Jul 14 2006

Immigration Hard Liners Lose A Vote

Published by at 8:03 am under All General Discussions,Illegal Immigration

Sen Jeff Sessions tried to sneak the border-only solution through the Senate by funding only the southern border fence in an amendment to a Bill dealing with Homeland Defense (separate from the Senate Comprehensive Immigration bill). Sessions should have spent time fixing the nutty things in the Senate’s Comprehensive bill instead of pulling a political stunt. Because all it did is illustrate one more time that the hard line, border only option doesn’t have any support:

Mr. Sessions offered his amendment to authorize $1.8 billion to pay for the fencing that the Senate voted 83-16 to build along high-traffic areas of the border with Mexico. In the same vote on May 17, the Senate also directed 500 miles of vehicle barriers to be built along the border.

…

Virtually all Democrats were joined by the chamber’s lone independent and 28 Republicans in opposing Mr. Session’s amendment to the Homeland Security Appropriations Act. Only two Democrats — Sens. Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Thomas R. Carper of Delaware — supported funding the fence.

Well, if my math is still good that means 30 supported and 70 opposed (there’s those numbers again). How many times does this 20-30% minority in the country have to be shown they do not have the votes to push through a flawed, border only solution. Tighten the borders, crack down on employers and put in place the guest worker program so we can background check and monitor this underground economy we have in this country. We want the valued workers to separate themselves from the potential terrorists so we can protect ourselves and the guest worker program does that. The Fence doesn’t, which is why it is a flawed fantasy. Of course, doing nothing is truly they worst answer, and the only one we have right now from the far right on this issue. Their way or the highway.

6 responses so far

6 Responses to “Immigration Hard Liners Lose A Vote”

  1. Retired Spook says:
    July 14, 2006 at 9:47 am

    How many times does this 20-30% minority in the country have to be shown they do not have the votes to push through a flawed, border only solution.

    AJ, you know that I don’t fundamentally disagree with your position on this, but I don’t think this was really about a border only solution

    As a matter of fact, Senator Judd Gregg from New Hampshire said:

    “We should build these walls; there’s no question about it,” he said. “But the real issue here is the offset that’s being used, and the offset creates a Hobson’s choice for almost everyone here.”
    Mr. Session’s amendment would have required across-the-board cuts to the rest of the Homeland Security appropriations bill, Mr. Gregg said, which would mean cutting 750 new border-patrol agents and 1,200 new detention beds for illegal aliens that he included in the bill.

  2. AJStrata says:
    July 14, 2006 at 10:59 am

    Retired Spook,

    The PR package was simply to fund the wall – the desperation was in what it would take to get that done! I almost noted the issues underneath this to illustrate why this was all PR stunt. The truth is, the comprehensive Bill has the funding Sessions wants, he just is against it because of the guest worker program.

    It is all about the same old same old.

  3. For Enforcement says:
    July 14, 2006 at 4:08 pm

    Let’s get this straight. The Senate bill had the funding for fencing, so why would Sessions amendment have been necessary? The truth is, as I have said many times, but it seems to be beyond some peoples comprehension, the Senate can not appropriate one dime for anything. All bills to fund ANYTHING has to originate in the U. S. House of Representatives. The real truth is, the Senate bill has zero chance of approval and the fence portion of the Senate bill even less chance than that. The only way to get a fence is to get the House to authorize funding for one. That would then have to be approved by the Senate. I personally don’t give a damn if a fence is built or not as long as the border gets secured and the laws either enforced or repealed. I realize I’m talking to a blank screen and there will be some screechers that will call me a hardliner. If that’s the case, then you just don’t understand the situation.

  4. Terrye says:
    July 14, 2006 at 4:26 pm

    If the people who want better border security and tougher immigration laws with enhanced enforcement would just ease up and get out of their own way they might get what they want, at least most of it. But it seems they are more interested in being contrary than they are interested in being responsible.

  5. For Enforcement says:
    July 14, 2006 at 7:34 pm

    See, that comment was just what you would expect, not a clue, not a clue

  6. For Enforcement says:
    July 14, 2006 at 8:56 pm

    If the people who want better border security and tougher immigration laws with enhanced enforcement

    This is what is laughingly referred to as “hardliners” actually even that is incorrect, what we want is border enforcement and enforcement of current laws, not tougher immigration laws.

    What is the opposite of “hardliner”? Soft liner?
    And the opposite of the definition would be? No border security and no enforcement of immigration laws?

    I think I may have discovered something.

    Now all you “softliners” ?