ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Home Page


Immigration Daily

Archives

Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board

Resources

Blogs

Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation

Attorney2Attorney

CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network

EB-5

移民日报

About ILW.COM

Connect to us

Make us Homepage

Questions/Comments


SUBSCRIBE



The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of
free information!
Copyright
1995-
ILW.COM,
American
Immigration LLC.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14

Thread: "The votes are there," Grassley said

  1. #1
    Sen. Charles Grassley (news, bio, voting record), an Iowa Republican who opposes giving permanent status to illegals, said after the meeting that the panel would probably vote for the Kennedy plan.

    "The votes are there," Grassley said.

    NO AMNESTY

    Kennedy told the committee the proposal was not an amnesty. People seeking legal status would have to pay a $2,000 fine, apply for a six-year temporary status, have a job, pay taxes, learn English and show an understanding of U.S. government.

    They would not get permanent status faster than the 3 million foreigners awaiting legal entry, he said.

    "There is no moving to the front of the line, there is no free ticket," Kennedy said. "This is not amnesty."

  2. #2
    Sen. Charles Grassley (news, bio, voting record), an Iowa Republican who opposes giving permanent status to illegals, said after the meeting that the panel would probably vote for the Kennedy plan.

    "The votes are there," Grassley said.

    NO AMNESTY

    Kennedy told the committee the proposal was not an amnesty. People seeking legal status would have to pay a $2,000 fine, apply for a six-year temporary status, have a job, pay taxes, learn English and show an understanding of U.S. government.

    They would not get permanent status faster than the 3 million foreigners awaiting legal entry, he said.

    "There is no moving to the front of the line, there is no free ticket," Kennedy said. "This is not amnesty."

  3. #3
    GREAT NEWS GUY..TONIGHT, WE HAVE WON A HUGE BATTLE BUT THE WAR STILL HANGS IN THE AIR.

    VICTORY IS SOOOOOO SWEEEEEEET!!!!! WE ARE GOING TO WIN THE WAR AGAINST THE EXTREMIST RACIST KKK MEMBERS.

    GOD BLESS US.

  4. #4

  5. #5
    You can bet 1 against 100 that neither of "Guest Worker" proposals can survive House-Senate conference talks.

    Considering the above said, it is rather of symbolic consequence what action Senate will take on "temporary guest workers" profram (as related to 11 mln. undocumented population present in US).

    Good Luck,
    IE

    ________________________________

    WAGNER ! HURRICANE ! WOTAN !

  6. #6
    You spoke too soon, Albatross. Frist seems to have one-upped Specter and company, at least for now.

    Even if it does get through the SJC AND the Senate, the real test is the House, and the House has said flatly that it will not support a guest worker program.

    Even if the "Enforcement-only" bill doesn't get enacted, there are already laws on the books to deal with the problem. They just haven't been enforced, but are starting to be. Julie Miers, the new head of ICE, is reportedly stepping up workplace enforcement and trying to get cooperation with SS. And many states are enacting their own laws to deal with illegal aliens.

  7. #7
    Are you certain that the majority in the house are against a guest worker prograM,???
    Let me give YOU some hints and clue that you should think about.
    1)first of all, the house enforcement-only bill writer was quoted saying that he's not totally against a guest worker program and a few hours before this same exact bill went To a vote, he allowed flake and his buddies to add a guest worker language into the bill,but was later taken off because they were report that the senate would add the guest worker writings.

    2) if you havent noticed it by now, tancredo recently had 70 members of his anti-immigrants members, to write letters to specter complaining about his bill...
    Only 70??? what happened to the rest of the group? tancredo's caucus is about 100 + members? did the 40+ members flip flopped and now supports a guest worker program??
    Why wouldnt tancredo wait unill he gets 100% of his entire caucus members to make sure a greater message is sent to specter??

    My personal opinion is, those 40 50 members did flipped flopped on him, and please, remember that tancredo does not run the house, matterfact, he's hated and his nicknamed his "house-crazy leader"..You have about 180 democratic members and they are united for a guest worker program + moderate and conservative republicans like flake and others that are dying to make something happen before the election.

    WE ALSO HAVE THE VOTES IN THE HOUSE.

    3) just remember that HR4437 only passed because the democratic leader told about a dozen members to vote for the bill because the consensus was that the senate will be the one doing the hard job of adding the guest worker language and that HR4437 dont stand a chance of ever being enacted because iT just destroys america' businesses and creates a police state, so it wasnt worth voting against it and risk being soft on protecting our border...

    ILL SAY THAT ABOUT 40 TO 50 HOUSE MEMBERS WHO WERE CONCERNED BY SENSERBRENNER BILL, WERE TOLD BY THEIR LEADERS THAT HR4437 DOESN STAND A CHANCE OF EVER BEING ENACTED AND PROMISED THEM THAT HIS EVIL BILL WILL DIE IN THE SENATE, THEN THE SENATE WILL MAKE THEIR OWN BILL, WHICH WILL BE SENT TO THEM SO THAT THEY CAN BE HAPPY AND VOTE FOR IT.

    THOSE ABOVE ARE FACTS, IN FACT, PEOPLE HAVE SAID THAT THE RNC AND THE PRESIDENT ARE CONTROLLING EVERYTHING IN THE BACKGROUND AND THE CONSENSUS IS, WHENEVER THE SENATE'S BILL ARRIVES FOR THE HOUSE-SENATE CONFERENCE, THE PRESIDENT WILL FLEX HIS MUSCLES AND HANDLE THE REST.

