Why Rush?
By The Directors Posted in Immigration — Comments (81) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
We are not sure whether we are for or against the proposed immigration bill. We are not sure because no one has seen it. No one will see it until tomorrow at the earliest, at which point Senator Reid intends to promptly push the legislation through the Senate — even taking the unheardof step of bypassing the Judiciary Committee.
A bill which is being written tonight, and which will exceed 1,000 pages according to many reports, will be voted on at the beginning of next week without ever going through the process of committee review and hearings.
Not only that, but the bill will most likely not appear online and accessible to the public until after the legislation has passed. Why the rush? Senator Reid, the Democrats, and even the President and a number of Republicans are scared of the American people's reaction. They want to have this ordeal behind them before they go home to face the voters on Memorial Day.
We do not know whether the bill is good or bad. However, given the Senate's desire to hastily write it and rush it through sight unseen, we can infer that it is most likely not something which would be supported by us or by the American people; otherwise, why would such secrecy be necessary?
Senators who actually care about the deliberative process and open government should do everything in their power to delay this legislation's consideration until after Memorial Day. Beyond these parliamentary concerns, though, is the issue of the war supplemental. One hundred days have now gone by with no supplemental funding for our troops who are currently in harm's way. Funding the war is a far more important and far more immediate issue than "comprehensive immigration reform," and should take priority.
Further, we think, and Erick agrees, that his own "war effort" should be put on hold for the rest of this week (we'll pick back up the fight over Calvert next week), so that we at Red State can focus all of our energy on demanding that the Senate wait until after Memorial Day to consider this bill, giving themselves – and us – time to actually read and study its contents.
« Federal Jobs Illegal Immigrants Can’t Do — Comments (12) | What will be in this Super Secret Immigration Bill? — Comments (33) »
Why Rush? 81 Comments (0 topical, 81 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
It would be nice to see the congress actually debate and try to incorporate their constituents wishes into this legislation. Of course I am naive. I still believe in our system of government.
*That would be funding the war in Iraq. Something that maybe should be rushed ?
______________________________
"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
is one sure way to shake the confidence of all of us in the system.
"Of course I am naive. I still believe in our system of government."
I think I know how Southerners must have felt when the carpetbaggers came South and took over--helpless. You can ask Senator Robert Byrd what one response to this post-War situation was. I don't think this would be a good precedent to follow, but it might be inevitable. Governmental actions can have long-lasting unintended consequences.
Although illegal immigration is a more important National issue than the situation in Iraq, funding our soldiers is a far more ungent target for legislative attention.
Once again, our Congress is irresponsible, this time joined by our President.
We've traded our National Sovereignty for cheap roofing and yardwork.
And on the trade its not for cheap roofing and yardwork. Its so people can make a business off of them while being lazy. The same goes for agricultural labor.
The people in these businesses don't want to automate modernize or upgrade their practices. They are happy doing things the way their grandfathers did it.
______________________________
"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
Proving once again the wise words of Reagan "Trust but verify".
Another few weeks to let some sunshine and light of day shine on the provisions of this bill is something that everyone should support, no matter what side you are on the issue.
_______________________________
Fred...Fred...Fred..!
...however, after 6 and a half years of inaction and non-enforcement by this administration, and 29 years of previous lack of enforcement, isn't one suspicious of the speed and secrecy involved in this?
But you are right, Fund the Troops!
Edmund Burke: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing"
"after 6 and a half years of inaction and non-enforcement by this administration, and 29 years of previous lack of enforcement, isn't one suspicious of the speed and secrecy involved in this?"
I think you're on to something there.
We've traded our National Sovereignty for cheap roofing and yardwork.
The Senate will not vote on the immigration bill early next week. The Senate will vote on a motion to end debate on the motion to proceed to consideration of the immigration bill early next week. After that, up to 30 hours more debate will occur and then a vote on the motion to proceed to consideration of the immigration bill. Then more debate, offering of amendments (probably hundreds), debating of amendments, voting on amendments, debate on underlying bill. Then at some point a vote on a motion to end debate on the immigration bill. Then 30 hours more debate and more amendments and THEN a vote on passage of the bill.
