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.
Much higher than the number of enforcement actions of this administration, that's for sure. You can count their yearly totals on one hand now.
LOL...yeah, right...
EXACTLY!!!! This whole problem began when the drafters of this bill included immigration and border security in the same bill. They intentionally grouped these entirely different entities in one bill so the pro invasion advocates could say "we must compromise on illegals to get security". No we do not! Get this Vicente Fox directed garbage out of the bill and it will sail through congress. Regardless of your position on illegal immigration one fact remains constant. We need to secure our borders.
The news preceded the media's spinning efforts. And note, please, that much of the public has not been swayed by their spin, and see this problem for what it is. If the media is trying to turn Republicans against Republicans, their efforts are seconded only by spinelss politicians who act as though the Republicans are not in control of the House, Senate, and Executive. The Republicans could do something, but lacking spines they would rather Nancy Pelosi say something "nice" about them than do the right thing.
I think that our Republic is very well designed, and I would even support going back to the state-appointed US Senate.
When the House passed the immigration bill HR4437, I supported it initially. It was only after the Senate took the bill that I learned about language in HR4437 that I object, such as making a felony to cross the border, and making a felony to give a hot meal to an illegal.
Of course, Tancredo blame the Democrats for inserting 'poison pill' amendments, and King claims that their fuzzy language against helping illegals only applies only to smugglers.
Guess what? It's already a felony to smuggle illegal aliens, so there is no need for this additional language that can be used against religious workers, and the House rules allow the Republicans to shot down any Democratic 'poison pill' amendments.
Therefore, having a unicameral legislature would have given us bad law.
Why did they fail? What sort of litigation was brought against them? If they failed for lack of enforcement, or funding, or litigation was brought because they were agency regulatory initiatives, then that is the sort of thing I am speaking of. We need federal laws with enforcement and funding mandates.
RINOMANIA?
With Congress, gridlock is good.
What is bad is the Executive Branch failing to enforce existing immigration laws.
You're putting the chicken before the egg. Which came first...media attacks against the administration, or illegals stampeding the streets of LA. And what prompted those demonstrations? Wasn't it inaccurate media coverage of what essentially amounted to a useless immigration bill? Fortunately, I think the protests in cities like LA actually backfired against the media. That wasn't quite what they were hoping for.
"If you think that only the media is behind this, you sound more like the MSM than a Freeper."
Let me ask you again...when did this issue rise to the top of American consciousness? 20 years ago? 10 years ago? 2 years ago? Or was it within the last year? Who has driven that increased awareness? Bloggers or the MSM? To give you a hint, in recent Rasmussen polling, 55% of Americans said they were better off than they were 4 years ago, but only 31% believed our economy was strong. Why the desparity? The media has convinced them that despite the fact that they are doing better, and despite the fact that the economy is incredibly strong, things really aren't that good.
Don't discount the power and motives of the media. We're gaining on it, but we haven't won the war yet.
If it didn't...if it weren't really steering people through their emotions, than people like EternalVigilance would be able to discuss the issue based on the facts of the issue, and not sit there with his arms crossed muttering about "establishment" folks.
My 2 Senators, Sessions and Shelby, voted no. Good for them.
The Bush/FristRINO/McRINOQuisling/Kennedy/HagelRINO/MartinezRINO Act Against America of 2006.
How many terrorists have walked into America since 9-11?
How many have carried out attacks after doing so?
How many were caught either entering or after entering the southern border? (forget that one, it's a trick question. You wouldn't know the answer).
Some hysterics are not necessary.
I noticed that. Maybe you are right about their listening to us.
The news about what? And what was the source of that news?
Fact is, we conservatives are the ones who have driven this issue to the front of the national conciousness, where it belongs.
And that reality drives people like you up the wall.
Your only objection is that it's redundant?
If any come for the reason of freeloading, it is a small percentage. Those that are on welfare are the ones with no skills who have been turned out of their original jobs. Gangs are usually second and third-generation children of immigrants who unfortunately are citizens by virtue of birth in the US.
I am all for cutting off state-provided services to illegals, other than those that are needed to save a life. I am also in favor of coming down hard on gang organizations.
Thank God at least one state is sane in their choice of Senatorial representation.
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.