Big Lizards:Blog:Entry “Immigration Bill Fends Off Poison Pills Left and Right”

« Gimmie That Ol' Time Religion... | Main | Hugh, We Thought We Knew You! »

June 6, 2007

Immigration Bill Fends Off Poison Pills Left and Right

Hatched by Dafydd

We've now entered the phase of immigration legislation where opponents offer "poison pill" amendments whose primary purpose is not to tweak the bill to make it better -- but to change it enough that it can no longer get majority support.

Every controversial bill goes through this phase; it's traditional. And it's usually clear when a bill does, in fact, have majority support... those amendment votes fail.

That is just what's happening now to the immigration-compromise bill; the coalition in the Senate is holding the line. In the last 24 hours, the Senate has rejected:

An amendment by Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX, 96%) that would have prevented legalization for illegal immigrants who had ever defied a deportation order or had committed any act of document fraud of identity theft... which of course would mean virtually all of them! This amendment was, essentially, to eliminate the Z visa for all but a small fraction of the 12 million; it was rejected 51 to 46.

An amendment by Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC, 100%) that would have required illegals to get health insurance (high-deductable) before allowing them to get Z visas; it was defeated 55 to 43. This wasn't exactly a poison pill, and arguably it has merit; but it would definitely have hit the poorest illegals very hard: Since they cannot get reasonably good jobs until after they get a Z visa, but they must buy health insurance before they get the visa and the job, it's rather a Catch-22. But perhaps an amendment requiring them to get health insurance within one year of getting the Z visa, on pain of having it revoked, might do better.

On the other side, an amendment by Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM, 100%) that would have removed the requirement that guest workers return to their home countries for a year in between each two-year stint of working here; that one went down by 57 to 41. This would have turned the guest workers into a permanent camp of foreign nationals parked here, defeating the purpose of requiring them to come, work, and leave again.

Poison pills still in the batting cage:

A Democratic amendment to reinstate "family reunification" as the primary reason to allow immigrants to legally enter the country, rather than the point system (one amendment from, I think, Sen. Barack Obama, D-IL, 95%, would actually sunset the point system after five years; but I don't know if that has already been voted on);

Another flurry of Republican amendments to deny legalization to those who have been officially deported but haven't left.

One amendment that passed was by Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA, 100%); it adds several crimes to the list of those that would permanently bar legalization. Z visas were already made unavailable to illegal immigrants who had committed serious felonies, including violent felonies; the Kennedy amendment, designed to give political cover to Republicans to vote against the Cornyn poison pill, would add domestic violence (presumably even if it was only a misdemeanor), non-felon sex offenders (felonious sex offenders were already barred), and gang members, even those not convicted of any crime -- at least, that is how it reads in the Times article (I haven't read the text of the amendment). This amendment passed by 66 to 32, so it clearly had bipartisan support.

I am quite convinced that unless Majority Leader Harry "Pinky" Reid (D-Caesar's Palace, 90%) pulls the plug on the whole shebang -- which he has threatened to do -- it will pass the Senate. The House is much dicier, of course; we won't have a good idea there until after the first blizzard of amendments.

Senate Majority Leader Reid has threatened to lay the entire bill on the table (that is, kill it) if it doesn't pass a cloture vote immediately -- which it likely would not; the bill's supporters (on both sides) have promised opponents more time to offer amendments... presumably in exchange for subsequent support, whether their pet amendments pass or are rejected (that's usually the way it works):

Mr. Reid’s assessment that the Senate was making progress was important, because he said on Tuesday that the chamber would vote Thursday on whether to limit debate on the bill, a process called cloture that requires 60 votes to succeed. If the cloture vote fails, the bill could be blocked indefinitely by a filibuster. Mr. Reid said he would pull the bill from consideration if he fails to get the necessary votes.

The majority leader said he wanted to complete work on the legislation this week, and he suggested that Republicans were trying to stall the bill with amendments.

“When is enough enough?” he asked, asserting that Republicans were looking for excuses to kill the bill. His announcement provoked an outcry both from Republican supporters and Republican opponents of the compromise bill, who said the Senate needed more time.

Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, the chief Republican architect of the bill, said “it would be a big mistake” to try to invoke cloture this week.

“A motion to cut off debate would be an extreme act of bad faith,” Mr. Kyl said, and he asserted on Tuesday afternoon that “we are not anywhere near finishing this bill.”

The Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, said, “The overwhelming majority of our conference would insist on having additional days to make sure that all of our important amendments have been given an opportunity to be considered.”

Even Senator Mel Martinez, Republican of Florida, a strong supporter of the bill, said, “I would not support cloture at this point because I don’t think that enough of our members have had an opportunity to have their amendments heard.”

If, in fact, Reid pulls the bill while proponents and opponents on both sides of the aisle are clamoring for debate to continue, amendments to be voted on, and the ultimate bill to get a final up or down vote... then the onus of failure will be on the Democrats, not on the Republicans. GOP senators, whether they support or oppose the bill, can campaign against the Democrats for having pulled the bill just when it looked like things were coming to a head.

In fact, Republicans might even make headway with Hispanics, who very much want this bill, by saying the GOP was unified in wanting the measure to go all the way to a floor vote, win or lose. I believe that would be a position nearly all Hispanics would accept -- and respect. Their anger at the failure to pass will rightly shift from Republican opponents to the impatient Democratic majority leader. But that is only if Republicans, even bill opponents, uniformly and loudly object to Reid pulling the bill.

The Democrats, for their part, would have no effective counter argument: "We had to table the bill, even though it was making progress, because we were afraid that Republicans would delay it." The voters, who are always more perceptive than Democrats give them credit for, would realize the obvious: Tabling a bill delays it forever!

I hope the bill passes; but for those who oppose it, you should be hoping that it's Harry "Pull My Pinky" who pulls it... because then Republicans would escape all the negative fallout from failure.

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, June 6, 2007, at the time of 2:56 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/2147

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Immigration Bill Fends Off Poison Pills Left and Right:

» Republican Party Gets an Unexpected Mulligan - at Reid's Expense from Big Lizards
Yesterday, we reported that there was a strong possibility that the immigration bill would go down... not because it was rejected by the Senate in an up-or-down vote, but because of the impatience of Senate Majority Leader Harry "Pinky" Reid... [Read More]

Tracked on June 7, 2007 8:24 PM

Comments

The following hissed in response by: patrick neid

...."because then Republicans would escape all the negative fallout from failure."

repubs are so ham fisted that if the bill passes they will suffer and if it fails for any reason, including reid, they will suffer.

that pain repubs feel in their side is a fork.

The above hissed in response by: patrick neid at June 6, 2007 3:15 PM

The following hissed in response by: Martin Hague

Dafydd

Why are you telling us how things 'usually work' when referring to a bill that circumvented the normal legislative process, and was instead negotiated in secret by a small cabal of Senators in the most anti-Democratic fashion imaginable?

Even if you support this dog's breakfast of a bill, you should be outraged at the manner in which it was conceived.

I am still staggered that you think the buffoons that got us to where we are will all of a sudden get Jesus, and start enforcing this new insult to every law-abiding American.

The above hissed in response by: Martin Hague at June 6, 2007 3:54 PM

The following hissed in response by: Terrye

I hope the bill passes too. I am so sick of listening to people bad mouth this bill when they have nothing better to offer. I think it is opportunistic and self serving of these people to pretend they just want to protect the country when 2 years ago they did not say boo about all this. It is just another temper tantrum from people who do not seem to know how to do anything else.

The above hissed in response by: Terrye at June 6, 2007 4:04 PM

The following hissed in response by: Terrye

Dafydd:

The Anchoress has a good couple of posts up on this and she mentions you. It is worth read. She addresses the chronic cry babies.

The above hissed in response by: Terrye at June 6, 2007 4:07 PM

The following hissed in response by: Terrye

Marin:

This bill did not circumvent anything. Good God, it has got to be the most analyzed, studied, obsessed over bill in recent memory. The fact that certain paranoid people want to make an issue where there is not one, says more about the paranoid people than the bill.

