Blog @ MoreWhat.com

We all know that political matters can rarely be taken at face value. The saga developing over S. 1348, a so-called bipartisan compromise bill claimed to be immigration reform, is proving to be the evidence that the White House and Congress are incapable of abandoning special interest or ignoring election politics. This senate bill is more accurately characterized the amnesty bill as those referred to as the ‘architects’ (Kyl, Graham, Kennedy and McCain) all seem to favor amnesty.

This is the first of what may be a series of reviews on this week’s amnesty battle. On Tuesday June 5, there was a vote on an amendment proposed by GOP Senator Wayne Allard of Colorado. If one takes the amendment at face value, it appears to be a fair request to not give preferential treatment to those who enter the US illegally. For the moment, this post will skip over the visa dilemma for now. Except to say there are plenty of flaws with how that item is treated also.

Senator Kyl tried to appear opposed to amnesty when the Senate took up this matter after the 2005 House vote which passed HR 4437. During the debate in the Senate then, Cornyn and Kyl were sending mixed signals. This time Kyl is given credit for spearheading this effort to provide amnesty. And he voted against this amendment. This would be an example of why things cannot be taken at face value. The big question mark on Kyl should be changed to calling him in favor of amnesty. And that would not be a good thing.

Below is the Allard amendment description. After that is the roll call results which tell much of the story.

Allard Amdt. No. 1189; To eliminate the preference given to people who entered the United States illegally over people seeking to enter the country legally in the merit-based evaluation system for visas.

Not Voting - 6

Brownback (R-KS)
Dodd (D-CT)
Johnson (D-SD)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
McCain (R-AZ)
Obama (D-IL)

Four Presidential candidates for 2008 again declined to vote on the issue of illegal immigration. Apparently for them, political considerations are more important than doing their jobs and going on the record. As much as one can find fault with Hillary Rodham Clinton and her support of amnesty, to be fair, at least she voted this time. The no vote list is next.

NAYs —62

Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
Domenici (R-NM)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Graham (R-SC)
Hagel (R-NE)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Inouye (D-HI)
Isakson (R-GA)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Stevens (R-AK)
Tester (D-MT)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

The usual suspects voted against the amendment that claims to remove preferential treatment for illegals. The most notorious or significant among the no votes are:
Bayh, Biden, Boxer, Chambliss, Clinton, Cochran, Coleman, Collins, Craig, Domenici, Feinstein, Graham, Hagel, Kennedy, Kerry, Kyl, Leahy, ….. all hell, they are all significant and notorious. These people do not have the best interest of American citizens in their agenda. Not like that is a big surprise but it should be pointed out again.

Now for the yes votes and what it may mean.

YEAs —31

Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Bond (R-MO)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Byrd (D-WV)
Coburn (R-OK)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dole (R-NC)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Landrieu (D-LA)
McCaskill (D-MO)
McConnell (R-KY)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Sununu (R-NH)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)

One item worth mentioning here is the Missouri Senators, Bond and McCaskill, are on the record as opposing amnesty and being strongly in favor of strong border security and control over illegal immigration. Yes, they are in the ‘yes’ column for this amendment. Cornyn is on this list whereas Kyl is on the ‘no’ vote side. What does that tell you? This list is something to consider when trying to separate the good guys from the bad guys. Stay tuned and keep contacting your elected reps on this issue.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

It was encouraging to see these headlines and the lead story that produced them prominently displayed on Google News’ front page this morning. They are presented here for your benefit. At the bottom of the list is Ted Kennedy’s take on S. 1348. The bottom is a fitting location for anything Kennedy has to say. It would appear he expressed an expectation of a ‘close’ vote on the bill. Sure he did. Sounds more like wishful thinking. Was that thought produced before or after cocktail hour?

By the sounds of things on the radio this a.m., S. 1348 is all but dead and Harry Reid and others have indicated it is time to move on to other things. This would be where their threat of accept this crap now or forget about immigration reform until after the 2008 elections. If we let this happen, nothing will change. Obviously, the open borders crowd, including McCain, Kennedy, Reid and the California girls (Pelosi, Feinstein and Boxer) like that idea. If they were allowed to visa everyone they wanted and fill their personal quotas with illegals until now, they have no interest in enforcing immigration controls or advancing border security.

What do you need with immigration reform when the broken system is working for your selfish gain? What’s a couple of terrorists now and then if you can supply your business donors with unlimited cheap labor to harvest your soon to be tainted food supply?

There is every reason to believe that this is one of those rare moments in politics where the public has applied sufficient pressure on Congress to thwart one of their stupid ideas. But don’t get over-confident. Congressional leaders as well as the White House have plenty of tricks. Continue to apply the pressure and thank those who are doing the right thing in opposing amnesty. This fight won’t be over at least until the condition of illegal immigration begins to be reversed.

The public outrage and opposition to S. 1348 comes from both sides of the issue. Illegals had plenty they did not like about this bill. That means those opposed to amnesty cannot relax. Your efforts to contact Congress and the White House on this issue is working. Do not stop now. The House won’t take up the issue until the Senate passes a bill. Do not allow it to be S. 1348 and do not allow the Senate to postpone this fight until after the 2008 elections.

A solution that has much support is one that was mentioned here a long time ago. New legislation is not required if you enforce the existing laws. The best solution would be to force the executive branch to enforce existing law and the legislative branch to add language that, for instance, provides the verification systems and severe penalties for employers who hire illegals as well as border security enhancements that make sense. Pass the word to your elected representatives. More on this later.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Senate deals major blow to immigration bill

Immigration compromise suffers crushing blow

Immigrant Bill, Short 15 Votes, Stalls in Senate

Immigration compromise suffers crushing blow in Senate

Divisions over stalled immigration bill reflect public’s doubts
Divisions over stalled immigration bill reflect public’s doubts

Deep Divisions Derail Immigration Bill
Deep Divisions Derail Immigration Bill
Deep Divisions Derail Immigration Bill

Deadlocked US Senate Shelves Immigration Overhaul (Update1)
Senate Refuses to Limit Debate on Immigration Plan (Update5)

Kennedy Sees Close Immigration Test Vote

crossposted at:
Maggie’s Notebook | Conservative Blog
FaultlineUSA

Senator Robert Menendez is one of the co-sponsors of the Amnesty as Reform Senate bill S. 1348 and here again wants to include features that have no business being in immigration law. Family unification otherwise known as chain immigration is one of the most abused features of immigration law.

Sure, get out the handkerchiefs and tell me the sad story of families and immigration. The basic problem with chain migration is it denies individual immigrants an equal footing with those expecting to bring the whole damn family. Just another abuse of policies intended to be generous in accommodating immigration by those whose greed trumps any sense of doing what is right.

Here’s a suggestion for those considering entering the US legally, yes, both of you. Before deciding some of life’s major choices, determine if you have any interest in moving to the US. Before you start the huge family, get in line if that is what you want. Once you and your spouse to be are legally entered and following the proper course to citizenship, go ahead, start a family.

Enough with accommodating others mistakes with immigration planning. Get your priorities straight and stop using emotional appeals in an attempt to justify the real reason for entering the US. It’s all about the money. It has nothing to do with noble ideas or altruism.

Senator Menendez and an immigration advocacy organization both stoop to these tactics below. Putting their greed or personal preference ahead of national defense, security, border and immigration control is irresponsible and dangerous. But that is not usually a consideration to people who put the private agendas ahead of this nation’s best interest. Shame on both of you.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Immigration Bill Should Focus on Family Reunification
(Sen. Robert Menendez)
May 23rd, 2007
For the past few months I have been working with my colleagues to draft immigration reform legislation, but unfortunately I was unable to support the legislation that emerged from our negotiating table. An agreement that undervalues family, creates a permanent working underclass and demands unreasonable fines is not in harmony with American values. Instead, we must support legislation that secures our borders while allowing undocumented immigrants to come out of the shadows; and we must respect our country’s laws while respecting our nation’s tradition of immigration.

Immigration Compromise Falls Short on Family Unification
May 23rd, 2007
By Project Voice, Immigrant Rights Initiative of the American Friends Service Committee
The American Friends Service Committee (AFSC), a Quaker social justice organization, has strong concerns with the proposed Senate immigration compromise. Family unification, the cornerstone of U.S. immigration policy, will be more difficult under the legislation. It would eliminate the ability of U.S. citizens to petition for residency for their adult children and siblings. The bill does take a step forward to eliminate the family-based immigration backlog, but it also sets an arbitrary cut-off application date of May 2005. This means that thousands of families’ applications will be void and they will be forced to reapply under the new, restrictive point system. Temporary workers would be left without a direct path to permanent residency and vulnerable to unethical employers. In summary, the bill in its current form falls far short of what is needed to address the nation’s out-of-date immigration system.