Hat tip – JPod at The Corner… but CNN is now reporting: Senate immigration compromise sidetracked.
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, with even GOP supporters of the bill saying that its opponents should get votes on their amendments. Democrats, who have insisted on no amendments, lost six votes from their members.
An alternative bill by Majority Leader Bill Frist — with no provision to let illegal immigrants stay but imposing large fines on employers who hire them — received even less support in a 36-62 test vote.
No legislation is much better than leaving our borders unprotected, yet rewarding lawbreakers who cross it and putting American citizenship up for a $2,000 price.
I guess my calls this week to my two Senators helped!
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
Wouldn’t it be better to have two separate bills, one for securing the border, and another bill for dealing with the illegals already here? Aside from idiotic, asinine politics, is there any reason not to have two separate bills?
A border security bill would not get the necessary support, because those who want to “assist” illegal immagrants would, unfortunately start pulling out the race card, which I guess would fall into the idiotic, asinine politics category.
I, in my libertarian way, think that there should be unlimitted immigration, but there needs to be the following limitations for our safety, security and general welfare-
1 Background check, to help insure that there are not any terrorists, drug dealers/gang members, etc moving to our wonderful country
2 Health check, to limit the amount of “3rd world” diseases, such as TB, spreading through the country.
3 Fluentcy in English, so those immigrating can function in the society in general.
4 Knowlege of basic customs and laws, so that those immigrating can function in the society in general.
To do this, our government would need to screen every immigrant wanting to move here and consdequently need to limit illegal immigration (or is a better discription, unseen immigration).
We as a country are severly in danger when we do not know who is crossing our borders, both north and south.
As far as the illegals already here, there here, best that we can do is to try and process them, but those that are a threat to the USA, either because they carry some sort of communicable disease or they are intent on causing harm will probably never be found by any type of amnesty plan.
From a practical standpoint, none of this matters. Build a wall, and the illegals will go around it. The French noticed that after they built the Maginot line following WWI. The Italians noticed that after the Libyans allowed North Africans to migrate into southern Italy via a chain of islands into Sicily–a narrow piece of the Mediterranean sea.. The Spanish have been noticing that since the Moroccans are allowing North Africans to migrate into Spain near Gibralter. Regarding illegal immigration from Mexico, if there is a wall across the border, the “coyotes” will just make use of a water route. It isn’t that far between Mexico and southern TX or southern CA.
There are other issues regarding work visas that I’ll put aside for the moment. But one thing that should be considered is the fact that NAFTA has proven disastrous for indigenous agriculture and thus the rural poor in Mexico, and that is probably one reason why there has been an increase in illegal immigration from Mexico into the US. In addition, the lax of laws prohibiting employers from employing illegals cannot be ignored.
The fact is–or appears to be–that the federal government has no real interest in stemming the flow of illegal aliens from Mexico. The American political parties want the issue to pander to the rubes, but they don’t really want to do anything about it.
raj said…
“But one thing that should be considered is the fact that NAFTA has proven disastrous for indigenous agriculture and thus the rural poor in Mexico, and that is probably one reason why there has been an increase in illegal immigration from Mexico into the US.”
Raj is, in my opinion, really close to nailing it here.
Although the overall impact of NAFTA is debatable, the notion that US agri-business has become accustomed to the cheap labor provided by South- and Central-American illegals is beyond question.
Consequently, I would repeat what some in Congress have already suggested…
Why not utilize the labor of convected felons presently serving time in US prisons?
Would that NOT be exorbitantly cheaper than even the illegal migrants?
Just a question, mind you…
Eric in North Tijuana
Raj, you’re right, build a wall and illegals will go around it, but a wall/fence limits the number of access routes border agents need to focus on, making their job, to protect the country from terrorists crossing over into the US is a lot easier.
All in all, it’s easier to manage immigration than limit/stop it.
As far as the reason for such a large amount of Illegal immigration, let’s also take a look at Mexico’s ruling families and the fact that Mexico puts up so many hurdles to foreign investment/capital to rev it’s economy. But hey, that’s a whole different debate under the title of “Why are Things so Screwed up Down in Mexico”.
HollywoodNeoCon — April 7, 2006 @ 2:57 pm – April 7, 2006
Actually, I have precisely nailed it, and the observation regarding the effect of developed nations’ dumping of agricultural products on third world countries, and the resultant damage to indigenous agribusiness, was not new with me. And it is not limited to the US. The EU dumps surplus agricultural products in third world countries–primarily Africa–with similar effect. The despots in the third world countries like it, because it forces the people off the lands and into the cities where they can be more easily controlled. Or into the US, as we have seen from Mexico.
Regarding
Why not utilize the labor of convected felons presently serving time in US prisons?
Would that NOT be exorbitantly cheaper than even the illegal migrants?
Be very careful where you might be going. We already have a military/industrial/congressional complex (per Eisenhower), and if the US makes use of prisoners to perform contract labor, what you will end up with is a prison/industrial/congressional complex. Actually, we already have a prison/industrial/congressional complex, per the War on (Some) Drugs, but this will only exacerbate the complex.
Is that what you really want?