The above hissed in response by: Terrye at June 6, 2007 4:10 PM

The following hissed in response by: k2aggie07

You know, I am firmly convinced that under the current laws we could have our border with Mexico (and Canada) shut down today. I guarantee you an armed presence with clearance to use deadly force would end illegal immigration well nigh immediately. Bush could literally stop the flow of illegal immigrants into this country now, in only the amount of time it would take to mobilize our national guardsmen.

Every other country in the world has soldiers on their borders. We even shoot people coming in and out of Iraq. Mexico shoots people attempting to enter illegally from their southern border. Why should it be different for us?

So, given that, a scenario that is possible under the current laws, why do we need new laws to secure the border? The president could legitimately and effectively seal our borders with one stroke of the pen if he so desired.

Additionally, why attempt to pass all of these things bundled together? Why not pass a law dictating new grounds for border security now, considering that it is the critical issue, and fix the legal immigration at our leisure? Sort of like what we did in 1986, only in reverse...and actually following through.

I really don't know enough to comment a ton on the senate-floor level politics going on right now -- but when Newt Gingrich says this bill is a huge mess because everything is bundled together...I trust him. He has infinitely more experience in congress than I do.

If this stuff is so great, why not vote each one as a separate act and let the chips fall where they may?

The above hissed in response by: k2aggie07 at June 6, 2007 4:23 PM

The following hissed in response by: Watchman

I believe you are seriously misrepresenting the Cornyn Amendment. It does not apply to people who have "committed any act of document fraud of identity theft" as you said. (I read it twice, and can't find that language.) Instead it says:

(F) CRIMINAL OFFENSES INVOLVING IDENTIFICATION An alien shall be considered to be deportable if the alien has been convicted of violation of (or of a conspiracy to attempt to violate) an offense described in Section 208 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 408) (relating to social security account numbers or social security cards) or Section 1028 of title 18, United States Code (relating to fraud and related activity in connection with identification). (emphasis added)

The entire amendment can be found here at Cornyn's website.

There is a world of difference between making those who have committed such an offense versus those who have been convicted of such an offense ineligible for the temporary visa. I understand that you want this bill to pass, but you are doing Cornyn a grave injustice by mischaracterizing what he was proposing.

The above hissed in response by: Watchman at June 6, 2007 4:27 PM

The following hissed in response by: DaveR

...."because then Republicans would escape all the negative fallout from failure."

Oh man, that's a funny one! With today's MSM, Harry Reid could stand on the corner with a sign that said "Kill all the Wetbacks!" and the Rats would not lose a single vote for it.

When you have the refs in your pocket, you don't have to worry about getting caught cheating - in fact it is counter-productive to bother to do so, because it cramps your style!

That's why compromise, bi-lateralism or even-handedness is a losing strategy for the Republicans - only the part where we caved will get reported. Rats will get credit for the upside and we will get blame for the down. Our best bet would be to fight like rabid dogs for nothing short of total victory - at least we could respect ourselves. Anything less is tantamount to quitting. Unfortunately, we too have our John Kerrys who think talking about things is the same as winning things.

The above hissed in response by: DaveR at June 6, 2007 5:44 PM

The following hissed in response by: Chris

Perhaps, I missed the discussion;

Sen. Sessions Releases List of 20 Loopholes in the Senate Immigration Bill
http://sessions.senate.gov/pressapp/record.cfm?id=275456

This shamnesty is trash no matter how it is spinned by the ignorant and/or self-serving.

The above hissed in response by: Chris at June 6, 2007 7:32 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Watchman:

There is a world of difference between making those who have committed such an offense versus those who have been convicted of such an offense ineligible for the temporary visa.

Watchman, I rarely say this, but that's about the silliest argument I've ever heard.

You're right. If an immigrant has secretly committed a crime and not been caught and convicted, then he isn't punished for it. Wow.