It could take weeks.
Meanwhile, the House and Senate have ALREADY PASSED their versions of the supplemental and it has gone to conference. Nothing can be done on the floor until the conferees file a conference report -- work that is entirely independent of what's going on on the floor. When a conference report is filed, it will come to the floor and debate on immigration will be suspended long enough to vote on the supplemental and send it to the President's desk. Harry Reid has made it clear that this will be done before Memorial Day.
So what I'm trying to say is, with all due respect, the Directors' editorial doesn't really make any sense.
There is no need to have a motion to proceed in the Senate if the Leaders agree and get a unanimous consent request agreed to, which with the beloved Senate comity, it'll most definitely be agreed to. They love to bundle them together and do so all the time. That UC can even include the number of amendments that will be allowed. Just look at the Budget Resolution to see the number of amendments they'll agree to so they can "get it done."
Under Rule XIV, any Senator can bring a bill directlly to the Floor. That is what is clearly happening here. The Cloture Vote will clearly happen on the bill itself. The Leadership isn't going to let a poison pill be attached to this legislation (which is exactly what those opposed to this should do). And if the UC actually is crafted to say the bill was read a third time, amendments aren't in order.
Watch carefully what the UC will actually say. And unfortunately, we will NEVER know what that says.
And getting Nancy Pelosi to appoint conferees is like getting her to NOT meet with terrorist/murderers.
It is a crying shame that Congress will take more than a week off at Memorial Day while the rest of the Country gets one day off and while there is a PAST urgent supplemental waiting to be passed.
You recitation of Senate rules is generally correct, but I don't think you're right about the Senate is proceeding on immigration. Are Jim DeMint, Tom Coburn, and other like-minded "anti-amnesty" crusaders giving unanimous consent to proceed to consideration? I can't imagine they are -- and if so then the Directors really have no one left to carry their torch. Anyway, they will object to the UC, which forces Reid to get cloture on a motion to proceed. And events will transpire as I have described them.
Either way, it doesn't change the fact that the supplemental is in no way being held up by immigration, and that's the real point that the Directors' were trying to make. The supp will move when the supp is ready, and that is completely independent of floor action on immigration because the Senate probably WILL get UC to bring up the conference report on the supp.
were trying to make was that Congress took months to write and to get an essential bill they knew would be vetoed to the President's desk, with much publicity all the way, yet this completely discretionary bill will be presented and voted on in the Senate within days of its coming to light.
Priorities are askew.
We've traded our National Sovereignty for cheap roofing and yardwork.
whatifidontwanna is right, and what he describes is exactly what's happening. The motion was to bring this bill directly to the floor (they entirely bypassed the judiciary committee) and if the cloture motion is successful, at the end of 30 hours debate they will vote on the bill as is.
You're correct insofar as that's not normally how things go, but the procedure for this bill is unprecedented in a lot of ways.
------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...
-John Locke
I'm pasting this directly from an article posted on Congressional Quartley's website:
Key Vote Scheduled
A vote on limiting debate on a motion to proceed to a new version of last year’s Senate measure (S 1348) is set for May 21.
Reid said that is still what they will vote on, but he has indicated that the product of the bipartisan negotiations could be offered as an amendment.
Sixty votes will be needed, and if the motion succeeds, it will be a strong signal that the legislation has a fighting chance to advance.
Failure to reach the 60-vote threshold would be a major setback and could spell doom for immigration legislation in the 110th Congress.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said the negotiators have an agreement to support the “core concepts of the bill,” and will fend off amendments that would strike at those principles, but that some amendments will be “free votes.”
A Republican leadership aide said a plan for how the Senate will proceed beyond Monday’s vote has yet to be determined.
Anyway, I have direct confirmation via email from Senate Republican leadership staff that Monday's vote will be on cloture on the motion to proceed to immigration, not cloture on immigration itself. Furthermore, that same staff has confirmed that the supp conference report will come to the floor as soon as it's available. You can believe me or not, but on Monday you will become a believer.
