The Immigration Bill–too Big a Topic for Too Hurried a Process

If I were not working on two short papers and revising my dissertation concept paper for school, I might have more to say on the Immigration Debate in the Senate–and other matters. But, before I go to bed, I do want to offer a few thoughts on the process of trying to pass this ball and explain (a bit) my opposition.

As I said earlier (in an update to one of Bruce’s posts), I don’t oppose the bill with his vehemence. But, while I think it offers a few good reforms, I oppose the bill in its present form, primary for the reason I articulated in my post on its apparent defeat earlier this month. The bill is a mess and should be divided up into his component parts, with the first component being a bill to close and secure the border. Until that happens, se shouldn’t even consider “amnesty” or its equivalent.

The latest debate confirms what a mess this proposal is. Captain Ed noted that members only got the bill at about 2PM on Wednesday and now “have to decide whether they want to close off debate on a 400-page bill that they’ve had for less than 24 hours to review.” And it appears that there are errors in the actual bill, while Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid seemed determined to have his massive “Clay Pigeon” Amendment debated “without the Republicans seeing the language.” When Senate “Republicans objected to waiving the reading of the bill. . . [,] the Senate Clerk had nothing to read.” (H/t: Captain Ed.)

Simply put, on a subject of this magnitude, backers of the legislation should have made available a reliable version of the legislation, long before the debate even began, allowing Senators time to return to their respective states to discuss its provisions with their constituents.

I’m not as irate as some are at those who voted Tuesday to bring the bill back to the floor. Maybe some of the Senators who voted in favor of debating this controversial bill thought its flaws could be mitigated by amendment. Because there are some good aspects to this bill.

But, to end debate with some good amendments defeated and others not to be considered on their own merits, means considering too complicated a bill in too compressed a time frame.

The bill’s good components notwithstanding, I hope Senators will have the sense to vote against cloture on this bill. It’s too important an issue for such a hurried piece of legislation.

-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com