10:30 10:50 a.m.: Cloture 2 — Something Wicked This Way Comes; Update: Ensign will vote no, Cochran may vote yes; Update: What’s your alternative, asks Teddy — a Gestapo? Update: 53 NO’S — CLOTURE FAILS! Update: Roll of glory added!

posted at 9:27 am on June 28, 2007 by Allahpundit

We’re prepared for any contingency. Victory means a Humpbot cameo; defeat means I get tanked on hard liquor in the middle of the day. It’s win/win, really. The boss has already done a quickie round-up of stories this morning predicting the bill’s demise. John Hawkins’s Senate source lends his voice to the chorus:

To begin with, my source said he is guardedly optimistic that the bill will fail the 2nd cloture vote tomorrow. That is because he thinks that some of the senators who voted for cloture on Tuesday were doing so because they were being “senatorial” by allowing a debate. But, that only goes so far, and everyone realizes at this point that the Thursday vote is the final vote on amnesty as far as the base is concerned. In other words, a “yes” on cloture is a “yes” to amnesty.

At that point, I asked about the “fool the yahoos” maneuver. Will there be senators voting “yes” on cloture and then voting against the final bill and hoping that they can avoid being tagged as supporting amnesty? He said that because of all the attention this issue has gotten, the base isn’t going to be fooled and that anyone who does that will just have to hope that his election isn’t close enough that thousands conservatives sitting at home can swing it the other way.

McCain’s Iowa campaign chairman told WaPo yesterday he wished the issue of immigration had never come to the floor. As for St. John’s crony-in-chief, he’s featured prominently in the Times’s story this morning about senators being threatened by nutjobs angry over the bill. See-Dub will clue you in to the agenda behind the piece if you haven’t guessed already, but here’s your quote of the day from the man who once derided amnesty opponents as “bigots” before a crowd of swooning La Raza members:

“One of the requirements of public service in modern America is dealing with a few voices that are full of hate,” Mr. Graham said. “And our discourse and the way we politic, the way we engage each other, brings that out.”

It’s bringing something out: according to freshman Blue Dog Jon Tester, the feedback he’s getting from constituents is more overwhelmingly opposed on this issue than it is on Iraq, where public opposition currently hovers in the mid- to high-60s.

Updates will be flying fast and furious in an hour or so. I’ll do my best to liveblog the vote, although on Tuesday they didn’t repeat each senator’s vote after calling his/her name so it may not be possible. While you wait, read John Shadegg’s nightmare scenario at NRO about the various loopholes built into the bill that would let illegals caught while sneaking across the border nonetheless obtain legal status. Oh, and read this piece at Politico, which is comic in its adulation of Ted Kennedy even by normal media standards.

Humpbot waits in the wings, wondering if it’s his time to shine. Exit question: Pelosi and the gang deserve a pay raise, don’t you think?

Update: Here’s a no we weren’t counting on — Ensign has flipped. Don’t fear the reaper!

Update: They’re trying to flip Thad Cochran the other way now. If my vote tally last night was right, then we don’t need him.

Update: This must be one of those “voices of hate” Lindsey Graham was wringing his hands about. This debate was Godwinned weeks ago; might as well keep it up to the bitter end.

How many times does Teddy need to be told “close the borders first” before he grasps that that’s the alternative?


Update: Reid’s taken abuse, Bush has taken abuse, McCain and Graham and Kyl and Martinez have taken abuse enough for a lifetime, but one guy has stayed miraculously clean even though he’s sat idly by and let this sham take its course despite the uproar from his base and the pleas from Sessions et al. Save a little bile for him.

Update: How absurd has it gotten?

In case you didn’t catch this, the opponents of shamnesty are rushing through their statements because the Grand Schemers have only given them 10 minutes to speak. The shamnesty senators will get the rest of the hour to talk. “Typical,” says Session, of the way this debate has gone. And so starkly absurd. You’ve got the pro-amnesty senators on the floor now all bleating about how debate shouldn’t be ended…having just limited their opponents’ time to a measly 10 minutes.

Update: Here we go. Standby for liveblog totals.

First run-through is 19-21. Webb voted no! I think most of them deliberately haven’t voted yet, though, so that they can see what the first totals look like and then vote accordingly.