Sorry you did all that writing for nothing, but I recommend taking the time to get your facts straight before voicing righteous outrage -- and getting your readership all riled up -- at something that doesn't actually exist.
That we also speak with Senate staff, and that they have told us that the Dems have deliberately bypassed both the normal committee assignments and markups, and all the other procedural niceties that come along with legislation (complex and otherwise) and are attempting to proceed directly to consideration of the bill. Whether they succeed, of course, is an open question, and it's entirely possible that the Republicans may force some time concessions here, but what I've been led to understand is that anything that's going to happen will have to happen in the next 30 hours.
And also, I didn't write this post, and what I've seen of the bill thus far makes me more supportive of it than just about anyone on this site, but you can drop the condescening attitude, pronto. Emotions are raw right now and as you say, Monday will tell what's going to happen.
------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...
-John Locke
that I know more about what's happening in the Senate than 95% of Senate staff. You're right that this isn't going through committee, and that's frustrating, but that doesn't affect the veracity of anything I've said. Understand that when things play out as I've predicted, it's because that's how the Senate leadership always intended them to play out, not because you or others have forced "concessions."
It's naive to think that a Senator would vote to end debate on the right to proceed then filibuster the main bill.
It's quite clear that what CQ was told and whether they reported it correctly or not is not the issue, but the "Pro-This Plan" group are using this vote as a test to see where they are at. Obviously, as CQ does point out correctly, if they can't invoke cloture to even debate the issue, there is no point to bring it forward without more changes (if at all).
However, the issue at hand is such that it doesn't matter what Coburn wants or anyone else, unless they sit there and wait for the UC to be brought up, they can't object to it.
I am 100% sure there will be a UC limiting debate because they already invoked cloture once, and they'll limit any, if not all amendments that would strengthen enforcement.
Why? Because the first amendment offered would be to make the fence ACTUALLY the entire length of the border. And Kennedy doesn't want that, after all, more the merrier for people to invade the border states because Massachusetts is a good deal away from Neuvo Laredo.
Finally... how is the Senate and the House going to pass a supplemental that the President will sign? If the Conference takes the House approach, it's a no go in the Senate. If the Conference takes the Senate approach, it's a no go in the House.
And it's clear that the staff has been given the guidelines of what to write up, so it's further clear that it's 100% appropriate to be upset with what we've heard so far.
Nothing is more idiotic than to say to people who broke the law already "we'll give you another chance, but you better not break the law again, or we may have to give you another chance later."
It's naive to think that senators don't pivet on a dime all the time and then explain it by saying the first vote was just a "procedural motion."
You don't have to be on the floor to object to a UC. All you have to do is call the cloakroom. In the Senate, most parliamentary procedure is conducted from the comfort of one's office. It's the beuaty of C-Span and speed dial.
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
Why can't that be accomplished faster than immigration? Does Congress believe the latter to be more important.
Excellent RSD's!
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report
But you are right, Fund the Troops!
Who cares about this anymore. If we surrender unconditionally at home, why bother fighting abroad? This is the end.
...there, buddy? We have an incredibly obvious "Reply to This" link at the bottom of every comment for your coherent responding pleasure. Please use it.
Immigration can be screwed up at leisure.
Their needs can't.
______________________________
"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
I support the Directors fully on this. Much needed. The Hill has yet to see Redstate flex its muscle.
What can "law abiding" citizens and law abiding non-citizens throughout the U.S. do next? All of these "pro-amnesty for illegal immigrants" politicians at every political level and not just the "pro-amnesty for illegal immigrants" politicians at the federal level are assiduously ignoring all of our demands and requests, and we are the ones who are paying for these politicians salaries while also: paying our taxes, paying our insurance rates, and hopefully obeying the laws of the U.S.! Help!!!
If it's worth passing, it should be OK for everyone to read it.
The Senate never rushes anything. Why rush now?
Erick's fight on Calvert was an important fight.
But this immigration fight is existential. Either we Americans get to decide who gets to be an American or we don't have a country. Either we Americans get to review what our representatives are voting on or we don't have a democracy.
