U.S. Senate says YES to amensty

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by riserburn, May 25, 2006.

  1. Senate passes immigration bill
    By Charles Hurt
    THE WASHINGTON TIMES
    May 25, 2006


    6:20 p.m.
    The Senate easily approved an immigration bill that allows 10 million illegal aliens to become citizens, more than doubles the flow of legal immigration each year and will cost U.S. taxpayers an estimated $54 billion over the next ten years.
    Even before the early-evening vote, the leaders of both parties are hailing its passage as a historic success. The bill passed 62-36.
    "We've taken a bill, and we've made it better," said Majority Leader Bill Frist, the only member of the GOP leadership in the Senate to actually support the bill's final passage. "We've taken a bill that the American people would have concluded was amnesty and by my lights, we took the amnesty out while we put the security in."
    As they prepared to vote, senators on both sides of the aisle tearfully congratulated one another and themselves for all their hard work in producing the legislation. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat and leading proponent of the bill, called it "the most far-reaching immigration reform in our history."
    Several Democrats facing re-election this year joined Republican conservatives in opposing the first major overhaul of the nation's immigration system in twenty years. They said that the Senate is flatly ignoring clear public will and that the bill would have disastrous consequences for decades to come.
    "We will never solve the problem of illegal immigration by rewarding those who break our laws," Sen. Jim DeMint, South Carolina Republican, said. "We must stop illegal immigration by securing the border and creating a temporary worker program that does not reward illegal behavior with a clear path to citizenship and voting rights."
    Those who voted against the bill said it should have left out the "amnesty" provisions and instead focused solely on securing the border and enforcing the immigration laws that have been on the books for decades.
    Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, the No. 3 Republican in the Senate, said the bill "puts the cart before the horse" because it grants citizenship rights to illegals, grants full-blown amnesty to employers and opens the borders to millions of new immigrants each year.
    "The horse here, that I've been hearing from my constituents, is we need a border security bill first," said Mr. Santorum, who spends much of his time campaigning for re-election this fall. "And we need a program that makes sure that our country's borders are secure and that they are not a threat either to our national security or economic security.
    The bill also includes approval for 350 miles of new fencing along the border, 500 miles of vehicle barriers and authorization of 3,000 new border patrol agents this year.
    But conservatives in Congress like many voters are skeptical that the federal government will make good on promises to secure the border and enforce the laws. They suspect that immigration reform is headed for a repeat of the 1986 reforms that granted amnesty to 3 million aliens and promised to seal the border. But the laws were never enforced and three million illegals were replaced with some 12 million.




    "The amnesty provisions and the fact that the enforcement provisions will not kick in immediately mean to me that this will not solve the illegal immigration problem," Sen. David Vitter, Louisiana Republican, said today. "This will, in fact, make the illegal immigration problem much bigger."
    Sen. John Cornyn, the Texas Republican who opposes amnesty, said yesterday he has been amazed by the Senate's inability to understand what voters clearly want.
    "There seems to me to be a sense of surreality here, where people in the Senate just are not listening to what the American people are telling us," he said. "We've tried, through the course of the amendments that have been offered that people standing here have offered, to highlight some of the problems that we have identified and which I believe are responsive to the concerns that we've heard from our constituents."
    Chief among them was an amendment by Sen. Johnny Isakson, Georgia Republican, that would have delayed implementation of the amnesty and "guest" worker provisions until after the Secretary of Homeland Security had certified that the border had been secured. The Senate killed that suggestion.
    An amendment by Sen. John Ensign, Nevada Republican, would have barred illegal aliens from collecting Social Security benefits for past illegal work. The Senate rejected that proposal, even if the aliens had forged Social Security documents to get the employment.
    And an amendment by Mr. Cornyn and Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona would have required that the 200,000 workers ushered into the country each year under the "guest" worker program be allowed to stay for only a set period of time rather than permanently. The Senate rejected that proposal as well.
    Minority Leader Harry Reid pointed out that final legislation is far from complete. It now must go to negotiations with members of the House, which voted last year for a tougher bill that dealt only with border control and enforcement of immigration laws.
    "We should all take note that dark clouds are forming on the horizon," he said. "Influential Republicans in the House are still pushing the draconian bill they passed a bill that will make felons out of millions of immigrants and those who assist them."
    But it was House Democrats who thwarted the effort to remove the felony provisions from the House bill and leading House negotiators have since assured that they will ultimately strip out the felony language. But they are adamant that any final bill not include any amnesty provisions.
    House Majority Leader John A. Boehner said yesterday he's "hopeful" and a final agreement can be reached between the two chambers.
     