25-30 now! Humpbot is warming up…

31-38! TWO MORE.

I count fully 53 no’s. We did it.

Update: Here’s the roll. Gonna go do the cross-check to see who switched.

Update: The yes/no switchers were Bingaman, Bond, Brown, Brownback, Burr, Coleman, Collins, Domenici, Ensign, Harkin, McConnell, Murkowski, Ben Nelson, Pryor, Stevens, Voinovich(!), Warner, and Webb. Republicans are in boldfaced. I guess you can thank Sean Hannity for shaming Voinovich into flipping.

It’s worth going back and looking at the order in which they voted, to see who held back and waited to gauge how the vote was going before casting his/her ballot. I’ll bet Mitch McConnell was one of them.

Update: Well, well. Brownback initially voted yes — and then switched to no when he realized he was going to lose. Disgraceful.

cloture.png


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 10 11 12

Maybe HA needs a comment numbering system like Michelle’s new blog.

Back to the subject at hand … now that the beast bill is dead, the Congresscritters should have plenty of time to focus on border security … or will they focus on canning talk radio?

darwin on June 28, 2007 at 6:46 PM

Okay, I have just officially written to my senators to thank them for their good work. I think we (as in the lucky ones without these schmucks) should all do this, don’t you??

hollygolightly on June 28, 2007 at 6:46 PM

unseen on June 28, 2007 at 6:44 PM

I think the last paragraph was most interesting and should be a caution light for the base, in my opinion.

Bradky on June 28, 2007 at 6:47 PM

darwin on June 28, 2007 at 6:46 PM

Ugh, this is so annoying since I’m pretty sure you’re right Talk radio will be the next big attack by hypocritical libs, even though its relevance in comparison to border security is not even close.

hollygolightly on June 28, 2007 at 6:48 PM

Fred Barnes just said that Lindsey Graham was a “profile in courage” over the shamnesty bill on Brit Hume’s show. Yeesh! Sounds like the Beltway Boys need to step outside the Beltway once in a while and talk to some real Americans.

ReubenJCogburn on June 28, 2007 at 6:49 PM

When the next bill gets around to being constructed it will likely be another four years minimum. We’ll have two million more illegals in the country whom we know nothing about.

Bradky on June 28, 2007 at 6:51 PM

E. J. Dionne is a huge lefty.

RushBaby on June 28, 2007 at 6:51 PM

RushBaby on June 28, 2007 at 6:51 PM

And that negates an analysis outright?

Bradky on June 28, 2007 at 6:53 PM

Bradky, interesting analysis, and the following two concluding paragraphs are dead wrong. I can’t stand the little and self-aggrandizing E. J. Dionne, whos so obviously biased 100% of the time. The only thing good about him is that he doesn’t pretend not to be – should be an opinion guy and not a journalist.

This disaffection explains the pure rage in many parts of the party over immigration. By highlighting the failure of border enforcement, the battle has given rank-and-file Republicans an acceptable channel for venting against the administration’s incompetence. It has also become the focus of Republican doubts about Bush-style internationalism and, especially for less affluent Republicans, a means for expressing legitimate economic and cultural anxieties.

This could be the new Republican Party in the making: a disappointed, dissatisfied and inward-looking coalition that abandons Reagan’s hopefulness and tries to hang on by playing on fears of terrorism and anger about immigration. If Fred Thompson’s job is to restore optimism to a dispirited bunch, he faces a task that might have overwhelmed even Ronald Reagan.

I’m not at all pessimistic. This ‘divorce’ or threat of it is good and the timing couldn’t be better, especially for Fred. He’s got us and Fred pegged totally wrong. He’s got one thing right – to assume that anyone knows who the conservatives are. His stereotyping was hilarious. As always, nice chatting with you. Much more to come over the next year and one half over who will lead us.

Entelechy on June 28, 2007 at 6:55 PM

Bradky on June 28, 2007 at 6:53 PM

It sheds light on the point of view from which it was written. I mean, listen to this:

This could be the new Republican Party in the making: a disappointed, dissatisfied and inward-looking coalition that abandons Reagan’s hopefulness and tries to hang on by playing on fears of terrorism and anger about immigration.

Ha, ha, ha. After today, I think we all have renewed energy for facing our future!

