Immigration Bill Goes Down…. Again

Yea!

The Senate drove a stake Thursday through President Bush’s plan to legalize millions of unlawful immigrants, likely postponing major action on immigration until after the 2008 elections.

The bill’s supporters fell 14 votes short of the 60 needed to limit debate and clear the way for final passage of the legislation, which critics assailed as offering amnesty to illegal immigrants. The vote was 46 to 53 in favor of limiting the debate.

It’s interesting how this story only highlights those who opposed the amnesty aspect of the bill.  With only 46 votes, that means that several Dems also voted against cloture. 

1. Owen

   It’s nice that you pointed out that a few moderate Dems voted against this.

   Belling keeps ranting that this shouldn’t hurt the gop next election because the dems are in control and can’t get it passed.

   in reality most Dems do support it…and Most Repubs don’t support this bill.

   So both Parties will have to accept the side the majority of their bretheren are on.

   Don’t know why Belling keeps saying if every Dem isn’t voting for it..then the GOP can blaim it on them if nothing is passed??

   They don’t have 60 Votes!!! YET!!!

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 28, 2007 at 1140 hrs




2. The problem is neither party truly wants to pass any kind of comprehensive immigration reform.  They’re far more interested in trying to make the other side look bad.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 28, 2007 at 1307 hrs




3. I wonder if anyone is really discussing the ramifications of keeping things as they are vs. some type of change in immigration law.  Whether the law changes or not, my guess is that 99%-plus of those here illegally are going to continue on as they are now—they’re not going to leave, they’re not going to try to take advantage of “amnesty” even if offered because it has loads of penalties, waiting periods, etc. 

   I see the arguments over this bill as much ado about nothing.  My brother, as a professional landscaper, can reliably tell me which local landscaping companies import illegal immigrants every spring and summer as “employees.”  They’re going to continue to do so regardless of new legislation…because these “employees” work harder for lower pay.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 28, 2007 at 1348 hrs




4. The thing that bugs me is that Harry Reid essentially gets away scott-free. This bill’s failure to pass is his failure, not Bush’s.

   And yet every headline is calling this a failure of the president…

   Posted by k2aggie07 on June 28, 2007 at 1405 hrs




5. How can it be Harry Reid’s Fault…

   Even if he got all 50 Dems and Lieberman on Board,

   you need 60 to get away from the filibuster..

   Clearly the Right sees little value in backing Bush.

   But 80% of folks say Something has to be Done!!

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 28, 2007 at 1409 hrs




6. Its Reid’s fault because he’s the senate majority leader. The last time I checked, the executive isn’t charged with pushing bills through the senate. Chalk it up to his ineptitude—this can go with the piles of other bills that haven’t been passed since the dems took control.

   Blaming Bush is just an extension of BDS. This is “his fault” just like Katrina was.

   The Right sees little value in backing a busted bill that Reid and the secretive 8 attempted to shove down this country’s throat sideways. I honestly think Bush has very little to do with it.

   That same 80% that says something has to be done also says that this bill isn’t it.

   Posted by k2aggie07 on June 28, 2007 at 1650 hrs




7. Why does everyone think it is this bill or the status quo?  How about not this bill and not the status quo.  Step 1 enforce the many laws we already have on the books.  That would be a huge start.  Step 2 pass reforms that actually make sense.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 28, 2007 at 1813 hrs




8. The bill was drafted behind closed doors with the Unions and La Raza contributing to it’s content.  Last time I checked, La Raza is not an arm of our Gubment. The dwindling Unions are definitely not part of our law making. That was the first mistake.
   Second, we just passed a bill (cleared through both houses) that was signed by the President to enforce the borders. Build the fence and back your Border Agents.
   Then we can talk about the twelve million.
   America spoke. The result is what the people wanted.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 28, 2007 at 2250 hrs




9. Well That Immigration Bill was passed LAST SESSION
   by the Republicans and Bush never funded it!!

   Clearly the people spoke on Nov 6th…

   Doesn’t look to me like they loved it??

   But I agree..Build the Fence and Enforece the Border!!

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 29, 2007 at 0645 hrs




10. Step 1 enforce the many laws we already have on the books.  That would be a huge start. 

    You need look no further than Republican-supporting corporate leaders to know why this won’t happen.  Kicking out the existing illegals is bad for the bottom line of many service businesses.  Thus, follow the money to know what legislation will actually be enacted (and enforced) at the state and federal levels.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 29, 2007 at 0838 hrs




11. PatrickR - I agree this issue has been one of the biggest failings of the Repulican party.  It is a disgrace and it is unacceptable.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 29, 2007 at 0849 hrs




12. All I want out of immigration reform is this:
    1. Make it much much harder to enter this country illegally.
    2. Make it much much easier to enter this country legally.