Thanks, Red State, Fred, Mitt, NRO, Hewitt, and everyone else who cares. Thanks to all the emailers and callers who are willing to fight a little for their country.
They that are with us are more than they that are against us.
1) Shut down the House
2) Filibuster in senate (not likely, but let's hope)
3) For the republican House representatives who oppose amnesty: Make it clear, that you support Bush's impeachent, and cutting of funds for the troops if Bush signs this.
This is the most important piece of legislation or our lifetime and it will change this country forever. This is much more important than any war. Even if you lose a war you may make it up 25 years later. Amnesty (and 100 million new democrats) is permanent.
I disagree!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m35Q0L1LI_8
Not serious, maybe, but that was about as polite as I was going to be able to be in suggesting my disagreement with this idea.
A reasonable voice on this issue. While the handringing will continue, let's see what the deatils are.
However, the rub on this bill is will it be enforced. The current policy isn't enforced too well.
you haven't been paying much attention the last twenty years.
There will be no enforcement, because there is no will among our rulers to enforce any provision that does not result in millions more low wage workers.
The social welfare costs will doom us, But maybe it has to come to that before anything can get done.
I guess we will just have to wait till the whole house of cards collapses.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
That's just last year's bill re-introduced. The Senate intends to use that as a vehicle but they will replace the entire language with a manager's amendment that represents the deal that was just struck.
Thank You.
*The reference is "Its better to light a candle than curse the darkness"
______________________________
"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
______________________________
"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
At least, not yet. Right now all there is is an agreement.
------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...
-John Locke
------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...
-John Locke
The issue aside, it was quite sorry of the White House to send out a summary of a "bill" that for all intents and purposes still was under negotiation at the time. My senators took it hook, line and sinker.
Although I am not certain, that the basic outline which the White House comms office sent out was hammered out and finalized late last night. I keep hearing contradictory things about that, so it could have been earlier (for instance, that there was substantial agreement as early as one week ago). Since earching the agreement, apparently then the relevant staffers went to work actually writing the thing - I get the impression that this is fairly standard procedure for the manufacture of this particular kind of government sausage. It's getting extra scrutiny now because of the subject matter.
------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...
-John Locke
certainly got burned, though. He was told the elimination of chain migration, which he insisted upon, would be included. As he told that to a network, the Majority Leader and Speaker announced it would be scrapped.
The Directors have it about right. While my default position is that the non-existent bill's supporters are lying, deceptive, or don't have a clue as to what it will contain, I don't know, either--yet. I simply use past as prologue and believe it is a massive amnesty circa 1986 thinly disguised as something defensible. I would love to be proved wrong. It isn't likely.
You probably are right about the extra scrutiny and so forth.
If the bill turns out to be reasonable, and then if it actually turns out to be enforced, I'm going to stroll over to the zoo and gawk at the spotless leopards.
They that are with us are more than they that are against us.
and the exhibit that features the Bush Administration's foreign successes. You have to squint, but I am assured they are there.
...but I can think of several of the latter, with our strengthened ties with India being merely the most obvious (we're not doing too badly with Japan and the former Warsaw Pact nations, either).
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
...you don't trust us! You have no idea how much that hurts....
In all seriousness, don't simply trust us - do your homework and think for yourself (as I know you do; just making an example out of you ;-)
Once you've done your own research, I think you'll usually find that we're quite accurate and quite informed; however, when we are not, simply let us know. We have no issues correcting improper and inaccurate info. The post above, though, is neither.
And I was impressed he found it quickly.
No slight to anyone was implied.
______________________________
"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
and the venerable saying has been reworked and now reads:
-snuff the candle, cursing releases too much CO2, so just sit in the dark and shut up (and dream of life with the Goreacle).
he had a different phrase for "just sit in the dark and shut up."
He called it "the mushroom treatment."
We've traded our National Sovereignty for cheap roofing and yardwork.
As one of the rare academics (I teach Amer. Politics and law) who is a conservative, I am disgusted with this bill and even more with the process that they have chose to ram it through. However, we still have a chance to send this bill down in flames.