RushBaby on June 28, 2007 at 6:56 PM

or will they focus on canning talk radio?

darwin on June 28, 2007 at 6:46 PM

Yep, the Peloser is fully on it – see Drudge.

Entelechy on June 28, 2007 at 6:58 PM

PRCalDude on June 28, 2007 at 4:28 PM

Yes massive doses of slap therapy.

sonnyspats1 on June 28, 2007 at 7:02 PM

Great day, all, I’m heading out.

With great affection,

RushBaby on June 28, 2007 at 7:03 PM

Entelechy on June 28, 2007 at 6:55 PM

RushBaby on June 28, 2007 at 6:56 PM

Entelechy & Rush Baby
Achh! I posted the wrong column. The cautionary note was in the WSJ piece at http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010263

Last two paragraphs were:

“By the way, the growth in the Hispanic population will continue regardless of what happens with immigration from now on. The number of Hispanics who already hold green cards guarantees that their share of the electorate will increase over time even if Congress could seal the Southern border tomorrow. The GOP should be competing for these voters rather than driving them away with a barely concealed message of “Mexicans, go home.”

Notwithstanding the small but loud segment of the GOP base preoccupied with the issue, hostility to immigration has never been a political winner. Like trade protection, people protectionism always polls better in telephone surveys than on Election Day. For a Presidential candidate especially, it sends a negative message rather than one of optimistic leadership. If GOP candidates can’t support Mr. Bush and Senator Jon Kyl on immigration, they should at least avoid the kind of demagoguery that will hurt their party for years to come.”

Not a Fred observation, just a strategy observation.

Regards,
Brad

Bradky on June 28, 2007 at 7:08 PM

Bradky on June 28, 2007 at 6:47 PM

Only if we allow the CEO’s to continue to frame the debate for our side.

Possible Planks for a new GOP party:

Free trade as long as all countries have the same environmental and labor protections.

Close all tax loopholes by bringing the Fair TAx to the light of day.

Give block grants to States and let them spend the money how they see fit.

Get the SCOTUS out of my life.

Open reporting of all money given to partys and canidates

Free speech is King

No child left behind needs an End of Grade test on Civics

Increase military spending/border control and enforement spending/CIA/FBI

Decrease spending on EVERYTHING ELSE

End Corp. welform as we know it.

use KELO decsion to Condemn K-street and turn it into a strip mall.

unseen on June 28, 2007 at 7:14 PM

Let us not let up on enforcing the existing laws and the border fence.

sonnyspats1 on June 28, 2007 at 7:20 PM

Hi Brad,

Thanks for updating the link. The WSJ is also reading this wrong. Not many are xenophobic and I haven’t heard much of the “go home”. In San Diego one can’t help but know, work and talk to a lot of Latinos, legal and illegal. They don’t want the laws broken either.

1. Enforce the current laws: borders, employers
2. Establish workers programs, for where/when needed

No one sane can tell me that the liberals stand for less than this because it is better for all involved. As is now is not good and putting in place an amnesty every 20 years repeats the cycle. It hurts all, Americans, immigrants, legal and illegal. It only benefits one group, the one the left love to hate, business. Business can still flourish by doing the legal things. That would benefit the country’s security and standing, as an example of not being a 3rd world lawless ‘beacon’.

The political whoring on the potential votes happens on the Left, let’s face it. That is the real shame. If the Left would want to fix what’s wrong, both for the country and the people I’d listen. Until then, it’s all “how many will vote for us”. I’m glad the conservatives are not focused on that only, while destroying the fabric of the country, and I don’t mean the racial breakdown. I have no issues with ethnicity.

Entelechy on June 28, 2007 at 7:20 PM

Bradky,

I’ve heard a lot of Hispanic Americans are against an uncontrolled, wide open border. They care about downward pressure on wages and security, too.

gmoonster on June 28, 2007 at 7:22 PM

By the way, the growth in the Hispanic population will continue regardless of what happens with immigration from now on. The number of Hispanics who already hold green cards guarantees that their share of the electorate will increase over time even if Congress could seal the Southern border tomorrow. The GOP should be competing for these voters rather than driving them away with a barely concealed message of “Mexicans, go home.”