HCN — April 7, 2006 @ 3:47 pm – April 7, 2006
Raj, you’re right, build a wall and illegals will go around it, but a wall/fence limits the number of access routes border agents need to focus on
Really? I have a map of the gulf coast of Texas. How many inlets, etc., do you think are there?
If what you say is true, it strikes me that the influx of “illicit” drugs would be easy to control Obviously, it isn’t.
I am not going to disagree with you regarding “let’s also take a look at Mexico’s ruling families and the fact that Mexico puts up so many hurdles to foreign investment/capital to rev it’s economy…” What you are referring to is the legacy of colonialism. How to correct that? Quite frankly, I don’t have the slightest idea. But it strikes me that building a wall between the US and Mexico isn’t going to accomplish very much. It also strikes me that, if the US really wanted to affect history in the western hemisphere, it could have addressed problems in Mexico, rather than the expeditionary force in Iraq. Mexico has oil. One might seriously ask why the US did not.
Our economy is being destroyed from the bottom up by business owners paying less to illegal invaders than they would to Americans. The man that made $15 an hour as an carpenter has to accept $10 an hour because that is what the builder is paying to the illegal invaders. The verbiage about the illegal invaders only do jobs that no one else will do is a lie. Americans did these jobs before there were illegal invaders. It is a smoke screen to cover up the greed of American business.
Nearly 30 percent of the inmates in America’s prison are illegal invaders. You probably know someone that has been robbed, mugged, harmed or even killed by an illegal invader.
Mexico jails and then throws all of the illegal invaders out of Mexico.
When a person illegally cross a nation’s borders that person is not an immigrant regardless of the PC naming it that way by the left.
The fences need to be constructed. Employers need to face harsh fines and jail time and the jobs will dry up and the illegal invaders will go home.
I called and emailed my two Texas Senators numerous times over this. The Senate email server went down numerous times due to the number of negative emails over guest worker program and amnesty. The Senators responded to their constituents.
There will not be any guest worker program or amnesty. The House will not accept a law with a guest worker program or amnesty because of the input by their constitutents.
The Texican.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. The real reason the illegal immigrant lobby opposes a wall is because it works. The real reason the illegal immigrat lobby wants to proposed high-tech surveillance is because 1.) it will take years to implement (while millions more illegals flood over the border) and 2.) surveillance and border patrols can be defunded at any time, whereas a wall will always be there.
That’s also why the Senate bill was 95% amnesty with only lip service to enforcement. For this debacle, the Republicans deserve to lose the senate.
What Really Happened with the Amnesty Bill
So, you see, Frist, McCain and the Judicial Committee went out of there way to strip border enforcement out of their Amenesty bill.
And let us not forget the priceless spectacle of Senator Straight Talk Express trying to claim that his amnesty bill was not an amnesty bill.
I agree with V the K. Why NOT have two bills?
People who have spent years in this country, know english. and have families, deserve to stay.
We’re all immrants to a degree, but can we handle anymore ‘tired and poor?”
12. People who have spent years in this country, know english. and have families, deserve to stay.
If a person breaks our laws and invades America, then that person does not deserve to become a citizen. Being in America for thirty years as a criminal invader does not make you legal.
raj — April 7, 2006 @ 4:03 pm – April 7, 2006
“I have a map of the gulf coast of Texas. How many inlets, etc., do you think are there?”
Those inlets are there now, but we waste man resources on land that can be covered by a physical obstruction.
“If what you say is true, it strikes me that the influx of “illicit” drugs would be easy to control Obviously, it isn’t.”
No, it isn’t necessarily true. A wall will not be a fix all for all problems. it is one of several actions the federal government should take. Others, which I have said, should be to make immigration easier, with measure such as no quotas, etc. The reality is that the federal government is wasting resources patroling an area that it does not have to patrol.
“I am not going to disagree with you regarding “let’s also take a look at Mexico’s ruling families and the fact that Mexico puts up so many hurdles to foreign investment/capital to rev it’s economy…” What you are referring to is the legacy of colonialism. How to correct that? Quite frankly, I don’t have the slightest idea. But it strikes me that building a wall between the US and Mexico isn’t going to accomplish very much.”
A wall is not supposed to correct a corrupt ruling system that appears to be everso present in Mexico. It’s suppose to be one of many tools used in protecting the US. I should also point out that there should not just be a wall on our southern boarder, but on our northern boarder also. it is just as pourous to terroists and others that want to blow us up as is our southern boarder.
My thinking is that immigration should not be limitted by how many of what ever, but be limitted by what gets filtered through a screen for aggresors, health concerns and those that do not want to function in the society at large.
Let’s remember who and what we are. Ronald Reagan accurately described us as a “shining city on a hill”. I think a City big enough for many many more to enter, but we must control the entering so as to not destroy our beautiful “shining city”
http://www.officer.com/article/article.jsp?id=27166&siteSection=1 fake documents compromise new voting laws
http://www.ins.state.ny.us/p9709121.htm
http://www.ahherald.com/bishop/2003/gb030918_terrorist_vote.htm
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,124995,00.html Kerry’s promises