Boehner: The amnesty bill is a “piece of sh*t”; Update: Public opposes bill, 48-26; Update: Senate cuts guest worker program in half

posted at 9:23 am on May 23, 2007 by Allahpundit

What’s the opposite of heart-ache?

House Minority Leader John Boehner, speaking to a private gathering of Republican activists last night, called the Senate’s immigration compromise bill a “piece of shit” but said that he had promised President Bush earlier in the day that he would let his teeth be a barrier to such thoughts in public.

Boehner spoke last night at a small reception for the Republican Rapid Responders on Capitol Hill.

“I promised the President today that I wouldn’t say anything bad about … this piece of shit bill,” he said, according to two attendees.

He’d better start saying it because they had a filibuster-proof 64 votes yesterday to defeat an amendment that would have stripped the guest worker program from the bill. The Times takes that as a sign that there’s a solid majority willing to support the bill in its entirety; if they had lost on the guest worker program, the whole thing might have crumbled. WashTimes notes that most Republicans were among the 64, too, the lure of cheap labor apparently too sweet to resist.

But that doesn’t mean they’re the chief problem. I’ll leave you with this tidbit from Hotline. Your president:

A senior Republican official said yesterday that while the chances of the bill, which opens pathways to citizenship for most of the U.S.’s 12 million illegal immigrants, are “50/50″ in the House and that the White House would spend its time lobbying Democrats, rather than Republicans, to achieve a majority.

Update: Fox says they’ve confirmed Hotline’s report. He said it.

Update: The first poll is in. A piece of sh*t indeed.

The measure is opposed by 47% of Republicans, 51% of Democrats, and 46% of those not affiliated with either major party.

The enforcement side of the debate is clearly where the public passion lies on the issue. Seventy-two percent (72%) of voters say it is Very Important for “the government to improve its enforcement of the borders and reduce illegal immigration.” That view is held by 89% of Republicans, 65% of Democrats, and 63% of unaffiliated voters…

Still, 65% of voters would be willing to support a compromise including a “very long path to citizenship” provided that “the proposal required the aliens to pay fines and learn English” and that the compromise “would truly reduce the number of illegal aliens entering the country.”…

These survey results are consistent with other recent polling data showing that most Americans favor an enforcement-only reform bill. Support drops when a “path to citizenship” is added to the mix.

Update: They passed Jeff Bingaman’s amendment to the guest worker program, which cuts the annual number from 400,000 to 200,000. That’s something the Republicans will try to point to now as proof that they’re taking “tough” measures to limit the number of new illegals.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

csdeven on May 23, 2007 at 9:56 PM

After 12 years of republicans doing almost zip now you are crying foul “Wah I want a do over and bipartisan legislation crafted by a democratic majority is not fair”

LOL get a grip my young friend.

Bradky on May 23, 2007 at 10:49 PM

Way to show your “open-mindedness”, liberal troll.

thirteen28 on May 23, 2007 at 9:42 PM

You trolled first with your comment – I merely pointed out who would be more likely to cotton to that idea.

Bradky on May 23, 2007 at 10:50 PM

Gee … after taking a look at the bill a little closer …

- Looks like the government will get around building that national ID database they have been itching to build. Of course you will need to give a litte more data to the feds.

- The DREAM Act made it. Those of us paying taxes get to pay for it.

- Not only those receiving amnesty, but also all of the rest of us (citizens and LEGAL immigrants) will have to have our papers in order to retain empoyment. Get ready comrade.

Question: If these things don’t exceed past government excess like the Stamp Act or the Quartering Act … what does?

AZ_Redneck on May 23, 2007 at 10:51 PM

AZ_Redneck on May 23, 2007 at 10:51 PM

The Stamp Act and Quartering acts were a little before my time and when we were still a colony so I’m not sure I can draw a comparison.

As for the ID why the resistance? If for example the ID only has a number (tied to a national database for driver’s licenses) name and verification of citizenship it doesn’t seem like a lot to ask if we are to rein in the illegal immigrant problem as well as get a handle on who is actually inside our borders.

My reservations would only be if the social security number, health or financial databases were tied in. Then the big brother concerns would be valid.
What alternative do you propose instead of a national ID card?

Bradky on May 23, 2007 at 10:58 PM

Well,

Leadership abouts setting the example, Congress now has to make a decision, BTW they can always strip people of citizenship as well

EricPWJohnson on May 23, 2007 at 11:10 PM

I’m still not seeing how this bill will encourage illegals to become citizens accept blanket amnesty. Why would they? They are getting a free ride right now. They have amnesty now. Free health care on the backs of us regular folks, social programs, free schools…in Spanish, no less!

It’s as if the world is spinning in reverse and I’m standing still. I’m sick to my stomach!