Notwithstanding the small but loud segment of the GOP base preoccupied with the issue, hostility to immigration has never been a political winner. Like trade protection, people protectionism always polls better in telephone surveys than on Election Day. For a Presidential candidate especially, it sends a negative message rather than one of optimistic leadership. If GOP candidates can’t support Mr. Bush and Senator Jon Kyl on immigration, they should at least avoid the kind of demagoguery that will hurt their party for years to come.”

Not a Fred observation, just a strategy observation.

Couple of thoughts. The best way to win the hispanic vote is to increase their wages and give them a path to economic properity. Slaves and indentured servants do not like their masters much. google it!

Second IKE was well loved and he deported millions illegals in his day. Protecting America’s economic/cultural and phyiscal security has always been a winner.

Free trade is going to be so damaged if the stories of China goods killing humans and pets continue to surface. We need to understand unrestrained trade/immigration is not good in and of itself. There has to be some guiderails on all of society to ensure the society continues to functions be it morals or free trade or immigration.

The WSJ is advocating nothing less than international anarchy.

unseen on June 28, 2007 at 7:23 PM

Hey am I the only one having trouble with the

Wall Street Journal morons wonder:

thread?

doriangrey on June 28, 2007 at 7:37 PM

doriangrey on June 28, 2007 at 7:37 PM

No, mine’s fine. ???

hollygolightly on June 28, 2007 at 7:48 PM

hollygolightly on June 28, 2007 at 7:48 PM

It’s all screwed up for me. In firefox I get very strange stuff and IE cant see it at all.

doriangrey on June 28, 2007 at 7:50 PM

Fire Fox I have put the robot video on the comments and where it was originally posted.

Drtuddle on June 28, 2007 at 7:55 PM

And another one comes out per drudge. anyone else see that Free trade is a losing political plank in 2008 yet?

Farmed seafood has now joined tires, toothpaste and toy trains on the list of tainted and defective products from China that could be hazardous to a person’s health.

Federal health officials said Thursday they were detaining three types of Chinese fish – catfish, basa and dace – as well as shrimp and eel after repeated testing turned up contamination with drugs unapproved in the United States for use in farmed seafood.

The officials said there have been no reports of illnesses nor do the products pose any immediate health risk. They stopped short of ordering a ban on the fresh and frozen seafood.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070628/D8Q239O00.html

unseen on June 28, 2007 at 7:58 PM

Entelechy on June 28, 2007 at 7:20 PM

I believe that you have no problems with ethnicity but I think that they wouldn’t have written that piece if there is not at least some xenophia involved from some elements of the party. The vast majority of Republicans are not of this ilk, but as a party they do little to once and for all push this behavior to the side. From the folks that Lou Dobbs got his material from to some who have posted here. And for me personally, I am married to a legal immigrant and have biracial kids who have experienced very cruel things said and done to them along the way from people of all political persuasions.

I’m not going to defend the left’s position – they can make the attempt if they like. But if the Republicans want my vote they need to impose discipline on the rogue elements. Win with ideas and not fearmongering.

Bradky on June 28, 2007 at 8:01 PM

When the next bill gets around to being constructed it will likely be another four years minimum. We’ll have two million more illegals in the country whom we know nothing about.

Bradky on June 28, 2007 at 6:51 PM

Or, perhaps they could start enforcing current immigration laws and secure the border and then there won’t be another two million more illegals. Maybe, pray tell, there might even be fewer.

The fact that this is such a novel idea to some of you is why this debate never gets anywhere and why amnesty for illegals is a huge political loser.

The last amnesty was tried when there were 3 million. Did that bill result in a reduced number of illegals?

Why is this so hard to figure out? Are you pro-amnesty types really that obtuse?

thirteen28 on June 28, 2007 at 8:05 PM

Why is this so hard to figure out? Are you pro-amnesty types really that obtuse?

thirteen28 on June 28, 2007 at 8:05 PM

Obtuse no. Very skeptical that the status quo will change, yes. That’s based on past performance. Business got a pass and the unions can breathe a sigh of relief.

Bradky on June 28, 2007 at 8:10 PM

Obtuse no. Very skeptical that the status quo will change, yes. That’s based on past performance. Business got a pass and the unions can breathe a sigh of relief.

