Contact Info for Senators Likely to Flip Their Vote on the Immigration Bill

Some needed clarity. There will be two big votes: the cloture vote, in which 60 votes are needed to invoke cloture and bring the bill to the floor, and the final vote approving the bill, which only requires a simple majority for it to pass. These people need to be leaned on to vote against cloture, first and foremost, because their “no” vote will count for less when only a majority is needed to pass the bill. I believe the Dems have the votes to pass the bill on the final vote. DEMAND THAT THEY VOTE AGAINST CLOTURE.

This is bothersome. I've been emailing and calling (getting voice mail) Hutchinson, Cornyn and my Rep (McCaul) every other day or so for the last two weeks. From prior correspondence I believed her only contention was that the Border Patrol wasn't in on the actual placement of the fence. Phhht! Trivial and I said so in email - told her just build it the terrain will dictate place to build.

I pretty sure she'll vote against cloture, killing bill yet again, and then we'll need to work more if and when it comes back. Hopefully in an open committee style writing of bills. But back to emails and phone to explain touch back means outside USA.

This from the Houston Chronicle yesterday http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1854256/posts

June 21, 2007, 11:07PM
Hutchison to vote against reviving stalled immigration bill By MICHELLE MITTELSTADT
Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle

WASHINGTON — U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, who has been under intense pressure from the White House and Republican leadership to support a sweeping immigration overhaul, nevertheless announced today that she will vote against reviving the legislation when it returns to the Senate floor next week.

She was joined today by the state's other senator, Republican John Cornyn, who had been expected by the bill's supporters to take such a stance. They had aggressively lobbied Hutchison in hopes of adding her vote to the 60 necessary to revive the stalled legislation.

"I could not support (bringing the bill to a vote) in its present position," Hutchison, criticizing the legislation as amnesty for illegal immigrants, said today.

As No. 4 in the Senate GOP leadership, Hutchison is the highest-ranking Republican to break from her party on a domestic policy issue of signal importance to President Bush.

"Until major changes are made that reject amnesty and a more open, fair process emerges for debating one of the most crucial issues facing our nation, I cannot support this immigration bill," she said.

Cornyn added, "Passage of a comprehensive immigration reform bill has been, and remains, one of my top priorities in the Senate. It has become clear however, that I and many others will not be able to introduce amendments to fix key areas of this very complex bill."

The Republicans' top vote counter, Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott of Mississippi, predicted today that bill backers would get the 60 votes to bring the bill back next week, though he acknowledged the vote could be a squeaker.

"I think we're going to get it," Lott said. "But senators have a way of changing their minds and things tend to slide one way or the other."

The architects of the tenuous bipartisan immigration compromise, which twins increased border and interior enforcement with a path to eventual citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants, had given Hutchison a chance to propose an amendment in hopes of securing her support.

But Hutchison acknowledged that her amendment, which would require most adult illegal immigrants to temporarily return home within two years of obtaining their visa, was unlikely to succeed.

I think KBH and others are using the amendments and a touchback—(BEWARE THAT ONE) and cloture vote stuff as so much window dressing and smokescreens to show a position against amnesty—and avoid citizen accountability—and then support the ultimate result desired—the de jure reduction of criminal behavior by themselves and their major donors in aiding and abetting the HIRING of criminal employees who are merely the effect, not the cause.

Who stands to gain if Texas gets this multinational highway? The multinationals—and those who pave the political way.

Re: Touchback and KBH’s potential duplicity (Hope I’m wrong):
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1850614/posts?page=18#18

See my post 23 including the link within.

I did. Thee times I've read the thread, all posts. I see and understand what you are saying and telling me. I also know that in talking with "STAFF" that they also provide their own opinion and not always the Senators or Reps. Caught some on that in the past.

But I've not stopped my emails and phone calls either.

Ping!

Actually, everybody should call their two senators and tell them to vote against it. Period.

Their local offices are best.

Thank you — Keep it up!

As regards KBH. Her voting record on the amendments to the Bill shows just how much she favors it. In almost every instance, she has voted in favor of those amendments favorable to illegal aliens...including voting NO on the one that would rid the bill of amnesty.

For those who understand what she’s up to, it will be interesting to see how many will believe her amendment rids the bill of amnesty. Here is a transcript of an interview with both she and Arlen Specter...