    For the illegals already here, ignore them. If they want to get legal they can leave and come back, or they can continue to be illegal and be marginalized and exploited. That’s their choice.

    Posted by Matt on June 29, 2007 at 0927 hrs




13. Marginalized Ha!  If Democrats get their way and it looks to me like the next election will be even more heavily in their favor, EVERYONE will get Universal health care.  If only 15,000 people in Wisconsin will not be covered, that means illegals will be(and prisoners too?). Yippee!!!

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 29, 2007 at 1058 hrs




14. God forbid we actually show compassion for our fellow human beings. I have no objection to amnesty, they deserve to be treated like human beings not stray dogs. By being marginalized and exploited they are pushed toward illeagal activities far more harmful then jumping a fence.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 02, 2007 at 2212 hrs




15. Great.  I’ll be over at your house in a few hours.  Make sure to leave the door unlocked.

    Posted by Owen on July 02, 2007 at 2218 hrs




16. Oh puhleeze, if they are so marginalized and exploited, why are they still coming and more importantly staying in the US?  Because they have it better here!!!  I got a bunch of student loans and a college degree in Education, couldn’t find a job and after my education took a job at Kinkos for $5.00 an hour.  Illegals aren’t starting out any worse than I did WITH a college degree.  I would be all for amnesty with proof of job, English speaking skills self and for any family entering the country, and deportation of any illegal with a criminal record.  After all, we are not going to deport 12-15 million, we just aren’t.  So let’s make the best situation possible.  That would also include importing new illegals very illegal.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 03, 2007 at 0821 hrs




17. So because they have it better here then in Mexico it is alright to exploit their desperation. A true compassionate conservative.
    I leave my doors unlocked all the time, should I be afriad of something?

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 03, 2007 at 1352 hrs




18. Ignore the comparison to insult a conservative, a true dumbass. 

    At five dollars an hour with a college degree, was I exploited, stupid, or not picky about which job I took so some money was coming in to the household?  No matter which one you pick, including stupid, I was no better off than they were except I owed a lot for college.  After 20 years of work I am making a ‘decent’ living, but not so much that the new health plan liberals are touting (for nothing more than political capital, just like republicans) won’t cripple our vacation plans of the future.  Am I being exploited?  Who will this plan MOST help?  Illegal aliens.  Right now employers can skimp on benefits for illegal aliens just like Kinkos could offer 5.00 an hour to a college grad and instead of them being fined, deported, or put in jail (only the first of which I would support) you want me to put up the money for them and all their family’s health care? 

    To directly answer your question yes, if you find a better situation for you and your family I expect you to try for it.  If you can better your situation further, go for that too.  If you can sucker compassionate people (read: liberal, stupid, Homeric…as in Simpson) in to giving you money, take it.  I don’t blame illegals for being here or even the businesses who import them for ‘exploitation’.  If it is good, ok, responsible, compassionate, humanitarian, (politically correct?)etc, for YOU to help the illegal aliens in this country with my money, why aren’t you sending my money to Mexico where it is worse?  Why are the people who chose violation of the law and are in a better, though exploited, situation more important to you than the people in Mexico in danger of starvation?  One is our problem, one isn’t?  How very compassionate of you.

    Business is all about exploitation by your current use of the word.  Why are businesses, especially manufacturing jobs, moving out of the US?  People who ‘NEED’ work better, faster, and much cheaper than people who merely ‘WANT’.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 05, 2007 at 0956 hrs




19. I welcome anyone who wants to work and support themselves.

    I welcome anyone who strives for a better life by the fruits of their own labor.

    Looking at the immigration debate…  Its funny how you see the true sense of entitlement mentality come out of people.

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

    I guess we forgot this along the way.  I guess not all people are created equal. I guess if you were BORN in the USA then you are entitled to a protected marketplace… A place where fat-lazy americans can demand 2-car, house, cell-phone, dish-network supporting wages for EVERY job from picking lettuce to landscaping.

    I have a real hard time finding any way that as a human being I can justify preventing people who want nothing more than to come here and work their ass off to support themselves from coming here.

    This is 2007… If your job is such that you are worried about being displaced by a mexican with no education who can’t speak english…  Man.. You’ve got problems…

    I’m so saddened to hear americans, people who should believe in freedom wanting to close the doors on the country so that ‘cheap labor’ isn’t allowed to do ‘cheap jobs’.

    Its not exploitation.  Noone is forcing anyone to do anything.  If someone wants to work for 8 bucks an hour on a job that a fat-lazy american won’t do for less than 15, then so be it.

    Don’t worry… Won’t be long living in the Entitlement Culture of America that immigrants will demand more pay for less work too, and the market will adjust.

    I’m amazed at the hypocrisy of people who have NO problem breaking the law when it comes to cheating on taxes, or speeding, things that are CLEARLY illegal, but suddenly when it comes to ‘illegal immigrants’ the “law” is more important than what is ‘right’.

    I’m amazed that a country of immigrants has so many who now wants to play the “now that I’m in, close the borders” game.

    All I want out of immigration reform is this:
    1. Make it much much harder to enter this country illegally.
    2. Make it much much easier to enter this country legally.

    I agree.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 05, 2007 at 1131 hrs




20. I would sign that bill too! 
    Ever see “All of Me” with Steve Martin and Lily Tomlin?
    “It’s not that my father didn’t want to exploit workers and manipulate the system, I am sure he did.  It’s just that as a Barbar, he didn’t have that much opportunity!” 

    All highly profitable business is exploitation by the definition used in this thread.  If the owner or CEO made a million, he didn’t need that much, so he could have given every employee some sort of equal bonus including himself.  Any time the owner , inventor, investor, makes more than his employees down to the janitor, liberal marine defines that owner as an exploiter and in a non-market economy sense he is correct.  (Is the scorn/contempt evident?)

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 05, 2007 at 1201 hrs




21. Any time the owner , inventor, investor, makes more than his employees down to the janitor, liberal marine defines that owner as an exploiter and in a non-market economy sense he is correct.  (Is the scorn/contempt evident?)

    I don’t know why, but your comparison reminds me of Gordon Gecko in Wall Street.  “Greed is Good”

    The point is, ladies and gentleman, that greed—for lack of a better word—is good.

    Greed is right.

    Greed works.

    Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit.

    Greed, in all of its forms—greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge—has marked the upward surge of mankind.

    I always laugh how liberals get their panties in a wad and think that (while fiction) that comment is indicative of everything that is wrong with capitalism.

    The fact is that expliotation is just another word for “use” but with a bad connotation…

    “Greed” is just another word for “want”  and the reality is that we ALL “want”

    Of course there is excessive greed or excessive “want”...

    Put people need to be honest with themselves.  We all want to some extent, and we all exploit to some extent.

    In a pure sense, I suppose parents are exploiting their kids when they have their kids mow the lawn.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 05, 2007 at 1257 hrs




22. When you were working for $5.00 an hour did you ever not get paid? Did you ever get paid less then what you were told you were making? Being exploited means not getting paid for the work you did, not getting paid the amount you were told you would be paid, being abused, etc.. and having no leagal standing to seek assistance.
    So there is such a thing as excessive want(greed) but who determines what is excessive? you? me? or do we each determine our own limit?

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 09, 2007 at 1552 hrs




23. No, I always got paid.  The closest things in that vein,
    1) I earned a raise of $.75 an hour by their standards, but the manager then changed the numbers because he never allowed the max raise to $.50.
    2) We were offered a 401k plan that matched .50 to the dollar of our contributions to encourage us to save, then in less than 2 years they changed it to a smaller match in July, but they only allowed you to change your contribution amount in June.
    3)  The last 5 years of employment for me, we changed insurance companies every year and their negotiations always allowed a 9-12 month window where the insurance company would not cover pre-existing conditions.  Essentially I had no insurance even though I paid for it the last 5 years of employment, except for new problems.

    Maybe one or more of those situations were actionable, but I would rather look for another job than go to court for it.
    I am not against some oversight of exploitation in theory, I just think that IN GENERAL the market does a better job. 

    I do believe we should and do set our own limits.  I think that not getting paid or getting paid something less than promised does not happen that much simply because it is not painted all over the media, but I am not going ask you for ‘facts’ because it is unlikely they would be available and I despise when others demand proof from me when I have only stated my opinion.  I do believe that they are offered less in the first place than an American citizen would be offered and I think that you are wrong when you say that that is not exploitation.  I think that is the most common type historically.  So paying sweatshop wages as long as there is no abuse is ok and not exploitation?  Huh…

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 09, 2007 at 1627 hrs