  2. The 'shamnesty' legislation
    TODAY'S COLUMNIST
    By Dana Rohrabacher
    May 25, 2006


    Right now, the Senate is desperately trying to convince the American people that their immigration bill is something else — anything else — than what it is: a massive amnesty for all 15 million to 20 million illegal aliens without any meaningful enforcement provisions. This same open-borders crowd that has betrayed the American middle class for years is hoping to fool us again.
    This "shamnesty" bill spells out the level of contempt the Senate has for middle-class Americans. This "comprehensive" bill includes:
    • In-state tuition for illegal aliens. Your kid has to pay full freight if they cross state lines, but the illegal alien who broke into the country doesn't.
    • All temporary guest workers have to be paid the prevailing wage. American citizens do not have to be paid prevailing wage.
    • All agricultural guest workers under this bill cannot be fired by their employers except for what the bill calls "just cause." However, American agricultural workers can be fired for any reason.
    • Illegal aliens are made eligible for Social Security. Not only will they receive retirement benefits, but their children will receive survivor benefits should the parents pass away. This is at a time when we are trying to keep Social Security solvent for the next generation.
    • Expands the visa lottery program, which is itself a questionable way to make visa distribution decisions.
    • Employers of illegal aliens get amnesty, too. Employers would be exempt from civil and criminal tax and criminal liability under immigration law. God forbid we hold employers accountable for helping illegal aliens break the law and being the magnet that has drawn them here for years.
    • Taxpayer dollars to radical immigrant-rights groups so they can help illegal aliens adjust their status. Millions of your tax dollars will go to the same groups that organized those rallies where people who came here illegally waved foreign flags and thumbed their noses at our laws.
    The Senate assures us we get "tough" border protections out of this bill, right? Wrong. The Basic Pilot Verification Program, which would force employers to check to see that a person has the right to work in America was gutted, the fencing provisions were gutted and the bill expands chain migration. Sen. Jeff Sessions did offer and pass an amendment to provide 370 miles of border fencing — half of what the House had offered. Sens. Sessions, David Vitter, Jon Kyl and John Cornyn have been heroic in attempting to salvage this bill — but gluing teeth and fur onto a duck doesn't turn it into a bear.
    The definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over again expecting a different result. We have had several amnesties since the big amnesty in 1986. The results have been an exponential increase in illegal immigration, burdening the taxpayer, crowding the schools, closing emergency rooms and providing a third of the prisoners in the federal prison system. The Senate bill, which would change the status of 15 million to 20 million from illegal to legal, is just "deja vu all over again."
    I know why Teddy Kennedy and his ilk want a bill that would bring in an estimated 60 million to 100 million people over the next 20 years: It is a ready source of new Democratic voters. Unskilled immigrants depend more on government services than they pay in, making them a natural Democrat constituency. On the other side of the equation, Republicans are beholden to the big-business, country club lobby. Their need for cheap labor trumps the need for strong enforcement and border control.
    Middle-class Americans will be bowed and broken under this burden being piled on their shoulders. Americans need to hold their elected representatives accountable on this vote. If your representative in the House or Senate is not on your side, kick them out of office.

    Dana Rohrabacher, California Republican, is chairman of the Investigations and Oversight Subcommittee of the House Committee on International Relations.
     
  3. We could well be watching an historic event, the destruction of the Republican Party. Unlike the Democrats, which are a party of factions who basically agree with each other, the Republicans are composed of factions that do not. The country club Republicans have never hid their disdain for the evangelicals, and the paleo-conservatives and the neo-cons despise each other. The Republicans traded in their perpetual loser status when they managed to bring these groups together, and appeal to suburbanites who were put off by the zaniness of the far left activists that are the face of the modern Democrat Party.

    Now it could all be in shreds, thanks to President Amnesty, Majority Leader Bill Timid Frist and a group of traitors who are willing to spit in the face of voters if it means they can cash a check from the Chamber of Commerce. Unlike Democrats, who can rely on union goons and civil rights hustlers to dragoon their voters and frog march them to the polls, Republicans are dependent on disparate factions who are motivated by deep ideological concerns. President Open Borders has chosen to spend his political capital on the two "i's",Iraq and immigration, and ignored issues important to the evangelicals and traditional conservative wing of the party. Both groups feel insulted and aggrieved. Neither is likely to turn out in strong numbers to vote for republican candidates.