HUTCHISON: Chris, it is because the vast number of the estimated 10 million to 12 million will never have to go home if they don’t want a green card.

And I think that is what is causing the amnesty outcry, that you can stay here, you will never have to go home, as long as you don’t want the permanent green card.

And I think we can fix this, Chris, and we are working with others who are trying to get a bill that will have more support, to take this amnesty portion out, by requiring that the touchback — the going home and applying — happens in the beginning for the temporary visa, rather than only if you want the permanent card.

WALLACE: Senator Specter, let’s talk about this, because it is something that the critics say is a big loophole in your plan.

As it now stands, illegal immigrants get probationary — not permanent, but probationary — legal status right away without paying a fine, without going home, and if they don’t want to apply for a green card, they can stay here indefinitely. Isn’t that amnesty?

SPECTER: I don’t think it is. The cry about amnesty comes up if you give them citizenship. But the program which would not require their going home would be one without citizenship.

Look here. We’ve got 12 million undocumented immigrants in this country, and we have to deal with them one way or another. And right now it is anarchy.

And a key part of the legislation to provide — handling the 12 million provides for tightening up our borders, fixing our broken borders, imposing very tough employer sanctions, and it’s an overall plan.

But I’m prepared to listen to what Senator Hutchison has to say, if we can find a modification which will get a stronger vote and get this plan through.

My basic point, Chris, is that the system is broken very badly, and we need to correct it. And I’m open to modifications......

I think you may have sort of a breakthrough on your program here on Fox News, Chris, between Senator Hutchison — Kay and myself. Kay says that the bill is better than the current system, which is a significant step forward for passage.

I’m prepared to negotiate with what Kay has to say on when the touchback occurs. And I think she is right that it would have been preferable to go through committee.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,275732,00.html

bump

Bush's acts exhibit extreme disdain and contempt for the legislative authority of the people on illegal immigration and he has substituted his own arbitrary and capricious whim for the rule of law as determined by the people through their elected representatives. He has implemented his personal open borders policy in defiance of our laws and against the will of the overwhelming majority of citizens. In doing this for the past 7 years he has rejected the basis of our constitution and our republican form of government -- the sovereignty of the people. He does not believe that "the people" have a say in this illegal immigration matter. He simply does not believe in our system of republican self-government

And that will be the Preamble to the indictment for Malfeasance and Abuse of Power.

This list has not been updated. Two Texas Senators are on our side along with Alexander now.

http://www.numbersusa.com/phones?ID=8131 has some good ideas for talking points to the flippin fifteen.

By the way, the number they had for Hutchison was different; 202-224-5922 and I got an aide there who took my zip code (almost all congresscritters ignore calls from non-constituetnts since they cant vote and said she would pass my sentiments on.

Use 75075 or 77002 or 78234

Here's what I just sent to Norm Coleman:

Dear Senator Coleman,

I understand another effort is being made to bring the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill up for cloture.

Without indicting the motives of those promoting this piece of legislation, I would like to present my arguments for why this bill should be rejected:

1) Federal Government has no credibility when it comes to border enforcement

We were promised increased border security after the 1986 amnesty, and very little was done to fulfill this promise. To make matters worse, the Secure Fence Act of 2006 promised us 700 miles of secure fencing, and to date, about thirteen miles have been completed. The entire premise of the current bill is based on the assumption that the government will do what is necessary to secure the border, something at which it has failed repeatedly in the past. When laws we already have are being ignored, what good will new legislation do?

2) The proposed Z-Visa system is both unworkable and unfair to prospective immigrants

The number of illegal aliens in the country is estimated to be twelve million, with some estimating the number as high as twenty million. As I understand it, the Z visas would provide the holders with travel and work privileges within twenty-four hours of the application being submitted. I have very little faith in the DHS bureaucracy's ability to process these applications with due diligence, and I have reservations about the cost to taxpayers to implement such a massive program.

Also, it's my understanding that many of the illegal aliens in the country came here legally on visas and overstayed those visas. If we can't keep track of and enforce the visas we've already issued, how are we going to deal with twelve to twenty million more?

In addition to feasibility problems, I believe the Z-visa program is a slap in the face to the millions of people around the world who are respecting our laws and patiently waiting their turn for a chance to work and live here in the United States, as well as those who have already become citizens or visa holders by legal means.