  8. #8
    Don't worry about Albatross, Aliba.
    He is just pretending to be for "Guest Worker" program, thus he makes such unrealistic statements.
    I beleive his goal is to "imitate" potential supporters of Sepcter (or McCain-Kennedy) Bills and to ridicule their naivette.

    Anyway, as I said time and time again, nothing even remotely resembling "legalization" can pass unless the circumstances change to the point when it becomes urgent and nessessary.

    Remember: in immigration issues it's like in macro-physics!
    It's all about dynamics, velocity, energy, it's abour currents and streams (and TSUNAMIS ), not about idle rationalizations and arguments.

    In light of above stated nothing but "Enforcement Only" can pass both chambers of Congress this or even next year.

    What will be result of such Bill being enacted in Law?

    Perhaps SELECT FEW INDIVIDUALS (the most educated and smartest of all) will depart upon its' enactment (or apply for voluntary departure), but vast majority of day-laborers and others will stay.

    The effects of Enforcement ONLY Bill , ironically, is friendliest of all to hard-core criminals: those who have served time in jail for robberies, drug-dealing and such won't be giving the slightest significance to possibility of being apprehended and subsequently serving another 6 months to a year in a place
    where they can get free room and boarding with recreational facilities.

    As to great majority of undocumented population, they too will stay for want of having another alternative (though some will be little more anxious about possibility of apprehension).

    The part of the "Enfocement Only" Bill has this
    fundamental flaw in it: it does NOT account where will the money come to grab ALL 12 million and deport them.

    Perhaps a 100.000 can be deported, or 500.000 or let's even imagine a number as big as a million or two.
    What would it mean?

    It would mean 1/120 or 1/24 or 1/12 or at most 1/6 chances of being apprehended.
    And higher the number of apprehensions - less is the likelyhood of lenghty detainment:

    HOW MANY JAIL BEDS ARE OUT THERE? HOW MUCH IT COSTS TO KEEP SOMEONE IN JAIL A MONTH OR TWO ( not speaking of maximum 6 month sentence)? HOW MANY AGENTS MUST BE DEPLOYED TO CATCH THOSE NUMBERS OF ILLEGAL ALIENS? HOW DIFFICULT IT WILL BE TO BRING A CRIMINAL CASE IN COURT ( after all you can't go around and question status of every single person, so you will have to profile to limit the number of people you can target. How can you do that without compromising fundamental Civil right not to be searched or seased without probable cause? So you have to send a lot more agents out to conduct interviews and gather info on status of those people before even approaching, so that you can make a good case in Court. How much will it cost?).

    There are so many complicated issues involved in this that REALISTICALLY it won't be possible to literally grab and deport everyone.

    Once people see that NOT EVERYONE is grabbed and deported, then they will realize that chances of not ever been apprehended are fairly higher than the opposite.
    And what is the end result of being apprehended?
    Deportation.
    So, what difference does it make, to wait to be deported or to self-deport?

    What are the lawmakers who write those Bills thinking?
    Well, they think from PERSONAL point of view. Instead of asking what "UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS WILL DO" they ask "what >> I << would do" .

    That's wrong question, because it doesn't take into account the "relativistic" nature of circumstances and the preconditions that are involved.

    You might reason ONE WAY in the SAME circumstance if you have upper-middle or middle class upbringing and education, but you will reason totally differently if you are from the poorest background imaginable with no schooling beyound counting your weekly wages.
    That poor understanding of "preconditions" and of following reasoning was the major reason why 1996 Reform failed in bringing down illegal immigration, but rather succeeded in multiplying it's numbers.
    And I predict that this "Enforcement Only" approach won't achieve much in significantly bringing down the number of illegals, instead it will drive remaining illegal immigrants deeper into shadows.

    Years will pass before the failure of this approach will become too great to ignore. The media will play big role in changing public opinion and driving it in support of remaining undocumented populations - as stories will pile up on New York Times and other major papers describing the families broken, lives shattered, businesses going bancrupt and etc.

    In the end it will be a FULL AMNESTY for those who will still remain here. And some decades later it will start all again.

    Vicious cycle...


    Best of Luck to ALL,
    IE

  9. #9
    you might be right. But if all this that you are saying is true then I am sure that the members of the Congress have also thought about the same scenario. Well if they have thought about it and they are smart dont you think it will be better to solve the problem now rather then later.... What do u think?

  10. #10
    I think it's irrelevant what I think at this point

    Meaning what I stated earlier:

    "..in immigration issues it's like in macro-physics!
    It's all about dynamics, velocity, energy, it's abour currents and streams (and TSUNAMIS ), not about idle rationalizations and arguments.

    In light of above stated nothing but "Enforcement Only" can pass both chambers of Congress this or even next year."


    Even the smartest and most powerful Congressmen have not enough power to turn the flow/stream in opposite direction, unless the Energy that drives it is exhausted.

    ___________________________________________


    NIETZSCHE ! >> WAGNER ! >> HURRICANE ! >> WOTAN ! <<

Similar Threads

  1. senate votes
    By Lerka Я in forum Immigration Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-03-2006, 04:52 PM
  2. "WE HAVE THE VOTES IN THE HOUSE"
    By albatross23 in forum Immigration Discussion
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 03-22-2006, 08:51 AM
  3. Mock Election for Immigrants - Cast your votes here
    By Josie Jo in forum Immigration Discussion
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 11-02-2004, 09:04 PM
  4. SENATE VOTES TO END SPECIAL REGISTRATION
    By in forum Immigration Discussion
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 02-17-2003, 04:06 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Put Free Immigration Law Headlines On Your Website

Immigration Daily: the news source for legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers Enter your email address here: