Senate vs. House on the illegal immigration issue

[War Wagon]

Seems they are pretty divided on this issue.

Being as how the HoR sports such notable worthies as Cynthia McKinney, I'm guessing that the Senate (backed by the Oval office) will hold just a bit more sway here.

Here's hoping so. We need a practical solution for a change, not just more bombastic and xenophobic rhetoric.

Rack the Senate for getting real.

_____________________________________________________________

Thu Apr 6, 5:35 PM ET

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The US Senate reached a breakthrough agreement on legislation that would grant legal residency status to millions of undocumented residents in the United States.

ADVERTISEMENT

The 11th-hour legislation would allow many undocumented residents to remain in the United States, but would boot out hundreds of thousands of others.

"I'm pleased that Republicans and Democrats in the United States Senate are working together to get a comprehensive immigration bill," President George W. Bush said in a statement welcoming the accord.

At a press conference Thursday, Republican Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist also hailed the agreement, saying: "We've had a huge breakthrough ... that will lead us to the conclusion of passing a very important bill."

The deal, in the form of an amendment by Republican senators Chuck Hagel and Mel Martinez, would allow undocumented residents who arrived in the United States five years ago or earlier to obtain legal status if they meet various requirements, including passing a criminal background check and having been employed in the United States for at least three of the previous five years.

Congressionals officials estimate that about seven million people fall into this category.

Undocumented residents living in the United States for less than five years but more than two years could obtain a temporary work visa under the legislation, but they first must exit the country and would be fingerprinted and processed at a land port of entry.

These immigrants, numbering between 2.5 and three million, would be given priority in applying for US residency over future immigrants entering as temporary workers.

The between one and 1.5 million undocumented immigrants who have been in the United States for less than two years would be required to return to their countries of origin, and would receive no preferential treatment over other would-be emigrants to the United States.

Lawmakers said a vote on the Senate legislation could occur before Friday night -- just before Congress goes on a two-week break.

A fractured US Congress has debated immigration reform legislation for weeks, while nationwide demonstrations have seen millions of people call for lenient reforms as Congress contends with how best to seal the lengthy southern border with Mexico and what to do with the estimated 11.5 million undocumented workers.

Conservative senator Sam Brownback called the roiling immigration debate "probably the most divisive issue in America today."

"I hope this compromise ends up bringing us together, and I believe it can," he said.

Before becoming law, the bill that the Senate is expected to approve must still be reconciled with a more draconian one passed by the US House of Representatives, which would have made it a felony to be an undocumented immigrant in the United States.

Many analysts said the debate goes to the heart of what it means to be an American in a country that has long prided itself on being a nation of immigrants.

The top Senate Democrat, Harry Reid, said the real breakthrough was for immigrants in his home state of Nevada and throughout the country who work low-wage jobs in pursuit of "the American dream."

"They're working in the kitchens in Las Vegas, cleaning the grease pits, they're parking cars," he said.

"These are jobs that they have wanted and wanted them badly enough to come to America, to leave their families, their homes, their churches, their schools, to come here and take a chance on the American dream."

Analysts also believe that the agreement was spurred in part by recent mass protests in US cities, including one several days ago in Los Angeles which saw more than half a million participants.

Senators were feverishly working to reach a compromise decision on the divisive legislation before a two-week recess starts on April 7.

Complicating factors also include the November mid-term elections, in which opposition Democrats hope to win back seats. And with several legislators hoping to run for president in 2008, there has been heavy demand for increased border security, as Senator Lindsey Graham reminded his fellow lawmakers.

As with many issues in United States following the September 11, 2001 terror attacks, new security concerns have become a key part of the debate, now over illegal immigration.

Though he hailed the accord, Graham said much work remains.

"We still have broken borders, ladies and gentlemen," he said. "The broken borders need to be fixed."

[Dr_Phibes]

Some sort of wet foot/dry foot programme is in order. It's horrible the way people flee Capitalism - they should head for Cuba.

[Mister Bushice]

Ok whitey, do please educate us all on the pros and cons of the two different bills that are pending in the house and senate.

