Not this Immigration Bill
28 June 2007 12:46 am by Taylor Marsh
Not this Immigration Bill updated
UPDATE: The news just broke. The immigration reform bill has been defeated; 14 votes short, the vote was 46 to 53. To add, here’s Kennedy’s statement.
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.
Senators Claire McCaskill, Jon Tester and James Webb are evidently splitting with the Democrats
in the Senate to vote against the current immigration conglomeration put together
by a bi-partisan group of well meaning but wrong headed senators trying to push
something (anything) through the pipe. There are many reasons not to like this
bill; understanding that no one has seen the whole thing because it’s still
being cobbled together from what I’ve read and heard. Count me with the three senators,
though I disagree with a lot of their reasoning. I also disagree with the way
Democrats against the immigration bill are being characterized, especially in
the article below. It has nothing to do with being in “Republican-leaning”
states for Democrats beyond the beltway. The truth is that the immigration issue cuts across party lines to include people normally not on the same side of any
issue, with other contingents like labor opposing one another. That’s how
bad this bill is. The way it’s being put forward is also a problem, not to mention
that the bill’s being written as we go.
“I hope this never wears off, but I like to keep my word,” said
Ms. McCaskill, part of a triad of moderate Democratic freshmen balking at
the proposed immigration overhaul and complicating efforts by President Bush
and Senate leaders to pass it this week.Her compatriots in opposition are Senators Jim Webb of Virginia and Jon Tester
of Montana. All three represent Republican-leaning states and are breaking
with their leadership and most of their Democratic colleagues on the legislation,
whose fate in the Senate could be determined on Thursday after a day of votes
on amendments left the outcome up in the air on Wednesday.(snip)
Like Ms. McCaskill, Mr. Tester said the federal government was doing a poor
job of enforcing immigration laws and could solve much of the problem by enforcing
what is already on the books. Ms. McCaskill also says the government should
make a statement by jailing some business leaders who repeatedly hire illegal
immigrants, a step she said would be a powerful deterrent. She is also troubled
by aspects of the measure that would make it harder for family members to
join legal immigrants. …
Targeting employers is job one. I know you are likely sick to death of hearing
me say it and write this, but it’s really the nut of the problem. Funding the
investigative units, as well as hiring the manpower really needed to police
the corporations hiring illegal workers and exploiting them has never fully
been done. If employment for illegal workers dries up the flow of illegal immigrants
will change quite a bit. McCaskill has that right, though I’m for stiff fines
on tiers, depending on the business and the infraction. But she was wrong on
the “touchback” amendment of Kay Bailey Hutchinson that went down,
but McCaskill
had company: Senators Max Baucus, Byron Dorgan, Jay Rockefeller, Jon Tester.
According
to Bloomberg, Tester and Baucus wanted to “dilute requirements
employers verify the identity of new workers,” which is beyond me.
Then there’s Barack
Obama joining with Grassley.
Another potential deal-breaker is a proposal from Charles E. Grassley of
Iowa, the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, that would strike
a core provision in the bill — the employer verification system —
and replace it with a less stringent alternative.The Grassley amendment, cosponsored by Democrats Max Baucus of Montana, chairman
of the Finance Committee, and Barack Obama of Illinois, would not
require the verification of current employees unless there is evidence to
suspect unlawful employment.
Huh?
Republicans don’t want to talk about the employer issue at all. They don’t want to talk about the corporations, because
they’re afraid of hurting their financiers.
Then there’s the Republicans driving the wingnut
radio immigration furor who have a fence fetish, but they are wrong to believe it is the answer.
It’s also the most anti-American notion imaginable made worse by the fact that
it just won’t work. Putting fence money towards border agents and technology
along the border would be money well spent.
I’ve heard experts talk about another
aspect, which suggests having serious talks with our neighbors to the south
about exporting their unemployed. They are close to having me convinced that
these efforts may be important, but I just don’t see how we manifest something
significant where Mexico is concerned. But I’m all ears on it and will continue
to listen.
The guest worker program is really a problem for me as well. SEIU is for the
immigration bill no matter how flawed, because they see it as important to getting
people legal status, then protected through their union. The A.F.L.-C.I.O. wants
it killed, because they see it as bringing down middle-class wages they’ve fought
to raise, while the guest worker program will exploit workers.
What a mess.
