Immigration Bill Suffers Stunning Defeat

Lao Tse

Lao Tse

Verified User
In your face, america-hating globalists. Kiss our ass.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/6/7/220126.shtml





WASHINGTON -- A broad immigration bill to legalize millions of people in the U.S. unlawfully failed a crucial test vote in the Senate 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.

The legislation, which had been endorsed by President Bush, would tighten borders, institute a new system to prevent employers from hiring undocumented workers in addition to giving up to 12 million illegal immigrants a pathway to legal status.

Conceived by an improbable coalition that nicknamed the deal a "grand bargain," the measure exposed deep rifts within both parties and is loathed by most GOP conservatives.

Senate Majority Harry Reid, D-Nev., who had made no secret of his distaste for parts of the bill, said earlier he would move on to other matters if the immigration measure's supporters didn't get 60 votes Thursday night.

The defeat set off a bitter round of partisan recriminations, with Democrats and Republicans each accusing the other of killing it.

Most Republicans voted against ending debate, saying they needed more time to make the bill tougher with tighter border security measures and a more arduous legalization process for unlawful immigrants.
Click to expand...
 
This is no surprise (at least to me) it was doomed from the start (and the second start) because it was simply too complicated. Earlier, "I" and later Watermark posted much watered down versions which might have stood a chance.

Perhaps now, they will start again with a version which has a chance of passage.
 
doniston said:
This is no surprise (at least to me) it was doomed from the start (and the second start) because it was simply too complicated. Earlier, "I" and later Watermark posted much watered down versions which might have stood a chance.

Perhaps now, they will start again with a version which has a chance of passage.
Click to expand...


We don't need new laws. i would think punishing municipalities which openly defy federal law, declaring themselves sanctuary cities, would be a more pressing issue than another attempt at passing legislation. Enforce The Law.
 
AssHatZombie said:
We don't need new laws. i would think punishing municipalities which openly defy federal law, declaring themselves sanctuary cities, would be a more pressing issue than another attempt at passing legislation. Enforce The Law.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but I don't think the present laws are sufficiently complete or concise OP-vs-OP
 
Huh...!

doniston said:
Sorry, but I don't think the present laws are sufficiently complete or concise OP-vs-OP
Click to expand...


There are plenty of sections under Title 18 USC as well as Title 19 and 21 to enforce....We could start by charging business who hire illegals as well as cities who give amnesty as well as the Catholic Church with violation of Title 18 USC section 3 (Accessory after the fact) I'm not going to list all the sections which apply to illegal entry as well as failure to declare and making false statements...they are on the books...just not enforced anymore!
 
Battleborne said:
There are plenty of sections under Title 18 USC as well as Title 19 and 21 to enforce....We could start by charging business who hire illegals as well as cities who give amnesty as well as the Catholic Church with violation of Title 18 USC section 3 (Accessory after the fact) I'm not going to list all the sections which apply to illegal entry as well as failure to declare and making false statements...they are on the books...just not enforced anymore!
Click to expand...
I have no arguement with that, but I just don't think they cover the whole situation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top