Personally I don't think you know anything about either one, and you're just rubber stamping the one that bush has approved.

But since you bust others on posting articles, I'm calling you out on this one.

Put up or shut up.


And Phibes, your fake communism troll act is getting very tired and old. Couldn't you switch to pretending to support muslim based terrorism for a while?

[Ang]

Just chiming in because the Senate bill was much more advertised in the media, and IMHO a fake agreement that will go nowhere because first of all it had no teeth, and everyone is already fighting for who takes credit for a non-agreement between the sides. The Senate bill was a farce from it's inception, and a clue should have been that W signed on right away. Immigration is not one of his primary concerns, unless it involves keeping borders wide open and doing nothing.

The House bill has it's issues and is an imperfect solution but is a much better place to start..and I would describe it it a way that my old friend from college and I describe things that are just that: it's "way mo better".

[Mikey]

I like Bill Maher's solution.

Instead of building a wall along the US Mexico border, they should build a Wal-Mart, 1,950 miles long exactly on the border. Front door on the US side and back door on the Mexico side.

[Mister Bushice]

Just chiming in because the Senate bill was much more advertised in the media, and IMHO a fake agreement that will go nowhere because first of all it had no teeth, and everyone is already fighting for who takes credit for a non-agreement between the sides. The Senate bill was a farce from it's inception, and a clue should have been that W signed on right away. Immigration is not one of his primary concerns, unless it involves keeping borders wide open and doing nothing.

The House bill has it's issues and is an imperfect solution but is a much better place to start..and I would describe it it a way that my old friend from college and I describe things that are just that: it's "way mo better".

Well, failure #1 Ang. The Senate just shelved the pending immigration bill:

Senate Vote Shelves Immigration Bill

By SUZANNE GAMBOA, Associated Press Writer 12 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - The Senate sidetracked sweeping immigration legislation Friday amid partisan recriminations, leaving in doubt prospects for passage of a measure that offered the hope of citizenship to millions of men, women and children living in the United States illegally.
ADVERTISEMENT

The bill gained only 38 votes on a key procedural test, far short of the 60 needed to advance.

The vote marked a turnabout from Thursday, when the Senate's two leaders had both hailed a last-minute compromise as a breakthrough in the campaign to enact the most far-reaching changes in immigration law in two decades.

But Republicans soon accused Democrats of trying to squelch their amendments, while Democrats accused the GOP of trying to kill their own bill by filibuster.

"It's not gone forward because there's a political advantage for Democrats not to have an immigration bill," said Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa.

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid countered, "The amendments were being offered by people who didn't want the bill."

The vote fell nearly along party lines, with Democrats in favor of advancing the bill and Republicans opposed.

Specter told reporters his committee would resume work on the measure as soon as Congress returns from a two-week break. He said the panel would have a measure ready for renewed debate within 10 days after that.

But Frist stopped short of a commitment to bring the issue back to the floor during the balance of the election-year session. "I intend to," he said, but added it would depend on the schedule of other bills.

The Senate voted after
President Bush prodded lawmakers to keep trying to reach an agreement, but both sides said the odds were that a breakthrough won't occur until Congress returns from a two-week recess.

"An immigration system that forces people into the shadows of our society, or leaves them prey to criminals is a system that needs to be changed," Bush said at the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast on Friday. "I'm confident that we can change our immigration system in ways that secures our border, respects the rule of law, and, as importantly, upholds the decency of our country."

Republicans said Democrats perceive a benefit in having only a GOP-written House bill that would make being an illegal immigrant a felony. That bill has prompted massive protests across the country, including a march by 500,000 people in Los Angeles last month.

Democrats blamed Republicans for insisting on amendments that would weaken a compromise that Senate leaders in both parties had celebrated Thursday.

"This opportunity is slipping through our hands like grains of sand," said assistant Senate Democratic leader Dick Durbin of Illinois.

The election-year legislation is designed to enhance border security and regulate the flow of future temporary workers as well as affect the lives of illegal immigrants.

It separates illegal immigrants now in the U.S. into three categories.