Bradky on June 28, 2007 at 8:10 PM

If you want the status quo to change, then the first thing you need to do is enforce the current laws. The bill that was before the senate would have only codified the current status quo into law while doing nothing (despite their BS to the contrary) to actually secure the borders.

The feds have had numerous chances to earn our trust on this issue and they’ve squandered every one of them. Asking us to trust them after repeated failures was foolhardy. Asking for another amnesty after what happened last time was even more foolhardy.

thirteen28 on June 28, 2007 at 8:17 PM

Bradky on June 28, 2007 at 7:08 PM

Troll alert: some of you have let this dimwit hijack a thread again……….

Janos Hunyadi on June 28, 2007 at 8:21 PM

Like I said I’m skeptical that will happen with an election coming up. I’m sure both parties will claim to have the right answer, all the while another million or two join the growing number. I don’t enforce the laws – the authorities do. At local levels do you really believe that some small police departments refuse to look the other way when pressured by the ranchers and farmers who use the labor?

Bradky on June 28, 2007 at 8:22 PM

Janos Hunyadi on June 28, 2007 at 8:21 PM

Talking about the immigration bill is hijacking now?

Bradky on June 28, 2007 at 8:23 PM

Very skeptical that the status quo will change

This bill was nothing but the status quo. Real change needs to shut off the indentured servitude that the CEO’s are hooked on. They are worse than crack addicts about this.

unseen on June 28, 2007 at 8:24 PM

Like I said I’m skeptical that will happen with an election coming up. I’m sure both parties will claim to have the right answer, all the while another million or two join the growing number. I don’t enforce the laws – the authorities do. At local levels do you really believe that some small police departments refuse to look the other way when pressured by the ranchers and farmers who use the labor?

Bradky on June 28, 2007 at 8:22 PM

I can understand your skepticism. It has plenty of historical precedent to back it up. Passing this bill would have done nothing to reverse the status quo, other than to codify it into law and cause an even bigger rush for the borders.

The solution really is simple though. Enforce the laws. Secure the border. Until those things happen, there will be no legislative progress made on the issue.

thirteen28 on June 28, 2007 at 8:29 PM

thirteen28 on June 28, 2007 at 8:29 PM

I’d be more encouraged if those who opposed the bill’s passage turned the same energy toward holding businesses and law enforcement accountable for doing just that.

Bradky on June 28, 2007 at 8:32 PM

I’ve been dying to get home to join you all in celebrating the defeat of this horrible bill especially since it’s passage woud have meant that Americans have lost control of their government. Woohoo

Remember though it’s not just big business who hires illegals immigrants some of us private citizens have illegal immigrants cleaning our houses, watching our kids, mowing our lawns, washing our cars, painting our houses, constructing our add-on and on and on and on…What are we going to do? We need to really take a hard look at how we’ve contrbuted/benefited and we have to stop hiring the illegals too if this is really a matter of law and principle.

CCRWM on June 28, 2007 at 8:34 PM

I’d be more encouraged if those who opposed the bill’s passage turned the same energy toward holding businesses and law enforcement accountable for doing just that.

Bradky on June 28, 2007 at 8:32 PM

If you haven’t seen that energy from at least the grassroots, then you’re not paying attention. And it’s not going to go away either – unless the feds actually start enforcing their own laws.

thirteen28 on June 28, 2007 at 8:38 PM

thirteen28 on June 28, 2007 at 8:38 PM

I’m paying attention but until I see real progress I remain skeptical. Can the grassroots by themselves make business and law enforcement accountable and do construction businesses (as CCRWM mentioned) start following the law? Those are mostly small business owners, many of whom lean republican. It is easy to point out the hired help like nannies and maids the rich employ but the rubber hits the road when the businesses in construction and agriculture start following the law.
Or does everyone go back to something else when the new television season starts? Inquiring minds want to know.

Just my two cents.

Bradky on June 28, 2007 at 8:47 PM

Or does everyone go back to something else when the new television season starts? Inquiring minds want to know.

Just my two cents.

Bradky on June 28, 2007 at 8:47 PM

For some people probably. Not for the type that read this blog.