    The party hacks will try desperately to put some lipstick on this pig by pressuring the House to accept most of the shameful features of the Senate bill, counting on the liberal media to credit them with immigration "reform" and not look too closely at the details. I doubt the voters will be so easily fooled.
     
  4. That's why I am most interested in seeing exactly who voted how.
     
  5. 62 SOBs - what a shame, a disgrace . . .

    Grouped By Vote Position YEAs ---62
    Akaka (D-HI)
    Baucus (D-MT)
    Bayh (D-IN)
    Bennett (R-UT)
    Biden (D-DE)
    Bingaman (D-NM)
    Boxer (D-CA)
    Brownback (R-KS)
    Cantwell (D-WA)
    Carper (D-DE)
    Chafee (R-RI)
    Clinton (D-NY)
    Coleman (R-MN)
    Collins (R-ME)
    Conrad (D-ND)
    Craig (R-ID)
    Dayton (D-MN)
    DeWine (R-OH)
    Dodd (D-CT)
    Domenici (R-NM)
    Durbin (D-IL)
    Feingold (D-WI)
    Feinstein (D-CA)
    Frist (R-TN)
    Graham (R-SC)
    Gregg (R-NH)
    Hagel (R-NE)
    Harkin (D-IA)
    Inouye (D-HI)
    Jeffords (I-VT)
    Johnson (D-SD)
    Kennedy (D-MA)
    Kerry (D-MA)
    Kohl (D-WI)
    Landrieu (D-LA)
    Lautenberg (D-NJ)
    Leahy (D-VT)
    Levin (D-MI)
    Lieberman (D-CT)
    Lincoln (D-AR)
    Lugar (R-IN)
    Martinez (R-FL)
    McCain (R-AZ)
    McConnell (R-KY)
    Menendez (D-NJ)
    Mikulski (D-MD)
    Murkowski (R-AK)
    Murray (D-WA)
    Nelson (D-FL)
    Obama (D-IL)
    Pryor (D-AR)
    Reed (D-RI)
    Reid (D-NV)
    Sarbanes (D-MD)
    Schumer (D-NY)
    Smith (R-OR)
    Snowe (R-ME)
    Specter (R-PA)
    Stevens (R-AK)
    Voinovich (R-OH)
    Warner (R-VA)
    Wyden (D-OR)

    NAYs ---36
    Alexander (R-TN)
    Allard (R-CO)
    Allen (R-VA)
    Bond (R-MO)
    Bunning (R-KY)
    Burns (R-MT)
    Burr (R-NC)
    Byrd (D-WV)
    Chambliss (R-GA)
    Coburn (R-OK)
    Cochran (R-MS)
    Cornyn (R-TX)
    Crapo (R-ID)
    DeMint (R-SC)
    Dole (R-NC)
    Dorgan (D-ND)
    Ensign (R-NV)
    Enzi (R-WY)
    Grassley (R-IA)
    Hatch (R-UT)
    Hutchison (R-TX)
    Inhofe (R-OK)
    Isakson (R-GA)
    Kyl (R-AZ)
    Lott (R-MS)
    Nelson (D-NE)
    Roberts (R-KS)
    Santorum (R-PA)
    Sessions (R-AL)
    Shelby (R-AL)
    Stabenow (D-MI)
    Sununu (R-NH)
    Talent (R-MO)
    Thomas (R-WY)
    Thune (R-SD)
    Vitter (R-LA)

    Not Voting - 2
    Rockefeller (D-WV)
    Salazar (D-CO)
     
  6. McConnell of Kentucky voted for? Wow, wonder what's going on there... illegals working the stills?

    Domenici too, an R in a border state NM...
     
  7. Thanks, I wanted to see that.

    Now; who's up for reelection this year? The interesting thing to watch: which ones will be back this time next year?
     
  8. lol...nah....the coal mines.
     
  9. Lucrum

    Lucrum

    None would be nice.
    I'd like to see every one who voted yes to be thrown out on his/her ear, no matter who or how popular they are.

    Unfortunately the average voter/tax payer has a short attention span and an even shorter memory. They are more concerned with the home team or who won American Idol than the future of their country.

    Both my state senators voted nay. Had they voted otherwise I would not for for them again at the the next election. If they were unopposed hell I'd even vote for a democrap, just to send the arrogant bastids a message.
     
    #10     May 25, 2006