Illegal immigrants here more than five years could work for six years and apply for legal permanent residency without having to leave the country. Those here two years to five years would have to go to border entry points sometime in next three years, but could immediately return as temporary workers. Those here less than two years would have to leave and wait in line for visas to return.

The bill also provides a new program for 1.5 million temporary agriculture industry workers over five years. It includes provisions requiring employers to verify they've hired legal workers and calls for a "virtual" fence of surveillance cameras, sensors and other technology to monitor the nearly 2,000-mile U.S.-Mexican border.

Demonstrations in support of the compromise were planned for Monday across the nation, including one in Washington that organizers claimed would draw 100,000 people.

The acrimony in the Senate at Thursday night's end was a sharp contrast to the accolades 14 members of both parties traded just hours earlier when they announced their compromise.

Frist called it tragic "that we in all likelihood are not going to be able to address a problem that directly affects the American people."

The House has passed legislation limited to border security, but Speaker
Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., and other leaders have signaled their willingness in recent days to broaden the bill in compromise talks with the Senate.

But Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., said anything with what he called amnesty would not get agreement from a majority in the House.

It's good to see this useless Republican congress dig itself deeper and deeper into a hole this election year. Despite their majority they can't accomplish anything, yet they blame everything on the minority democrats.

[Dinsdale]

So, we have a problem with people who have absolutely ZERO respect for our laws and legal processes, so the solution is to...

Welcome them with open arms and invite them to stay?

Are these people fucking nuts?

These illegals have already PROVEN that American laws mean nothing to them. Hence, the name "illegals."

So is that REALLY who we want to attract even more of to our country -- a bunch of PROVEN lawbreakers and criminals?

I want my fucking money back from the government. The fucking lunatics have truly taken over the asylum.

Wait -- the large corporate lobbies donations are more important to our lawmakers than the security, safety, and health of this nation...:hugefuckingshocker:

Unfuckingbelievable. But some of you have bought so deeply into this "us vs them" mentality that serves only to line the pockets of politicians while HURTING our country, that you've actually been brainwashed enough to think this is a good idea. Because quite frankly, you're fucking idiots.

[Tom In VA]

I think "illegal aliens" and "illegals" are a tad insensitive. We need to refer to these people as "Guest Workers". I wonder if we'll ever refer to Bank Robbers as "Guest Bankers".

[Mister Bushice]

Truly the only way to clean some of the dead weight out of this congress is to have them perform so poorly on key issues like this.

[Mister Bushice]

Sure why not? THese incompetents have proven they aren't worth shit, lets get a new group of incompetents in there.

[War Wagon]

Ok whitey, do please educate us all on the pros and cons of the two different bills that are pending in the house and senate.

Personally I don't think you know anything about either one, and you're just rubber stamping the one that bush has approved.

But since you bust others on posting articles, I'm calling you out on this one.

Put up or shut up.

I don't have to prove a damn thing to a snobbish little dickhead like yourself. Nor do I care to try. I bust on you for posting articles and not offering up any content beyond a one liner for the most part. I bust on you for being an idiotic attention whore.

But I'll tell you this. I can read and understand what I'm reading, and make judgements based on that. And I've read just about everything I can find about this issue because it hits close to home. Over 75% of the welders in my shop are hispanic, with most of them having staged a walk-out two weeks ago, and maybe planning the same act again on Monday in protest over the House bill.

This during our busiest time of the year when contractors are practically beating down our doors wanting us to get their product out in the field. We can't afford losing another day's production. Hell, we're already working 10 hour shifts and Saturdays, and now top management is asking for volunteers to work on Sunday. I've worked at this company for 23 years now and in all that time have had to work exactly 2 Sunday's.

So yeah, I have a vested interest in this issue, and perhaps know more more about it than you'd care to admit, you snobbish little prick.

And I know these people as more than just "wetbacks". I don't know how they got here, or whether or not they have a green card or are citizens, nor do I care because it's really none of my business. I know we've had the INS down there a time or two checking things out, and a few of the guys got hauled off. But I believe most of them are here legally, pay their taxes and other bills, and raise families just like anyone else. I also know these guys show up for work every day and bust their ass helping my company to be highly successful. And I'm not talking about minimum wage jobs here. An experienced aluminum mig welder is pulling down $15-18 an hour plus decent bennies.

The House bill would instantly create 11 to 12 million felons in our midst. I hear so much non-sense about illegal this and that as it relates to immigration, but I doubt those who shrill the loudest about the illegality understand the difference between a civil crime and a felony. Suggesting that folks who are just here trying to make a decent living (by their standards), and whom in many ways benefit our economy and standard of living, should be branded as felons is ludicrous at best. At worst, it's morally bankrupt.

Don't even get me started on the insanity that building a wall along the border would entail.

The Senate bill is/was a much more practical and humane solution that get's to the core of the problem without creating the nightmare that law enforcement would have on it's hands with millions of instantly created felons. I hope they overcome the petty partisan squabbling and bring this bill back in a few weeks time for passage.

As for me coming in here and debating all the Pros and Cons of both bills, even if I cared to, it would be totally useless. People can read for themselves I reckon, and then make up their own minds. Nothing I say is going to change that.

I'm just stating where I stand on the issue and I guess it just really blows up that silly idea you've had for the last 5 years about me (whitey) being a racist because I used the term "wetbacks" in once humorously taking a dig at Mexican soccer fan for their team losing to the USA team.

Face it Bushice, in fact you're the closet racist here, and you've been unfairly and mistakenly labeling me as one all this time.

That's ok though. If calling me "whitey" gives you some jollies, go right ahead. Far be it from me to take something away from you that you love so dearly. Just remember that whenever you're tempted to revert to what you do best (being an idiot), some folks know better.

[Dinsdale]

most of them having staged a walk-out two weeks ago. This during our busiest time of the year when contractors are practically beating down our doors

I also know these guys show up for work every day

For god's fucking sake, remember this rule, by putting it on a Post-It and sticking it to your monitor if neccessary --

Brain, and THEN keyboard.....brain, and THEN keyboard.

You seem to mix up the order of those two things pretty frequently.

I don't know how they got here, or whether or not they have a green card or are citizens, nor do I care because it's really none of my business. I know we've had the INS down there a time or two checking things out, and a few of the guys got hauled off.

But wait...you run the plant, right?

Or one of your associates does, anyway.

So...if neither you nor your company gives two fucking shits about obeying American law, and you support those who have no respect for American law moving here...

I guess my question is -- why the fuck would you ever expect anyone to give a shit about what your criminal-ass has to say on the subject?

If they hauled guys off, it means SOMEBODY running the show there (Whitey backs off his "I'm the boss" claim in 5...4...3...2...) is a fucking criminal. So, since you are degenerate pondscum along with those ciminals crying the loudest about immigration reform, what the fuck is wrong with you that you think you're even entitled to an opinion?

I mean, last I checked, we weren't hitting up Al Zawahri about his thoughts on homeland security, so why would you even tard the world up with your criminally-motivated opinion?

I'm not sure why you think people who begin their stay in the USA by committing a criminal act are some sort of asset, but whatever the reson, you're still a fucking idiot.

Possibly one of the worst examples of KYOA ever displayed in a single post.

The House bill would instantly create 11 to 12 million felons in our midst.

Yeah, because it's not like THEY BROKE THE LAW, or anything.

First offense, an all-expense paid trip back to Mexico. Second offense, execution. Because that's what we do when people try to harm our country by invading it.

Don't like our fucking laws? Good -- stay out....it was kinda the point anyway. Too bad...if they were American Citizens, they'd be represented in our government(theoretically, anyway). But...people from another country now think they have some divine right to dictate American law, which only has æffects withing the American borders? And you support this?

Smoke some more meth, tard. I KNOW your illegal buddies are keeping you supplied, since that's one of their major contributions to the American economy, as well. But why shouldn't they sling their meth? It's not like they don't know that there's a bunch of spineless douchebags out there who don't expect them to obey American law from the first day they show up, so why should we ever expect them to obey our drug laws, either?

