Posted on 05/17/2006 12:32:49 PM PDT by BenLurkin
WASHINGTON - The Senate voted to build 370 miles of triple-layered fencing along the Mexican border Wednesday and clashed over citizenship for millions of men and women who live in the United States illegally.
Amid increasingly emotional debate over election-year immigration legislation, senators voted 83-16 to add fencing and 500 miles of vehicle barriers along the southern border. It marked the first significant victory in two days for conservatives seeking to place their stamp on the contentious measure.
The prospects were less favorable for their attempt to strip out portions of the legislation that could allow citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants and create new guest worker programs.
The Senate acted in a volatile political environment, as the White House struggled for a second day to ease the concerns of House Republicans who contend that President Bush favors amnesty for illegal immigrants.
Thousands of demonstrators massed a few blocks from the Capitol demanding immigrant rights.
Construction of the barrier would send "a signal that open-border days are over. ... Good fences make good neighbors, fences don't make bad neighbors," said Sen. Jeff Sessions (news, bio, voting record), R-Ala. He said border areas where barriers already exist have experienced economic improvement and reduced crime.
"What we have here has become a symbol for the right wing in American politics," countered Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill. He said if the proposal passed, "our relationship with Mexico would come down to a barrier between our two countries."
The Senate labored to complete work by next week on immigration legislation that generally follows an outline Bush set out in a nationally televised speech this week.
The measure includes provisions to strengthen border security, create a new guest worker program and crack down on the hiring of illegal immigrants.
Most controversially, it offers an eventual chance at citizenship for many of the estimated 11 million to 12 million illegal immigrants already in the country. Senate Republicans staged an impromptu, occasionally emotional debate over whether that amounted to amnesty.
Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana said it did. "Surely this is a pardon from what present law says must happen," he said of provisions in the bill that require immigrants to undergo background checks, pay back taxes and take other steps before they can become citizens.
Sens. John McCain and Chuck Hagel replied heatedly it was not amnesty.
"Let's stop the nonsense," said Hagel, addressing fellow Republicans. "You all know it's not amnesty." Said McCain, addressing Vitter, "Call it a banana if you want to ... to call the process that we require under this legislation amnesty frankly distorts the debate and it's an unfair interpretation of it."
Vitter sought the last word. "Methinks thou dost protest too much."
The clash erupted after Vitter sought a change in the legislation to strip out provisions of the bill that would allow for guest worker programs and give some illegal immigrants a chance at citizenship.
Supporters of the Senate measure credited Bush's prime-time Monday night speech with giving fresh momentum to the effort to pass long-stalled legislation.
Across the Capitol in the House, the story was different. Republicans pushed through a border security bill last year, and several members of the rank-and-file have criticized Bush for his proposals. To calm their concerns, the White House dispatched Karl Rove to their weekly closed-door meeting.
Rep. Steve King (news, bio, voting record), R-Iowa, an outspoken opponent of the Senate bill, derided the effort. "I didn't see it was a persuasive event. If it was about Karl Rove seeking to convince members of Congress after debate that he's right and we're wrong it would have been better not to have the meeting," he said.
King said Rove told lawmakers Bush is sincere about enforcement. But, he added, "The president doesn't want to enforce immigration law because he's afraid he'll inconvenience someone who wants to come into the country for a better life."
Rep. Peter King (news, bio, voting record), R-N.Y., agreed that Rove did not seem to have been persuasive. "It's not the kind of issue you can compromise on; either you're giving amnesty to people who are here illegally or you aren't."
At the White House, press secretary Tony Snow defended Bush against criticism. "The president is actually taking a more aggressive role on border security than the House itself took," he said. "That is the sort of thing that is going to answer a lot of the complaints that we have heard."
The National Capital Immigration Coalition organized the afternoon demonstration on the National Mall a few blocks from where lawmakers debated the issue they cared about.
"This is a critical moment. We oppose the militarization of the U.S-Mexican border," said Juan Jose Gutierrez, one of the event's organizers.
So who is lying here?
These fools like Hagel, McCain and Bush are leading the GOP down that same path, back to permanent minority status.
The fence needs to be 1200 miles long, not 400 miles! Don't these senatorial morons know anything at all about the border?
"I would be furious if I believed President Bush said that"
Bush said this, sugar coated with Clintonisms, on Monday night. Why are people acting surprised?
The whole point about legalization is that we are unwilling to actually enforce immigration law to the point of deporting illgal immigrants who are here illegally but otherwise not breaking laws. Based on that failure of will and desire to not look 'mean-spirited', we let lawbreakers get in line for citizenship.
If you dont deport then you can leave asis or you then must legalize. That's the thinking.
"English"
Do you support English-only ballots?
Do you support ending the 'dual citizenship' of
If not, then what meaning is this requirement'?
Can we end bilingual education?
It's nice to make take an English course, but practically meaningless in an
environment of multiculturalism
Where the majority of students in LA school system
are kids of illegal immigrants parents, speaking spanish
at home.
It also begs a simple question: Why not English only for all naturalized citizens? It should be a requirement for citizenship, right?
"The hoops that will be created by Senate amendments to provide path to citizenship for the 11 million illegals are going to be severe."
They are practically meaningless now, and they even turned back a Vitter amendment to cut it down. Your optimism is not justified by events thus far.