Expect this to be an issue in the ’08 campaign. Expect a candidate that supports an enforcement-first approach to be very popular.

thirteen28 on June 28, 2007 at 8:57 PM

Expect this to be an issue in the ‘08 campaign. Expect a candidate that supports an enforcement-first approach to be very popular.

thirteen28 on June 28, 2007 at 8:57 PM

And in the interim as I pointed out earlier another million or so come across the border in the interim. Win win for politicians and business people alike — we have a plank to run on and the dollars keep rolling in. Elect us and trust us to fix the problem — sorry but I’ve heard that numerous times from both parties re illegal immigration problem.

Bradky on June 28, 2007 at 9:04 PM

Its ironic to watch him complain about his opponents lack of imagination while he bluntly and thoughtlessly vilifys them as Nazis. Remember this is a stunning defeat for both Kennedy and Bush. I never thought such a day would come.

TonyR on June 28, 2007 at 9:19 PM

Kennedy and Pelosi and their ilk love to proclaim how “the American people have spoken!” when an election goes their way, but when the American people really speak out they turn a deaf ear.

infidel4life on June 28, 2007 at 9:28 PM

Is 1107 a record?

Speakup on June 28, 2007 at 9:30 PM

1. Ban all fencing around commercial properties because it doesn’t work and it keeps out illegals. Businesses have no right to stop trespassers who are only seeking a better life

2. “what do you want to do with the 12 million already here?”

We have a very bad unemployment in Michigan. Our car compamies have falling sales. Buy buses. Hire unemployed citizens to drive the buses to the border. I have no trouble paying for this. It costs more for a few months of food stamps, or one ER visit for a sore throat than a bus ride to el Paso. Allow citizens to donate money on their tax return to buy gas to send an illegal home.

I expect a mob scene the day hiring opens

When the buses are no longer needed, donate them to the city of New Orleans

3. Chertoff stated if this bill does not pass he will have to start enforcing the Immigration laws. Call him and ask if he has started yet

4. Give McCain an MRI to find out why you have to give a Mexican a voter’s registration to get him to pick lettuce

5. Ask President Bush at his next news conference to provide a list of the specific jobs Americans don’t do, as mentioned on page one of the White House web site a week ago

We need numbers, job titles and employer names. That would be real accountability

Bush must know exactly how many farm workers are needed since there are already specific laws on the books for those workers

We need head counts for all the other still unnamed job categories

We would finally have proof there are 20 million jobs Americans don’t do. Bush would regain credibility and respect in the eyes of American workers and their families who would realize they do not do these jobs, not even for $50 an hour, as McCain said.

Bush had to have this proof or he would be an idiot to promote this bill to the point of no return. It should not be secret. Share your information Mr President, for God’s sake!

If Bush can’t supply this information, then give him an MRI and a colonoscopy so we can figure out why he wants to patriate 20 million people for no exact reason and so we can remove his head from the dark tunnel in which it is stuck

6. Lastly someone explain to Ted Kennedy that the Rio Grande is not Chappaquiddick. We understand the empathy part, given his long swim, but just paying a fine wasn’t right then, and it isn’t right now

entagor on June 28, 2007 at 9:35 PM

As usual I pressed submit too soon. Above are my post-defeat suggestions for solving illegal immigration

entagor on June 28, 2007 at 9:37 PM

Remember though it’s not just big business who hires illegals immigrants some of us private citizens have illegal immigrants cleaning our houses, watching our kids, mowing our lawns, washing our cars, painting our houses, constructing our add-on and on and on and on…What are we going to do?CCRWM on June 28, 2007 at 8:34 PM

Make babies. I blame the feministe anti abortion lobby.

sonnyspats1 on June 28, 2007 at 10:00 PM

1112th! Biggest thread evah?

Pablo on June 28, 2007 at 10:03 PM

sonnyspats1 on June 28, 2007 at 10:00 PM

Damn those Feminazis

unseen on June 28, 2007 at 10:13 PM

Bradky on June 28, 2007 at 8:01 PM

Brad, we agree completely on this one. From what you’ve shared you’re in a similar situation with HA’s Bryan, who wrote about something similar, a while ago. In general ok, but then there are the fringes. I abhor them more than you can imagine. You’ve probably noticed that I dispise all fringes. Both parties have theirs, and both have their hypocrits.

The defeat of this bill shouldn’t be about parties, though it is, as all is political. The majority of the country didn’t want it and benefits from its stalling. Issues need to be addressed one by one and not in a ‘comprehensive’ whatever concocted in the dark, sped up and attempted to be shoved down the throat of all others. Ours is not a form of government which suffers this and for that we’re all better off, no matter what our party affiliation, or none whatever.

Entelechy on June 28, 2007 at 10:16 PM

Entelechy on June 28, 2007 at 10:16 PM

Issues need to be addressed one by one and not in a ‘comprehensive’ whatever

Our leaders do this to avoid the hard decisions. It is hard to force 12 million people out. It is hard to stand on one side of the fence and say no you can’t come here.

It is easy for your enemy to use this against you in the next election. Saying your mean or a bigot.

By doing a BIG bill which does nothing you appear like your doing something, that you care about all the people and that you still believe in law and order while you are doing nothing.

Before the internet and talk radio this was the SOP in Congress. Now with the information age, it is harder to do nothing and appear that you are doing something.

It appears that the Spin is really starting to stop.

unseen on June 28, 2007 at 10:24 PM

Gee whiz, it would have been fun to comment all day long here. Congrats all on the record here.

Congrats to the US of A on preserving its integrity today. I’ll breathe a major sigh of relief to that.

Tomas: if you’ll go join the fire department because you support firefighters, join the police because you support fighting crime, and join the US Forest Service because you disapprove of forest fires, maybe your own argument will have the slightest bit of validity. Produce that proof or don’t ever use that silly line of false logic again.

flutejpl on June 28, 2007 at 10:27 PM

you imagine 20 million illegal immigrants getting citizenship then using affirmitive action the illegals become our local police officers.

Drtuddle on June 28, 2007 at 10:31 PM

The last amnesty was tried when there were 3 million. Did that bill result in a reduced number of illegals?

thirteen28 on June 28, 2007 at 8:05 PM

You may be referring to 1986 when approximately 3 million illegal aliens were provided amnesty and rewarded with USA citizenship. But is that really the last amnesty since 1986? Numbers USA says there has been 7 amnesties since that time.

Passing amnesty legislation only encourages more illegal immigration.

When our government rewards illegal behavior with USA citizenship, are we really surprised that there has been multiple amnesties passed since 1986?

ColtsFan on June 28, 2007 at 10:33 PM

1,110+ posts and counting! A new record?!!?!?

SouthernGent on June 28, 2007 at 10:42 PM

Entelechy on June 28, 2007 at 10:16 PM

Entelechy,
Thanks for the reply. Yes very similar to Bryan, only difference is his kids are still pretty young. Mine are grown and made it just fine but as a parent/husband it is hard to watch and even harder to raise them to not see themselves as victims with a chip on the shoulder, but rather to use their experiences to be stronger as well as open minded.

I agree that tackling each thing one at a time is prudent but as noted before skeptical it will be accomplished in that fashion. I’m not real pleased with either party’s leadership in regards to illegal immigration.

Have a good evening and I’m sure we’ll chat again.

Regards,
Brad

Bradky on June 28, 2007 at 10:57 PM

When the buses are no longer needed, donate them to the city of New Orleans

entagor on June 28, 2007 at 9:35 PM

What, so Nagin can turn them into submarines, like he did with the last batch?

ReubenJCogburn on June 28, 2007 at 11:02 PM

1100 comments! Allahpundit Akabar!

Is this the biggest post yet?

Darnell Clayton on June 28, 2007 at 11:44 PM

This was not a victory people, but just the start of a long and very overdue reckoning. The next thing without pause is to get are elected officials started on an Enforcement Only Bill that deals with employers of Illegal Immigrants and Unlawful Emigrants.

American8298 on June 29, 2007 at 12:23 AM

LeBoutillier has a good set of ideas to really solve the illegal problem in a Newsmax article I jusr read
in order
First secure the borders. Then punish employers who use illegals to undercut American workers. Reform welfare to allow Americans to retain their benefits if they do seasonal work, like agriculture. Only then, decide who to let in

IMHO the employers to go after first are the ones using illegals to replace americans and force wages down. This a real conspiracy to destroy our society, scabs from outer space!

entagor on June 29, 2007 at 12:30 AM

Teddy, what’s next? Enforce our fair, humane, accessible, and righteous immigration laws. Build the fence! Workplace enforcement! Deport Illegal aliens! Just think how much better our schools will be with 4 million fewer Illegal Aliens in L.A. County!