SouthernGent on May 23, 2007 at 11:34 PM

Bradky on May 23, 2007 at 10:58 PM

Replace the Stamp Act with McCain-Feingold? The Quartering Act with The National Firearms Act?

Creation of the national database is a foot in the door to tyranny. Although dealing with illegal immigration is the main concern cited today, the “leaders” and talking heads will sell a gullible nation down the road on how a national ID could help confirm criminal suspects, prevent terrorism, or improve the accuracy of public health information.

Negative consequences, such as invasions of privacy, discrimination and cost will be dismissed as a nuance.

Once the utilitarian argument comes out (sacrifice a little liberty for the safety of all), and there is “agreement” from the aristocracy on other problems to be resolved with the national ID database, and how other databases would be beneficial supplements to quickly solving the problem … your financial and health data will come rolling in… Let’s put the gun owners in there… We need a special marker for those opposed to X… and a marker for those that support Y …

Then a little “crisis” and – poof. Pandora’s box is open.

We don’t need a national ID. Like many others have stated. Let’s simply enforce the laws already on the books.

AZ_Redneck on May 23, 2007 at 11:57 PM

We don’t need a national ID. Like many others have stated. Let’s simply enforce the laws already on the books.

AZ_Redneck on May 23, 2007 at 11:57 PM

I don’t know – identifying the illegals is going to be a herculean task

Bradky on May 24, 2007 at 12:02 AM

Bradky-

America was built on Herculean taskmastering.

Panama Canal; Manhattan Project; Moon Landing, etc.

profitsbeard on May 24, 2007 at 12:37 AM

profitsbeard on May 24, 2007 at 12:37 AM

But none of those involved searching for and deporting 12 million illegals. Think of that Ilian (sp) kid that Janet Reno had taken out of his uncle’s home to return to cuba. 100 video clips like that and the bounty hunter tactics would come to a screeching halt.

National ID card is the first step needed in my opinion. It makes the enforcement measures much easier and takes away incentive to come here illegally in the first place.

Bradky on May 24, 2007 at 12:42 AM

profitsbeard on May 24, 2007 at 12:37 AM

As soon as we secure the border and crack down on businesses that hire illegals, we will see a mass exodus of criminals and their anchors leave this country voluntarily. Like cockroaches when you shime a light on them. Then the honest law abiding immigrants will be fast tracked to fill the vacant jobs left by the criminals.

Buh-Bye! Don’t let the gate hit you in the a$$ on the way out.

csdeven on May 24, 2007 at 1:36 AM

I’d just like to note that the picture on this post is one of the weirdest I’ve ever seen. “Shaun of the Dead” meets Congress?

Been hittin’ the sauce there, Allah?

jaleach on May 24, 2007 at 3:07 AM

The measure is opposed by 47% of Republicans, 51% of Democrats, and 46% of those not affiliated with either major party.

I’m dissapointed that Dems outnumber Republicans in their opposition to this abomination. Of course, it seems likely that a good deal of that 46% identified themselves as Republicans until this thing started.

Wolfman on May 24, 2007 at 5:11 AM

I don’t know – identifying the illegals is going to be a herculean task

Bradky on May 24, 2007 at 12:02 AM

It’s actually pretty easy to identify them – just wait until they show up in the ER’s for typhus or tuberculosis.

pullingmyhairout on May 24, 2007 at 9:52 AM

What alternative do you propose instead of a national ID card?

Bradky on May 23, 2007 at 10:58 PM

How about… enforce the current laws ?

Maxx on May 24, 2007 at 10:28 AM

National ID card is the first step needed in my opinion. It makes the enforcement measures much easier and takes away incentive to come here illegally in the first place.

Bradky on May 24, 2007 at 12:42 AM

The “green card” didn’t work, what makes you think the National ID card will ?

Maxx on May 24, 2007 at 10:31 AM

I just called Boehner’s office (http://republicanleader.house.gov/) and told the lady there that he (Boehner) should speak out against the President’s bill. I told her it’s tearing the party apart, that no GOP, Dem or Independent wants it; we’re calling our Senators and they aren’t listening and so someone should speak up for us.

FWIW.

linlithgow on May 24, 2007 at 11:25 AM

Bradky-

If it’s a Herculean task to identify illegals, how are we going to confirm the touchback programme? How are we going to monitor other provisions? You do know that there are huge loopholes and in one section it says that the requirements can be waived. That bill is the epitome of sound and fury signifying nothing. It’s horrible

linlithgow on May 24, 2007 at 11:28 AM

So they cut half of the guest worker program.

I suspect that it was doubled what they wanted to begin with. we used to do this all the time in asking for hardware – request twice what you need and after management cuts it in half your ok.

CrazyFool on May 24, 2007 at 12:43 PM

re: the photo on the front page.