DaveR:

...."because then Republicans would escape all the negative fallout from failure."

Oh man, that's a funny one! With today's MSM, Harry Reid could stand on the corner with a sign that said "Kill all the Wetbacks!" and the Rats would not lose a single vote for it.

Fortunately, even people who don't work for the elite media are allowed to vote.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh at June 6, 2007 7:35 PM

The following hissed in response by: Bill Faith

As one of the RedStaters pointed out, each of those "poison pill" amendments received at least 41 votes. Even if they were the same 41 votes in each case, 41 votes is enough to prevent cloture.

As Chris mentioned, Senator Sessions has a list of 20 good reasons on his web site for not passing the bill in it's current form. It's an interesting read. If enough people are dumb enough to nominate someone other than Fred Thompson Sen. Sessions would make a good VP candidate. He'd make a good VP in any case but I'm willing to be realistic about the chances of electing a Tennessee/Alabama ticket.

We really do need to do something about immigration one of these days, and those of us who'd be happy with "just enforce the damned borders" are probably going to have to accept an amnesty of some sort to see anything happen. Having someone in the White House whom we trust to follow through on enforcement (I'm thinking FDT all the way) would make a big difference in how much "normalization" a lot of us would be willing to accept.

The above hissed in response by: Bill Faith at June 7, 2007 1:29 AM

The following hissed in response by: lsusportsfan

k2aggie07:

You said:
"You know, I am firmly convinced that under the current laws we could have our border with Mexico (and Canada) shut down today. I guarantee you an armed presence with clearance to use deadly force would end illegal immigration well nigh immediately. Bush could literally stop the flow of illegal immigrants into this country now, in only the amount of time it would take to mobilize our national guardsmen".

Can we live in the real World. Yes I guess Bush could do that just like Bush could if he wanted to invade Bermuda.

Remember the uproar when we called up the little National Guard that we did last year. They are stretched beyond belief. Also speaikng for the good Citizens of Louisiana, Mississippi Texas, Alabama, South Carlonia, Florida, and NOrth Carolina we really need ourt Guard close to home since we are now starting hurricane season. Further this job is part time. THe political fallout(much justifyed) for putting NG after huge deployments in Iraq would be unreal

You said:
"Every other country in the world has soldiers on their borders. We even shoot people coming in and out of Iraq. Mexico shoots people attempting to enter illegally from their southern border. Why should it be different for us?"

Firt NOT EVERY country in the World has that. Look at Europe for instance. Also there are some problems under the Const with that that are murky to say the least. Regardless we are not going to start shooting pregnant women crossing the border to work.

Besides that is immoral and impractical. If you disagree just remember this is the scenaro. A 18 year old boy will look take in his aim mexican woman, child or man and shoot to kill. What happens when they with justifcation refuse to do that. Shall we court martial him. I know I would refuse that order. Needless to say this isnt going to happen and thank GOD

"So, given that, a scenario that is possible under the current laws, why do we need new laws to secure the border? The president could legitimately and effectively seal our borders with one stroke of the pen if he so desired"

I think its clear that since what suggest to secure the borders will not work that we need new laws

"Additionally, why attempt to pass all of these things bundled together? Why not pass a law dictating new grounds for border security now, considering that it is the critical issue, and fix the legal immigration at our leisure? Sort of like what we did in 1986, only in reverse...and actually following through."

Because WE dont have the votes for it. Also there is a fear that once security is done there will be no dealing with the people here. A fear that was increased by COngressman Tancredos statements that dio nothing to soothe those fears at all but made them worse

"I really don't know enough to comment a ton on the senate-floor level politics going on right now -- but when Newt Gingrich says this bill is a huge mess because everything is bundled together...I trust him. He has infinitely more experience in congress than I do."

Newt to say the least is not an unbiased source. IT appears that he sahll be running for PResident not to actually run but just to promote Newt. Also lets not forget that Newt was not exactly the perfect speaker.