DfDeportation on June 29, 2007 at 12:43 AM

ColtsFan on June 28, 2007 at 10:33 PM

You have to understand that the whole process is designed to keep encouraging illegal immigration with the amnesty carrot being extended every so often. It has been that way for years. Our economic growth is now based on low wage workers on a cash and carry basis, no back end costs to the employers. Sort of like the South before slavery was abolished. Our Department of Commerce is now one of the most powerful agencies in our government and also one of the most secretive.

Buzzy on June 29, 2007 at 1:36 AM

The whole process is a type of subsidy to businesses that hire illegals. Yes, if Americans had these jobs, the cost of produce would be a bit more (10 to 20 percent); and the profits of ag-business would be a bit less (also 10 to 20 percent); but unemployment would be down and wages would be up. This is a trade-off that most Americans are willing to make. Another sacrifice would be loss of some ag-business to other countries, and slightly slower growth for ag-business here; again, if this means more jobs at better wages for American citizens, it is an acceptable trade-off. Finally, there would be a modest boost to ag-business in Central and So. America, which would be another factor in lowering the immigration flow.

Businesses that want cheap labor should be made to post jobs to the public at minimum wage or above. If there are no takers, then let them sponsor legal aliens at minimum wage–even though many would work below that wage. That should be the rule, even if exceptions (slightly lower wages for a whole industry) are sometimes warranted.

G. Charles on June 29, 2007 at 3:26 AM

It should be clear that the Big Business approach to curtail immigration is the following: High wages compared to other countries has caused excess supply (illegal immigrants); therefore there should be a Guest-Worker program, whereby businesses would pay extremely low wages, so low, in fact, that immigrants won’t be that tempted to come here without guaranteed work. U.S. Citizenship could be dangled as a prize, too, which would ensure that some folks would work for next to nothing (say, $2/hr with community housing) for a long time.

G. Charles on June 29, 2007 at 3:48 AM

U.S. Citizenship could be dangled as a prize, too, which would ensure that some folks would work for next to nothing (say, $2/hr with community housing) for a long time.

G. Charles on June 29, 2007 at 3:48 AM

And Big Business would continue to direct their illegal alien employees to the local Emergency Room for both their out-patient and inpatient healthcare needs.

That is another sad way in which Big Business exploits illegal aliens. And hospitals suffer economically as a result.

economically

ColtsFan on June 29, 2007 at 4:18 AM

I just want to congratulate Michelle and Bryan and all the creative, driven people on the blogosphere for making this happen. It’s online forums like these that really cut away all the “cr*pola” surrounding an issue and get the REAL point through to America. Kudos to whoever did this, too.

cardindex7 on June 29, 2007 at 3:34 PM

tomas on June 28, 2007 at 1:03 PM

A little late in responding, but may I say…What a bunch of crock.

So you say that if we don’t support everything you think of, then we are hypocrites? Try looking up the word and learning the meaning, the most mis-used word in a weak minded persons debate.

If this is just one issue that stirs a persons heart, and they respond, then good for them. If a person takes the time and writes or sends just one thing to a soldier overseas, then good for them. If they do nothing else, I am sure they have done more than you will ever do.

right2bright on June 29, 2007 at 4:01 PM

Let me get this straight Sen. Edward Moore. We can’t send illegals home because its unfair, rude and costly. It would be too hard. Enforcing our laws might make us look mean spirited in the eyes of other nations. We wouldn’t want them thinking that we aren’t kind. After all we’re not the Sovereign United States of America. We’re the United States of Earth. We do not have the right to deny any earthling entrance. Which is also why we should grant terrorists civil rights. Name me a country (worth living in) that would let me break their laws and be rewarded for it. What was it about you that ever got you elected Sen. Moore. What was it? It was like maybe you had name recognition or something. I am embarrassed to say that you have represented my home state of Massachusetts for 45 years longer than you should have.

leavenedbread on June 29, 2007 at 9:59 PM

Comment pages: 1 10 11 12