[Mister Bushice]

Mostly reasonable thoughts, Dins, (except the Meth take - in this county it's all white trash doing meth), but the harsh level of dealing with Illegals is unrealistic. NO way in hell will this country (actually our government in particular and all the bleeding hearts who want to help the "poor illegal hard working mexicans") take real steps to protect the borders in the way they should be doing unless something bad happens.

Which might occur. Certainly the opportunity for terrorists to take advantage of the security holes does exist.


Ps to Whitey.

If you can't figure out the forum rules, don't post here.

[Diego in Seattle]

Mostly reasonable thoughts, Dins, (except the Meth take - in this county it's all white trash doing meth), but the harsh level of dealing with Illegals is unrealistic. NO way in hell will this country (actually our government in particular and all the bleeding hearts who want to help the "poor illegal hard working mexicans") take real steps to protect the borders in the way they should be doing unless something bad happens.

Are there liberals who protect illegals? With out a doubt.

But there are just as many if not more conservatives who have done nothing to ensure the flow of cheap labor. We don't really need new legislation.....things would be a lot better if we funded and enforced existing laws.

Do you think we need new laws for speeding? Or do you think that putting more traffic cops on the highways would present motorists with a more threat that they might actually be caught?

Employers now pretty much only comply with the current law if their morals tell them to. The others will hire illegals whenever they need more cheap labor. Go after these fucks & the incentive for illegals to make the dangerous & expensive trek across the border dries up.

So stop laying the blame at the feet of liberals when conservatives have tacitly approved of illegal immigration all along as well.

[Mister Bushice]

I wasn't intending the "Bleeding heart" Comment to mean strictly "Liberals". I know that's the common slur among conservatives.

What I intended was to point out the heel draggers in congress who are pampering the "poor illegals" by wanting blanket amnesty for all of them, and no illegal status given to any. That is a fucked mentality no matter which side of the aisle you are on.

And "enforcing the laws already on the books" obviously doesn't accomplish anything, in fact it sends the opposite message to the illegals, since not passing any law at all gives them the idea that its OK to be here illegally.

We need something new to send the message that coming here illegally will get you kicked out. Nor do the existing laws do jack shit about our border security problem.

[Diego in Seattle]

What I intended was to point out the heel draggers in congress who are pampering the "poor illegals" by wanting blanket amnesty for all of them, and no illegal status given to any. That is a fucked mentality no matter which side of the aisle you are on.

Agreed. Regardless of whether Bush wants to call it amnesty or not, that's what it is.

And "enforcing the laws already on the books" obviously doesn't accomplish anything, in fact it sends the opposite message to the illegals, since not passing any law at all gives them the idea that its OK to be here illegally.

We need something new to send the message that coming here illegally will get you kicked out. Nor do the existing laws do jack shit about our border security problem.

I sort of doubt that mexicans are reading The Hill to find out whether new legislation has been passed to say the same thing again - that they're here illegally (or intending to enter illegally). They know they can get through our pourous border quite easily......it's just a matter of how easily they can get a job. Until we go after those who provide those jobs with any amount of serious effort we will continue to see these cross the border - many times.

With prostitution we not only go after the prostitutes themselves, but the "johns" as well. We have made the laws subtantive enough about the problem that the punishments make it a serious issue for those who would consider seeking out a prostitute. The reason why we have such a bad immigration problem is that the government doesn't treat the alien/employer issue like the prostitute/john issue. If we gave companies a punishment equivilant to taking an individual's car for hiring a prostitute we wouldn't see such flagerant violations of hiring laws ('sup Wal-Fart).

[Mister Bushice]

Good point. You hire an illegal, you MIGHT get a fine, but only if you're caught. You rent a prostitute, you go to jail.

But we're getting fucked more by the illegals than we are by the prostitutes. :)

[Diego in Seattle]

Good point. You hire an illegal, you MIGHT get a fine, but only if you're caught.

And even when they do get caught.......

But we're getting fucked more by the illegals than we are by the prostitutes. :)

I'm not getting fucked at all by prostitutes.....anything you want to share? :wink: