for President.
I find this argument less than convincing when both Bush and Kerry got more votes than any other living American in history.
Thank you for you reply.
Buchanan captured 25% of the vote in a general election? I must have missed that.
By the way, you've neglected certain factors, among which that Gilchrist and company aren't tarnished with the same things Buchanan's been tarnished with that have left a bad taste in many people's mouths: alleged anti-Semitism and theocratic tendencies. Absent those things, a third-party candidate running on a border-security platform has a lot going for him, as third-party candidates go. This is especially true in the Southwest.
I find this argument less than convincing when both Bush and Kerry got more votes than any other living American in history.
So you can conclude from that datum either a) that Bush and Kerry are the two most popular politicians in America, or b) that the two parties really do not serve the interests of the people. Assuming the latter (which I think would be the conclusion of most rational people), then on an issue that resonates so well with the public, they clearly can't hold out forever. And the cracks are already showing.
It might come to someone having to organize a March on Washington and in other cities around the nation letting the politicians know that we (especially conservatists)will not stand for the passing of a liberal law on immigration.
Ding ding ding. Cornyn/Kyl, as bad as it is, could probably barely squeeze through the house, but McCain-Kennedy has a zero percent chance of passing the house of representatives, period.
An immigration bill was already passed by the House of Representatives (did not include any amnesty). After the Senate passe its bill, the two will have to be reconciled in Committee, where the Senate will try mightily to overrule any objections by the House reps. Then, if the 2 houses agree, the bill will go to Prez Bush for signature or veto.
Hopefully, the cooler heads in the House will prevail.
"After the Senate passe its bill, the two will have to be reconciled in Committee, where the Senate will try mightily to overrule any objections by the House reps. Then, if the 2 houses agree, the bill will go to Prez Bush for signature or veto."
Both the house and the senate will have to vote on the changes. If it includes an amnesty, the house won't go along.
Whoever is applying that pressure is in no way in touch with what a large segment of the populace feels about this massive criminal invasion of our country. If this is coming from the Republican leadership, then they are choosing a very poor time to push this; if it is coming from elsewhere, then the leadership should put the kibosh on this foolish exercise in an election year.
"If it includes an amnesty, the house won't go along."
You hope....
definition is ALL private property. Under that definition even the Soviet Union was not communist, only socialist.
Totalitarianism is a form of government, not an economic system. Communism describes an economic system. The Soviet Union had a totalitarian government with a communistic economy (altho even they allowed small, private plots of land to peasants, as did Mao after a while)
I agree 100% - words do have meaning and the meaning should matter, but it's really hard to lump the Chinese socialists and the German socialist systems into the same category, since the Chinese (and the former Soviet) take bodies along with the property when the State wants its way, while the Germans just take the property. Under the definition of pure communism, I guess only North Korea matches.
The main reason anti-illegal immigrant candidates can't get elected is that the lapdog media refuses to publicize certain truths about this ongoing invasion. If most Americans knew that illegals were getting tapayer financed benefits for housing, medical, etc. and are now being offered below market interest rates for home loans as well as the fact that thanks to Bush et al they will now receive Social Security benefits, even the dubest dumbed down Americans can figure this nonsense out......and I didn't even touch on the fact that more and more illegals are committing very heinous crimes against Americans.
That is because I never said it. Buchanan actually won a state wide primary...some thing Gilchrist is incappable of doing. Why you chose Gilchrist as a counter-argument is beyond me. Gilchrist was running for 1 of over 50 CA House seats, and not a statewide seat. (I'm suprised CA hasn't elected an illegal to the Congress - the Constitution seems to mean little in CA.) My question to you was "Have you ever thought to ask yourself why the leaders of the anti-immigration movement can't get elected to statewide office much less be thought of as a national leader?" You have failed to answer my question.
So you can conclude from that datum either a) that Bush and Kerry are the two most popular politicians in America, or b) that the two parties really do not serve the interests of the people. Assuming the latter (which I think would be the conclusion of most rational people)
You assume too much. Including that your views are rational. Record turnout is not an indicator of voter dissatisfaction by rational people.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.