2007 June 07 Thursday
Senate Immigrant Amnesty Bill Loses Vote
Another attempt to move the Senate S.1348 illegal immigrant amnesty bill toward passage suffered a defeat.
The sharply divided Senate refused to limit debate on the fragile compromise hammered out by a bipartisan group of senators and the White House. The vote was 45-50, 15 short of the 60 votes needed to advance significant legislation in the 100-member body toward a final vote.
The huge volume of calls and mail from the public opposing this measure along with the uprising of mostly right wing commentators against this bill have taken their toll on the US Senators who thought they could safely vote this monstrosity into law. We haven't won yet but our odds of defeating this bill have improved considerably. Keep those calls and faxes coming.
5 Senators managed not to be there for the vote. How many of them are out running for President?
Who were the 7 Republicans who voted to end debate and who were the 11 Democrats who voted against and end to debate?
All but seven Republicans voted against ending debate, with many arguing they needed more time to make the bill tougher with tighter border security measures and a more arduous legalization process for unlawful immigrants.
All but 11 Democrats supported the move, but they, too, were holding their noses at provisions of the bill.
The Democrats must have received blistering criticism from their constituents for so many of them to break ranks and vote against an immigration amnesty. Let this be a lesson: A sufficiently angered populace which calls up and faxes and emails its elected representatives can pull them back from making a move that the masses oppose.
An amendment on S.1348 had already made the temporary worker program of limited duration.
The 49-48 vote just after midnight on making the temporary worker program itself temporary came two weeks after the Senate, also by a one-vote margin, rejected an earlier attempt by Sen. Byron Dorgan to end the program after five years. The North Dakota Democrat says immigrants take many jobs Americans could fill.
Byron Dorgan is one of the more restrictionist Democrats in the US Senate. I'd rather have him than Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama running for President.
We kept up the pressure and we've won this round. (At least, I think we have.)
Giuliani is beginning to talk more like a restrictionist now:
"The American people demand that their politicians enact an immigration reform bill that addresses security first. I cannot support any immigration deal that compromises on this basic principle.
“This bill failed to guarantee a uniform, tamper-proof, biometric identification card, a single nation-wide database of foreigners in our country, and did not mandate the full implementation of a biometric check-in, check-out system. We can and must guarantee the American people that we know who is coming in and out of our country.
“As President, my administration will dedicate itself to assuring the American people that we have a secure border."
He doesn't have nearly as much anti-immigration credibility as Romney or Thompson (let alone Tancredo), but it's a start and evidence that he isn't as tone deaf on this issue as Bush or McCain. Frankly, even Romney and Thompson have hedged their anti-immigration rhetoric a bit. I haven't heard either ruling out an eventual amnesty or guest worker program entirely. They've just promised they'll put enforcement first. The thing that matters most at this juncture, I think, is that we get a candidate who is at least aware of how serious the base is about immigration and isn't going to make repeated Bush-style attempts at thrusting unpopular immigration legislation upon us.
This is a great relief, and it is likely that messages to politicians would have had a good effect here.
They tried to make a fast dirty move in the dark, but lights kept being flashed on them,
exposing their lack of moral self-confidence, especially because
what they were trying was an attempted short-circuiting of democracy
for the aggrandizement of the special pleaders.
Congressman Ron Paul is for strong border enforcement and against amnesty (and has been vocally opposed to this bill in the House)..... although the media doesn't give him any attention compared to the other presidential candidates.
do any other para-pundit readers support Dr. Paul?
I support Ron Paul, but I consider myself more of a Futurepundit reader than Parapundit. Unlike the other candidates you can be sure he won't pull a Bush and flip on everything he's supposed to stand for.
Traitorous Senators viciously defeated an amendment of the above bill to disallow felons
from the z-visa legalization.
This bill is about depraved enthusiasm for freedom-for-aggression.
What's stopping it is a slight fear that the electorate may awaken to what is actually in it.
Our political elites are lost in unspeakable depravity, and the only check on them is the vague apprehension that the electorate may contain
many with morals.