Posted on 04/07/2006 7:54:04 AM PDT by samcgwire
WASHINGTON
The Senate sidetracked sweeping immigration legislation Friday, leaving in doubt prospects for passing a bill offering the hope of citizenship to millions of men, women and children living in the United States illegally.
A carefully crafted compromise that supporters had claimed could win an overwhelming majority received only 38 of the 60 votes necessary to protect it from weakening amendments by opponents.
Republicans were united in the 38-60 parliamentary vote but Democrats, who have insisted on no amendments, lost six votes from their members.
Democrats and Republicans had been blaming each other Friday for problems stalling the progress of bill.
Scheduled votes to break the logjam failed and both supporters and opponents of the bill will have to wait until Congress returns from a two-week spring recess, if then.
"It's not gone forward because there's a political advantage for Democrats not to have an immigration bill," said Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa.
He said Democrats perceive a benefit in having only a GOP-written House bill that criminalizes being an illegal immigrant. That bill has prompted massive protests across the country, including a march by 500,000 people in Los Angeles last month.
Democrats blamed Republicans for insisting on amendments that would weaken a compromise that Senate leaders in both parties had celebrated Thursday.
"This opportunity is slipping through our hands like grains of sand," said assistant Senate Democratic leader Dick Durbin of Illinois.
President Bush had applauded the Senate's efforts to draft a comprehensive immigration bill. "I would encourage the members to work hard to get the bill done prior to the upcoming break," he said Thursday.
The election-year legislation is designed to enhance border security and regulate the flow of future temporary workers as well as affect the lives of illegal immigrants.
It separates illegal immigrants now in the U.S. into three categories.
Illegal immigrants here more than five years could work for six years and apply for legal permanent residency without having to leave the country. Those here two years to five years would have to go to border entry points sometime in next three years, but could immediately return as temporary workers. Those here less than two years would have to leave and wait in line for visas to return.
The bill also provides a new program for 1.5 million temporary agriculture industry workers over five years. It includes provisions requiring employers to verify they've hired legal workers and calls for a "virtual" fence of surveillance cameras, sensors and other technology to monitor the nearly 2,000-mile U.S.-Mexican border.
The acrimony in the Senate at Thursday night's end was a sharp contrast to the accolades 14 members of both parties traded just hours earlier when they announced their compromise.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist called it tragic "that we in all likelihood are not going to be able to address a problem that directly affects the American people."
The House has passed legislation limited to border security, but Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., and other leaders have signaled their willingness in recent days to broaden the bill in compromise talks with the Senate.
But Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., said anything with what he called amnesty would not get agreement from a majority in the House.
The immigration debate has given the American public a glimpse of what may lay ahead in 2008 GOP presidential politics.
Frist, R-Tenn., a potential presidential candidate in 2008, sought to establish more conservative credentials when he initially backed a bill limited to border security. At the same time, he has repeatedly called for a comprehensive bill _ adopting Bush's rhetoric _ and involved himself in the fitful negotiations over the past several days.
That vote was to invoke cloture - very different than voting against the actual bill.
Zilch. Here is an excellent article that debunks the idea that we need imported labor or that our economy would be hurt if we turned back the illegal aliens. Thank you for bringing that issue up.
And which I have said again and again and again, I completely agree with. I'm not sure who "we" is, but enforcing current laws is not a new concept.
No, I haven't had acess to the bill.
But the former counsel to John Ashcroft, Kris W. Kobach has:
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/62017.htm
You don't think he's making it up, do you?
I prefer to read the actual document. Too many times I've gotten spun up by Op-eds only to find out they didn't necessarily present the whole picture. No idea if that is true in this case.
Thanks
LOL...
He is right, Rokke. - I studied the wording
Those judges are backed up with cases, and this bill's amendment would replace them with immigration lawyers - to a person defense attorneys - who do not even believe in immigration control at all.
Is that what you want? There it is, in black and white.
It looks like the only ones who support AMNESTY for ILLEGALS are the DEMOCRATS. I'm looking forward to the elections in November!
You're welcome.
Is that what this is all about? Approving a bill to assuage the hopes of the illegals in the US? Really?
Plenty of CURRENT immigration lawyers used to be immigration DEFENSE lawyers - don't let that rock your world too much.
I meant "judges" ; )
What ~you~ said, samcgwire!
Fence FIRST !!!
Clawrence.......didn't I tell you to stop watching so much Archie Bunker?......and don't start talking about nuking LA again!
I support "amnesty" for illegal aliens, and I'm registered GOP.
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.