The above hissed in response by: lsusportsfan at June 7, 2007 1:37 AM

The following hissed in response by: lsusportsfan

"As one of the RedStaters pointed out, each of those "poison pill" amendments received at least 41 votes. Even if they were the same 41 votes in each case, 41 votes is enough to prevent cloture."

I think the bill will get over 60 votes. Some of those votes are just tough and the reason why they are put up there is because they are not easy to expalin in a 30 second soundbite. If the bill was in erious danger of not getting over 60 votes then I think that would have leaked by now.

The above hissed in response by: lsusportsfan at June 7, 2007 1:43 AM

The following hissed in response by: lsusportsfan

Chris you said:
"This shamnesty is trash no matter how it is spinned by the ignorant and/or self-serving"

Chris I support the bill and I a consider myself not ignorant or self serving,

Two thoughts here. We are Republicans and conservatives and we have to come together after this bill whatever the result

Second I notice that you have a link to the Fred Thompson Campaign on your user name. A piece of adive. Fred Thompson is he is the nominee will need us "self serving " and ignorant folk too" to campaign and vote for him. If you wish to call all those that this bill by those terms you might do Fred a favor and change the link on your name so it is not associated with him

The above hissed in response by: lsusportsfan at June 7, 2007 1:49 AM

The following hissed in response by: Watchman

Dafydd, this is not worthy of you. You were wrong in your post, making the very error of which you have repeatedly accused those who oppose the bill of making--misreading or misrepresenting what it said. And you are wrong in your response to my comment.

Cornyn's amendment flatly contradicts your post describing its contents. I quoted the amendment to demonstrate that. But rather than doing the honorable thing and correcting your error, you retreat to attacks.

Either you are being deliberately obtuse, or you are so committed to your false characterization that you cannot afford to admit it. You have been rational up to now in this debate, but not this time. I am disappointed in your refusal to correct your error.

The above hissed in response by: Watchman at June 7, 2007 7:10 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Watchman:

All right, I'll give you this much: Cornyn didn't propose to deny Z visas to the "virtually all" of illegal immigrants who have committed some form of document fraud at some point in their illegal entry and presence here -- only that clumsy portion of "virtually all" who got caught at it.

Perhaps you honestly think this "flatly contradicts" what I wrote, but I don't think very many would agree with you.

It was a poison pill amendment whose only purpose was to find a way to freeze out a group of illegals who did nothing worse than virtually all other illegals. It was vindictive and bitter, and we're better off having got rid of it.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh at June 7, 2007 4:37 PM

The following hissed in response by: exDemo

I am amazed at the stupidity of choosing to fight only a battle ground of your opponent's choice.

Firstly if you suffer a trauma, the principles of First Aid say:

First STAUNCH THE BLEEDING. Then you can then decide to clean up, comb your hair, at cetera.

Control the border, and then address the 12 million knowing that more will NOT be coming in without our invitation or control. Then I'd accept paths to citizenship. But you pay the $5000 fine, and back taxes, for smuggling your way in, when you apply for the new Z-Visa, right then and there. Not later when you are in effect punished to apply for citizenship. We should want to encourage assimilation and citizenship; not penalize it and discourage it.

If the corrupt politicians of Mexico want us to take 12 million more of their disaffected poor off their hands, that is equivalent to marrying them. Where is the DOWRY? I demand a DOWRY.

I think that a couple of Pemex oilfields and a couple of northern provinces might be a suitable DOWRY. Do any of you doubt that in a decade those former northern Mexican provinces would be any poorer than the citizens of the States of Nevada, Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas? Of course not. Why ? Although politically incorrect to say so, some cultures and governmental systems just produce different results for their citizens than other cultures. Ours simply works ( I'll venture to say the word) BETTER.

The above hissed in response by: exDemo at June 7, 2007 5:26 PM

The following hissed in response by: Watchman

Well, you may have beat Cornyn, but apparently you couldn't beat Dorgan. Now if you and your friends would join the effort to enforce the law, maybe we could actually get something done. But I'm not exactly going to be holding my breath on that one.

The above hissed in response by: Watchman at June 7, 2007 6:20 PM