Thursday, June 07, 2007

Immigration Bill Dead (Hopefully)

Good.  Put the sword in it and call it a day. 

A broad immigration bill to legalize millions of people in the U.S. unlawfully failed a crucial test vote Thursday, a stunning setback that could spell its defeat for the year.

The vote was 45-50 against limiting debate on the bill, 15 short of the 60 that the bill’s supporters needed to prevail. Most Republicans voted to block Democrats’ efforts to bring the bill to a final vote.

 

(8) Comments
Posted by Owen at 2032 hrs
Politics + Politics - General

  1. Awesome.  What a hideous piece of legislation.  It was viciously attacked from the left and the right, and opposed by a majority of the public, and it deserved this defeat.  Now if they would just break out the enforcement portion as the first priority, and get the border under control, they’d have a much better chance of true reform.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 07, 2007 at 2105 hrs


  2. Just enforce the bill that passed in August, 80-19 in senate, and build the 800 miles of wall. When that is done, come back with something that will assimilate the 15 million law breakers.

    More importantly make it a presidential election issue. Dems lose all the way around on that.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 07, 2007 at 2329 hrs


  3. I’m always astounded when people think that a wall is any kind of answer to this conundrum. I’m just guessing, and forgive me if I’m wrong, that with a Wisconsin-sounding moniker like ched head, you haven’t spent a lot of time on the Mexican border. The Mexican people are smart, industrious, and persevering, and a wall (which, by the way, would take decades to construct) would not provide much of a hindrance to people trying to cross over. They’ll go over, tunnel under, go around, whatever it takes. Not to mention the ones that’ll just stay in Mexico and get rich on the ladder sales.

    Secondly, here in Texas, if you’ll recall, the Rio Grande River constitutes our border with Mexico. There’s a huge problem with access to the water for ranchers and farmers, and you certainly can’t build the damned thing in the middle of the riverbed.

    I’m not saying this was a good piece of legislation, because it wasn’t, but anything that includes a wall as part of the solution is a waste of money.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 08, 2007 at 1150 hrs


  4. apc - the wall component is just that a - part of the whole approach.  There (as I am sure you know) several very long stretches of boarder that are not riverbeds and are in very remote areas.  Using a wall in some of these areas allows the boarder patrol to cover large areas of land with their undersized corps.  There are already some sections of the boarder that have walls/fences and the result has been that it funnels illegals into areas that can then be patrolled by agents. The San Diego fence has lead to a 95% reduction in crossings in that area.  http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5323928

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 08, 2007 at 1219 hrs


  5. I can see how a fence would be effective in an urban area like San Diego/Tijuana, but with all due respect, did you read the entire article? It pointed several drawbacks, not least of which is that 3600 people have died avoiding the fence and going through the desert. It also cites the cost of 3.5 miles of fence at $35 million. Now math isn’t really my strong suit, but I’m pretty sure that’s $10 million a mile, or $8 billion for 800 miles of fence.

    Plus, remote means that they’ll go right over the fence, not that they’ll be “funnelled” to some point that’s convenient to the Border Patrol, which is admittedly woefully undermanned.

    I don’t see illegal immigration as being the existential threat that many people do, simply as another problem that’s being blown way out of proportion. I find some of the lies being told about the alleged government freebies that illegal immigrants are entitled to receive to be simply astounding. If you want to spend $8 billion, spend it on the Border Patrol and on enforcing the laws that are already in place.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 08, 2007 at 1330 hrs


  6. The real victory is that with Democrats in charge of both Houses and with a strong signal from the President that he wanted the bill, they still couldn’t get the job done.

    Double heh.

    Posted by Mr. Pelican Pants on June 08, 2007 at 1428 hrs


  7. Sheesh, apc, the Secure Fence Act of Sept, 2006 was supported by every 2008 Democratic presidential candidate.  You’re out of the mainstream of your own freakin’ party, I’m afraid.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 08, 2007 at 1930 hrs


  8. I never claimed to be in the mainstream of my party, whatever that may be.

    I simply believe a fence would be a boondoggle of unfathomable proportions, good only for yet more no-bid contracts and work never delivered by cronies’ companies. It would be billions of dollars down the drain for what I think would be a completely ineffective solution even if everything went perfectly putting it up, and it came in under budget.

    I promise you, people in Mexico that want to come over her are snickering at the idea of a fence.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 08, 2007 at 1951 hrs


Commenting is not available in this channel entry.