Amnesty Opponents Making Progress in Senate
By Bluey Posted in Featured Stories | Immigration — Comments (22) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Spirits among conservative critics of the immigration bill have brightened today following several Senate votes that indicate at least 40 senators could block the bill during a cloture vote tomorrow.
Well-placed sources tell me that activists are focusing their attention on the following list of senators: Sam Brownback (R.-Kan.), Richard Burr (R.-N.C.), Saxby Chambliss (R.-Ga.), Larry Craig (R.-Idaho), Pete Domenici (R.-N.M.), Byron Dorgan (D.-N.D.), John Ensign (R.-Nev.), Mike Enzi (R.-Wyo.), Judd Gregg (R.-N.H.), Johnny Isakson (R.-Ga.), Jon Kyl (R.-Ariz.), Mary Landrieu (D.-La.), Trent Lott (R.-Miss.), Mitch McConnell (R.-Ky.), Claire McCaskill (D.-Mo.), Ben Nelson (D.-Neb.), Mark Pryor (D.-Ark.), Debbie Stabenow (D.-Mich.), John Sununu (R.-N.H.), Jon Tester (D.-Mont.), George Voinovich (R.-Ohio), Jim Webb (D.-Va.), and John Warner (R.-Va.).
These individuals are apparently still non-committal about how they will vote on the final bill or could be swayed depending on votes either for or against amendments to the bill.
Conservatives' renewed optimism came after three votes on amendments to the bill, all of which garnered at least 41 votes -- the number needed to block cloture.
Read more...
• An amendment by Sen. John Cornyn to bar gang members, sex offenders, terrorists, and alien absconders from receiving amensty was defeated 46-51.
• An amendment by Sen. Jim DeMint (R.-S.C.) to requiring health-care coverage for holders of nonimmigrant Z-visas was Defeated 43-55.
• An amendment by Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D.-N.M.) to remove the requirement that guest workers leave the United States before they are able to renew their visa was defeated 41-57.
Although these amendments fell short of the votes needed for passage, the efforts of activists have made a difference. The outreach by conservative groups to mobilize their supports, increasing phone calls to Senate offices and activism back home, may be working.
« Republican Moderates May Walk Away From Veto Threat — Comments (17) | Top 5 Dumbest Aspects of Immigration Bill — Comments (1) »
Amnesty Opponents Making Progress in Senate 22 Comments (0 topical, 22 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Bernie Sanders makes sense(who woulda thunk). He points out that Dems often cry about American kids in poverty and bringing in more illegals will further depress wages. How is Kennedy going to splain that one?
To win the war on terror, we first have to win the war against spineless liberal appeasement at home.
I can't imagine him supporting required health care coverage non-immigrant z-visa holders.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
there's another aspect to these amendments. This especially applies to Cornyn's. Fast-forward to congressional election campaigns in 08:
Good -- My opponent is a tax-and-spend, anti-defense Democrat (or RINO).
Better -- My opponent voted for the Amnesty Bill.
FREAKING PLATINUM -- Not only did my opponent vote FOR the Amnesty Bill, he voted AGAINST an amendment to forbid amnesty for known criminals and gangsters.
It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?
I'm ashamed to say that in all my years I've only called the House/Senate maybe two times.
Until this issue.
I have pinged both Senators Hutchinson and Cornyn (and told them thanks as well), Harry Reid's office and Mitch McConnell's office. I'll pick up tomorrow and hit the rest on the list as well.
The enthusiam of so many to support this confounds me and all I can do is call and tell them so.
I'm not an expert on the Senate, but if you need 60 votes to overide the filibuster to pass this legislation in the Senate, how can it possibly pass?
There are at least 12 Democrat Senators that are going to vote against this, and at least 30 Republican Senators that will also oppose. Maybe I'm being overly optimistic, but this count seems reasonable.
I don't see how this amnesty is going to get the minimum 60 votes, but stranger things have happened.
I really can't see the politics of passing this bill actually helping any Senator in their next election. I can, however, see the passage of this bill absolutely destroying a Senator's re-election chances and career, either in the primary, or general election. The Senators that do end up supporting this legislation will be the invincible ones, both Democrat and Republican, that have a lifetime seats in the Senate.
In the long term, this bill will unquestionably give the Democrats new voters, but it will take at least 15 years for these new voters to gain voting rights. In the short term, this bill is an albatross to hang around a politician's neck, and savvy politicians, even ones that secretly support this legislation, have to be terrified of it.
"Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich. "
William F. Buckley, Jr.
15 yrs for voting rights? ha. I doubt it. Who is going to enforce that? Bring a utility bill and vote away!
We are being sold out so fast we won't know what hit us.
To win the war on terror, we first have to win the war against spineless liberal appeasement at home.
I have no doubt that illegal immigrants sometimes vote in elections, and will coninue to do so. But the vast majority of illegals don't vote because it's not worth the risk of getting caught, and many just don't care at all about our elections.
My point is that if this immigration bill passes, it still has to make many Democrat Senators nervous about their next election. It's not as if there are instantly going to be 20 million new Democrat voters in the next election cycle if this amnesty bill passes, it will take at least a decade before a noticeable amount of these illegals begin voting in elections.
"Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich. "
William F. Buckley, Jr.
Sure all 20 mil won't vote but if this passes they won't be illegals anymore. They will catch on quick that they can vote as a group and get what they want.
To win the war on terror, we first have to win the war against spineless liberal appeasement at home.
But the vast majority of illegals don't vote because it's not worth the risk of getting caught, and many just don't care at all about our elections.
Someone actually voted in our school district election (TINY rural school district... a few hundred voters total) and they used a freakin' green card to register. The poll worker accepted it and let them vote.
Add to this the disinformation given to these people by groups like ACORN who want them to vote, and you have a lot of illegals voting in elections. Add to that how close elections are nowadays and you have illegals determining the outcome of elections.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
A good friend of mine works in the immigration department of our local Senator. A woman had requested help with gaining permanant residency because she had overstayed her visa. In doing research, it turns out the illegal immigrant had voted in a local election (she was a union member, and her union had told her she could vote, big surprise.)
INS denied her residency on this one fact alone, and ordered her immediate deportation since she violated the law. I love hearing stories like that!
I don't deny illegals vote, but most illegals are going to stay in the shadows, even if this amnesty passes. They have no interest in paying fines or back taxes to become citizens. Very few will risk being exposed so they can vote in a U.S. election.
It's still troubling when they are able to vote, but I'm much more worried about the policy ramifications of this bill than whatever political advantage the Democrats can gain with the new voters.
"Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich. "
William F. Buckley, Jr.
The democrats are so against any kind of vote fraud cleanup you can only think they are up to it and in a big way.
So while the plural of anecdote is not data. Anecdotes plus confirming action equals probable cause.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
these are the same idiots that passed the farm bill, the transportation bill, McCain Feingold, no lawyer left behind, and Mediscam.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
By your count, that's 42 voting against.
Our job - and everyone else who cares - is to get it to where there's only 42 (or less) voting for the bill. It needs to ring out in a resounding "BONG" that this is a non-starter for the American people.
If they only see 42 opponents, then they'll get another version passed with some minor changes to appease a few of the 42.
Mitch McConnell is leading the way by coordinating these amendment votes, as well as the ultimate cloture vote. If so, then..
Lead on, oh Mitch McConnell!
Jack
The World's Ruined
Maybe after the outcome on all these amendments and some bad stuff getting in via Democratic amendments he'll turn against it.
... Mr. McConnell, in fact, has been on both sides of the immigration issue. He voted for last year's bill and is reported to having said that this year's version is even better, but he also voted last week to strip out the central plank of the bargain: the legalization program for illegal aliens.
I may be wrong... but this is a game of high stakes poker. A lot of jockying for position and bluffing going on. And, more than likely, some last minute political attention to which way the wind is blowing. If McConnell is leaning against this bill... then-- "lead on Mr. McConnell." 'Cause if he leads the opposition, this bill is dead.
Then again, this is only two cents worth...
Jack
The World's Ruined
Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but does the third amendment not weaken the bill further? So why is it on the list of bills that were giving the conservatives hope? I would think that if that amendment had passed, the Republicans would've been less likely to vote for the bill. . . right?
Seven of those "apparently still non-committal" are publicly on record as opposing the Senate immigration deal:
Brownback, Sam- (R - KS); Chambliss, Saxby- (R - GA); Domenici, Pete V.- (R - NM); Isakson, Johnny- (R - GA); Kyl, Jon- (R - AZ); Lott, Trent- (R - MS); McConnell, Mitch- (R-KY)
is not on this list. Being from Indiana, and following this issue closely, I am not surprised. He has completely sold out Hoosiers. He was one of the few Republicans who voted _against_ barring fellons from getting amnesty today. He's completely out of touch, and I can count on him to vote the wrong way on this issue.