"Damn near none of these illegals will qualify. "
So far, even the Hagel-Martinez 'compromise' got everybody in the amnesty. And with document fraud, even illegal aliens yet to cross will 'qualify'! (Its what happened in 1986).
Also, the fencing is not relevent, really, without serious attempts at interior immigration law enforcement.
What's relevent is the will to enforce immigration laws via deportation.
If the Senate passes the CLEAR Act, and puts teeth into employer verification, I might bite. ... but I'm skeptical, still.
I listened to every word of President Bush's speech, and read the transcript, he did not say that.
There is much to debate about this issue without putting words into anyone's mouth.
>>
That amendment passed, too? It seems Sessions and company are chipping away at this bill little by little...but will it end up being enough to be effective?
>>
It doesn't have to be. It's moving in the right direction to walk into conference. The House Senate conference will move it even more in the right direction.
The President has strong feelings about people who walk across the border to find work. His feelings are less strong about short cutting the already strict requirements for naturalized citizenship. The Senate is sending out a bill with a GW total of only 200K. I don't think the Democrats realize how small that is.
The conference will reduce this further and add the condition of a 2/3 supermajority in both houses required to raise that number. That's the crusher. The Democrats think they can jack that number later. By putting a supermajority condition on it they are maneuvered into a corner.
Then by adding English required, 10 years wait, pay fine, pay an estimate of back taxes, make a self financed trip to the border to "get in line" (the line will move fast) and you have enough hoops to jump through that anyone who does would probably make a fine American.
The House Senate conference will also add miles to that fence.
This is moving in the right direction. I don't think it was anticipated that the Senate would report out a bill that the House / Senate conference could actually adjust even further rightward to something explicitly abhorrent to the Democrats and actually something that gives us a fence plus severe punishment of those who broke the law and a GW program so small that it is almost invisible.
Thanks for posting that. I couldn't believe Rove would have said that---and I sure didn't think Bush THOUGHT that.
Cheney said yesterday on Rush that we didn't need a fence along the whole border, and that "experts" had told him that it made sense in many places and made no sense in others. I can see that, coming from AZ. There's parts of AZ where you pretty much cannot cross (i.e., the Yuma desert). It would be VERY easy to spot someone there using a variety of techniques (I don't recommend thermal, however :)
Interesting take. I hope you are right.
There's no doubt in my mind that big business has finally awoken to the fact that they are at the end of the plank from both a moral and legal standpoint on this issue and that they stand to lose much more than hiring illegals has saved them over the years.
Despite some who claim this is just another conspiracy theory if you look at it from an administration standpoint the possibly consequences are such that there will be something in this legislation that forgives illegal hiring by corporations.
Without an amensty for the corporations as well they will still be liable for damages basd on past illegal acts.
In other words the RICO statutes won't stop applying just because a guest worker program is created.
It's time to read the fine print.
Allow me to ask you a simple and honest question.
With respect to the illegal alien issue whom do you trust more, the administration or the house of representatives?
"its a start but it needs to be 1,900 miles."
Is that the length of the US-Mexican border?
That is complete rubbish (unless we all get amnesty every time we go to court and pay a fine) - I get a ticket for jay-walking or disturbing the peace....I go to court pay a fine.....case closed. Did I recieve amnesty? (of course not).
GWB is not giving amnesty. That is what Ronald Reagan did. One minute 3 million were illegal the next minute they were legal with absolutely no requirements nor punishment.
GWB is not offering this in the least. There are background check requirements, there are assimilation requirements, there will be fines owed, etc, etc.
If you still don't like this type of plan. So be it. However, having to be intellectually dishonest and insist it is amnesty is BS. (unless we all get amnesty every time we go to court and simply pay a fine without doing jail time).
GarySpfc - I hear your sentiment...but we have to be willing to be intellectually honest here - Especially regarding amnesty - The notion that GWB is offering "amnesty" is simply a false premise.
Unless we all get amnesty every time we go to court and pay a fine - If I get a ticket for jay-walking or disturbing the peace....I go to court pay a fine.....case closed. Did I recieve amnesty? (of course not).
GWB is not giving amnesty. That is what Ronald Reagan did. One minute 3 million were illegal the next minute they were legal with absolutely no requirements nor punishment.
GWB is not offering this in the least. There are background check requirements, there are assimilation requirements, there will be fines owed, etc, etc.
If you still don't like this type of plan. So be it. However, having to be intellectually dishonest and insist it is amnesty is BS. (unless we all get amnesty every time we go to court and simply pay a fine without doing jail time).
Best regards,
Well 9 times out of 10 I'd go with the exact opposite of what most college professors are saying about anything! (but that's another story).
Furthermore there are always maximum penalties and or penalties on the books that judges see fit to give a lesser degree of punishment (and that still isn't amnesty).
When one gets a speeding ticket and has to pay a hefty fine but is put on probation for 6 months without accruing *points*...is that amnesty?
Furthermore the notion that we are going to round up 11 million people and remove / deport them is simply silly. It ain't going happen (and you and I both know it). Hell we could hardly remove one little Cuban boy back to his Father in Cuba without this country erupting on itself.
Outside of the very serious logistics alone of trying to do such -
BTW, with 4 million in line to immigrate to the US legally the INS workers have 4 minutes to examine each file. Now add 12 to 20 million to that total, and tell me how long they are going to have to examine each file?
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.