One of the funny stories I remember in my Southern Politics graduate seminar regarded a House member's sudden reversal on a bill that proved to be too controversial. One of his fellow members congratulated him on the advantageous shift in position and said to him "Brother, did you see the light."
The other congress critter replied, "No, I didn't see the light, but I sure felt the heat."
As someone who has worked on the Hill before, pressure through many calls and letters work. I saw how R. Reagan terrorized a Democratic House into supporting his taxcut bill through encouraging the American people to respond in support.
For this reason, I highly recommend sending them your own unique message opposing this bill(not their email boxes) by either a phone call or better yet send them a fax to their DC office(faxes can't be ignored as much as email). If you can't get through to their DC office, then I strongly advise calling their district office number and/or fax.
Be polite in your language and conduct but strongly indicate that you are a registered voter and cannot support the member at the next election if they vote for the bill. The more that you can persuade the staff that you are a standup citizen who votes (and not a netroot) then you get the staff to deliver the bad news to the Representative that his or her skin depends on voting against the bill.
By the way, this will work if you live in a swing Senate seat or House district as well even if your current member of Congress is a Democrat. As Reagan proved, even they are susceptible to a career ending vote and usually will choose self-preservation.
Somewhat related is letting the Rep. Presidential candidates know how you feel (email works in this case). Fortunately, my preferred non-candidate Fred Thompson (according to Rich Lowry in the link below), has come out against it.
Link to announcement below
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MzYzZWUyZjI2N2FkNzVkNThjMzUwZDQ...
(1) Welcome. You're in good company here; one of our contributors is a professional academic and a conservative.
(2) I suggest you take a minute to peruse the site's front page. Once you do that, you'll find that you don't have to take Rich Lowry's word for it - Senator Thompson actually posted his statement about the "bill" right here on RedState, where he frequently contributes.
Again, welcome, and stay a while. I think you'll like what you see.
Take it, folks. Call and fax. Be polite, but be patriots.
They that are with us are more than they that are against us.
This can be stopped. House reps can let Bush know that they will cut of funding for the troops if Bush signs this. Why bother fighting abroad if you surrender at home?
This would force Bush to make a selection. Does he prefer amnesty or victory in Iraq?
Call your House reps.
In senate, we need 40 votes for filibuster.
I think that I'd rather not put them in harm's way because you have a problem with Mexicans.
(ka-click)
Don't know whether you're for real or a moby, and frankly? Don't care, either.
Good-bye.
Blam.
Moe
PS: Playtime's over, folks. You want to scream, go to Usenet.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
"Why bother fighting abroad if you surrender at home?"
was a well-stated, legitimate question. And I didn't read his comment as having a problem with Mexicans. He has a problem with bad legislation. Don't you? Perhaps his 'suggestion' was over the top, but you were a bit quick on the trigger, IMHO.
We've traded our National Sovereignty for cheap roofing and yardwork.
That's because I've read enough of your posts to get a tolerable idea of you and your headspace. Which is to say, you're not a nine-hour wonder who'd previously did some onehanded posting about how we should impeach the President over this bill.
There are times for an elegant hit, and there are times when you have to cowboy the SOB. This was a latter.
Moe
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
someone is putting the kibosh on Erick's fight against Calvert.
Why can't we fight against both the immigration bill AND Calvert? (We can walk and chew gum at the same time).
“Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but the Democrats believe every day is April 15.”
-Ronald Reagan
First read, then vote. It's not rocket science.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
because the GOP has gone commie
because they are not giving us a real choice
because the GOP is committing mass suicide
You've come on the wrong day (and to the wrong commentor).
Seriously, Darth, along with everyone else, you're entitled to be pissed (I don't know at what) but watch the over-the-top rhetoric.
------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...
-John Locke
I've enjoyed your posts all day. There's still occasional reason about.
And in Darth's defense, he's been a member for more than a day or two, so that puts him ahead of half the field. Not by too much though, because "commie" fits here as well as a couch on a football field.
in... and out...
repeat
“Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but the Democrats believe every day is April 15.”