3) What will be done to ensure those being granted amnesty would be good citizens?

I'm deeply concerned about who, exactly, would qualify for the Z-Visa program and/ or citizenship. It would, in my opinion, be unacceptable to allow illegal aliens who are felons, drug addicts, gang members, sex offenders, the mentally ill, or the chronically unemployed to remain in the country under any circumstances. Will prospective visa holders/ citizens be required to demonstrate proficiency in English and knowledge of American history, culture, and civics? Also, communism is again rearing it's ugly head in Latin America. What will be done to ensure prospective visa holders/ citizens are not here to act as agitators for Hugo Chavez or other communist elements? Will there be any special provisions for other-than-Mexican illegals from countries with known jihadist networks?

4) Political concerns

The following is excerpted from the Rasmussen Reports website regarding a poll taken June 11th and 12th:

"Sixty-nine percent (69%) of voters would favor an approach that focuses exclusively on "exclusively on securing the border and reducing illegal immigration." Support for the enforcement only approach comes from 84% of Republicans, 55% of Democrats, and 69% of those not affiliated with either major party."

"Overall, just 21% are opposed to the enforcement-only approach."

"Just 30% would favor legislation that focused "exclusively on legalizing the status of undocumented workers already living in the United States." Fifty-seven percent (57%) oppose that strategy, including 63% of Republicans, 52% of Democrats, and 55% of unaffiliated voters."

"Fifty-seven percent (57%) favor a proposal giving "all illegal aliens up to three years to leave the United States. After leaving, the illegal aliens would have to get in line and wait their turn for legal entry into the United States." Support for that concept comes from 67% of Republicans, 49% of Democrats, and 56% of unaffiliated voters."

As you can see, support for this bill is coming mostly from special interest groups, with very little support from the populace. The Republican Party has a golden opportunity to seize this issue and champion an enforcement-first approach, and this would surely pay dividends in the '08 elections.

In Closing

The President and some of your Senate colleagues have characterized those who oppose this bill as bigoted, nativist xenophobes. This is not the case. I would like to say that I am in no way opposed to legal immigration, which should be increased if we truly have a labor shortage. Many of our best citizens are immigrants who have come to this country legally. However, making it easier for illegal aliens to obtain visas and become citizens than it is for those who are trying to do it the legal way is both an affront to the rule of law and deleterious to our national security.

I know you and your staff are very busy, and I would like to thank you for taking the time to read this.

Best Regards from your loyal supporter and constituent,

xxxx

Spring Park, MN

B T T T

Some needed clarity. There will be two big votes: the cloture vote, in which 60 votes are needed to invoke cloture and bring the bill to the floor, and the final vote approving the bill, which only requires a simple majority for it to pass. These people need to be leaned on to vote against cloture, first and foremost, because their “no” vote will count for less when only a majority is needed to pass the bill. I believe the Dems have the votes to pass the bill on the final vote. DEMAND THAT THEY VOTE AGAINST CLOTURE

You hit the nail on the head. I agree with that.

HereÂ’s a list of key Senate contacts for EVERYONE to email regarding immigration. Many offices are putting calls straight to voicemail and they can just trash faxes (and letters take weeks to get through due to security). LetÂ’s hit Hill staff where they are so codependent - their Blackberries! Send email directly to staff - not just the generic SenatorÂ’s mailbox. Contact their Chief of Staff, Legislative Director, and Press Secretary. Make your voice heard!!

Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
Chief of Staff
tom_ingram@alexander.senate.gov

Legislative Director
david_morgenstern@alexander.senate.gov

Press Secretary/Communications Director
scot_montrey@alexander.senate.gov
lee_pitts@alexander.senate.gov

Senator Wayne Allard (R-CO)
Chief of Staff
sean_conway@allard.senate.gov

Legislative Director
charles_cogar@allard.senate.gov

Communications Director
laura_condeluci@allard.senate.gov

Press Secretary
steve_wymer@allard.senate.gov

Senator Robert Bennett (R-UT)
Chief of Staff
maryjane_collipriest@bennett.senate.gov

Legislative Director
mark_morrison@bennett.senate.gov

Press Secretary
emily_christensen@bennett.senate.gov

Senator Christopher “Kit” Bond (R-MO)
Chief of Staff
brian_klippenstein@bond.senate.gov

Legislative Director
kara_smith@bond.senate.gov