Is that Ed from Shaun of the Dead peaking over Boehner’s left shoulder?

huckleberry on May 24, 2007 at 1:31 PM

Yes it is, Boehner looks like a zombie in that pic.

Bad Candy on May 24, 2007 at 2:04 PM

Update: Senate cuts guest worker program in half

I’m not sure how cutting it in half improves anything.

Half of a “piece of sh*t”, is still a piece of sh*t.

Lawrence on May 24, 2007 at 2:13 PM

linlithgow on May 24, 2007 at 11:28 AM

From what I understand of the bill the enforcement has to occur first — I know some think triggers are unrealistic.
That said, if the enforcement begins to take hold along with a national ID card then the other parts become manageable.

I keep going back to my main concern. IF nothing is accomplished now how much worse will the problem be in another six years when a reelected president would be willing to sign off on a bill?

No one has adequately enforced the existing laws to date and a bill that only focuses on the border enforcement is not likely to accomplish much either.

In any event this is not an issue in which a bill can pass and we all go our merry ways claiming success. A bipartisan bill needs a heavy PR effort as it takes hold – public ads encouraging citizen help/support. Might be a good idea to let the Bush Sr/Bill C team go on the road to talk it up (one of many tactics).

Profitsbeard mentioned some of the big tasks taken and has a point. But it would be like the man on the moon vision — if citizens of all stripes hadn’t jumped on board and been supportive it wouldn’t have happened. Solution to the illegal immigration problem would need leaders of both parties to encourage our support and help. But if one party base defines the solution and rams it through (or kills it through parliamentary measures) we will only see more division and a problem that may come to be unsolvable in five or six years.

Bradky on May 24, 2007 at 5:03 PM

From what I understand of the bill the enforcement has to occur first — I know some think triggers are unrealistic.

No – only the spending for enforcement has to occur, and that isn’t doesn’t even come first. You have to be naive to believe that spending by itself equals success in any government endeavor.

That said, if the enforcement begins to take hold along with a national ID card then the other parts become manageable.

But the enforcement won’t take hold, as they have no intent of honoring that part of the bill. Their actions today on voting down the amendment to end sanctuary cities is Exhibit A. Exhibit B is their gutting of funding for the wall that was approved last year. Exhibit C is the 1986 Bill – Amensty occurred, enforcement didn’t. On Michelle’s website she documented seven different amnesties starting with teh 1986 amensty, and in not one of them did enforcement increase.

In light of that history, why the hell would you believe it will this time, particularly when there are already plenty enforcment laws that are on the books that are being ignored as we speak? How much evidence do you need?

I keep going back to my main concern. IF nothing is accomplished now how much worse will the problem be in another six years when a reelected president would be willing to sign off on a bill?

It will be much worse if this bill is accomplished now with its key provisions in place, because they have absolutely no intent whatsoever to enact the enforcement provisions in good faith. See above.

No one has adequately enforced the existing laws to date and a bill that only focuses on the border enforcement is not likely to accomplish much either.

And, as history shows, a bill that includes amnesty certainly won’t help enforcement either. However I disagree with the premise that the borders cannot be enforced without a bill that focuses soley thereon – we can if we have the political will. And judging by the visceral and overwhelming reaction on both sides against this bill, that will exists everywhere except in DC.

In any event this is not an issue in which a bill can pass and we all go our merry ways claiming success. A bipartisan bill needs a heavy PR effort as it takes hold – public ads encouraging citizen help/support. Might be a good idea to let the Bush Sr/Bill C team go on the road to talk it up (one of many tactics).

It’s a non-starter because of all of the betrayals of enforcment in past actions to deal with this problem. We’ve had so many broken promises of enforcement that no amount of PR will convince anyone other than the most gullible.

Solution to the illegal immigration problem would need leaders of both parties to encourage our support and help. But if one party base defines the solution and rams it through (or kills it through parliamentary measures) we will only see more division and a problem that may come to be unsolvable in five or six years.

Bradky on May 24, 2007 at 5:03 PM

Or perhaps, one president and enough members of congress can actually show some will to implement enforcement targets that are real targets – not just spending targets – which will stop the flow of illegals across the border, and the employment of illegals in the interior, while ending bullsh!t like sanctuary cities.

thirteen28 on May 24, 2007 at 6:17 PM

We’ve had so many broken promises of enforcement that no amount of PR will convince anyone other than the most gullible.
thirteen28 on May 24, 2007 at 6:17 PM

The PR effort I refer to is the one that will get most citizens on board to help enforce the existing laws and new measures in the bill. NOT a PR effort to convince people the problem is now solved and they can go back to watching the sitcoms.

Bradky on May 26, 2007 at 8:38 PM

Comment pages: 1 2