-Ronald Reagan
Jeff,
1) Thank you for your kind words. I first noticed the Redstate community when checking out the 2006 elections for prof. reasons. I usually got accurate political news about different races for my 1101 class earlier from your site than many others. Y'all run a classy joint.
2) For some indigestible reading:
Text of S.1348
Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.1348:
(1) That is not the bill in question. Leon Wolf and I both responded to you when you posted that on another thread; it is not the correct piece of legislation, and if you will simply scroll up this thread you will see another commenter corrected on the same mistake.
(2) Please use the "Reply to This" link at the bottom of the comment you are replying to when doing so. It makes conversations within these threads much easier to follow.
Thanks, and again, welcome.
it's impressive enough that jrpoliprof could go through classwork to abd to being a prof so quickly. Redstate benefits from his presence.
“Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but the Democrats believe every day is April 15.”
-Ronald Reagan
Regarding Link above. This is a placeholder bill as H. Reid and other Dems are the co-sponsors to lay out the Democratic position. Currently unsure how much this text will remain in the final bill regarding amendments.
if Ted Kennedy is involved with the drafting of this bill, it has to be a catastrophic failure. No need to read the details.
Yea, like the Democratic leadership cares about Memorial Day...
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
Maybe the Democratic objectors to the new Kennedy plan are remembering how they had to make a 180 on NCLB?
Run like Reagan!
The only good thing to come out of señor Bush's amnesty bill, is that McAmnesty's presidential campaign is over.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mf_TCdzryD8
Hunter on the new amnesty bill on hardball.
[begin video clip]
REP. DUNCAN HUNTER ®, CALIFORNIA: Listen, we passed my bill in October that calls for 854 miles of border fence across Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. The Senate bill cuts my fence in half, literally takes it down to 370 miles.
That’s going to do a lot to damage enforcement on the border. You have to have an enforceable border. The Senate bill takes us the wrong way.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0705/17/ldt.01.html
Good job señor Bush. You've managed to get rid of employer verification and you've axed the border fence bill.
This is Bush's domestic version of is Iraq disaster. Just like his drunkin driving days, he's still driving this country off a cliff with drunk driver Ted Kennedy.
FWIW, I have nothing against Mexicans or legal immigrants but I do have a problem with illegal aliens and I have noticed that most of them seem to come from Mexico.
So, I have read parts of the proposed legislation, and found this gem in the enforcement section:
SEC. 131. MANDATORY DETENTION FOR ALIENS APPREHENDED AT OR BETWEEN PORTS OF ENTRY.
(a) In General- Beginning on October 1, 2008, an alien (other than a national of Mexico) who is attempting to illegally enter the United States and who is apprehended at a United States port of entry or along the international land and maritime border of the United States shall be detained until removed or a final decision granting admission has been determined, unless the alien--
(empahasis mine) From that point on, the bill talks about strict and tough enforcement, but I guess none of it applies to Mexicans? More calls and emails today.
My previous post is out of S.1348, which by all accounts is last year's bill re-warmed. So I guess it will be some time before our congresscritters and us regular folks will get to see what surprises Kennedy and Co. have in store for us. However, if it doesn't start with enforcement (for everyone) and include serious cuts in welfare to illegals, and hopefully end birthright citizenship, then I will oppose it.
In my opinion it's a knee-jerk reaction. The discussion is far from over.
"There's two things in the world you never want to let people see how you make 'em: laws and sausages."
-- Leo McGarry, White House Chief of Staff, "The West Wing"
--CG--
Now that the bill is going from private compromising to public debate, with a Democratic Congress, do you really think further discussionw ill make the bill BETTER?
Keep in mind these Democrats are hungry. They haven't gotten one major success this year.
Run like Reagan!
but I think it's all about the election and nothing else. The proposal is better than I thought it would be, though far from perfect...though that is a pipe dream. They're doing everything to seal our fate.
Hungry, yes. Accomplished, they think so. Any Republicans they can drag into this fight will appear like a win to the Democrats.
--CG--
nt