Caught Red Handed
The Democrat's, I think, were trying to be sneaky in their complicity towards the death of the immigration bill in the Senate yesterday, and got caught red handed.
It's not often that the Washington Post fires a broadside at the Democrats on issues, but in "Immigration 'Nirvan' Lost", they let it be known that it wasn't the 'meanies' in the Republican Party that killed the bill. Instead, they lay the blame on the left side of the aisle, where they "wanted an issue, not a bill" according to Frank Sharry from the National Immigration Forum.
By playing "stupid parlimentary tricks", Senate Democrats prevented any enforcement type amendments from being brought to the floor for a vote, killing any chance that the GOP would vote for the bill itself.
As I mentioned a few days ago, this is a case of Democrats pandering to the voters they are trying to import, instead of working for the one's who put them in office. Every poll out there; even the one's that support some sort of amnesty; show that the people want enforcement as party of any solution. Yet Harry Reid has decided on a strategy in the Senate to kill the whole bill instead of bringing up amendments on enforcement for a vote.
When Monday's rally on the National Mall happens, Democrats will point to it as proof that enforcment measures are wrong, ignoring the fact that it shouldn't be the immigrants that the legislation should be trying to work for exclusively.
What certain legislators on both sides of the aisle are forgetting is that this debate didn't start over how to make 11 million illegal immigrants legal. It started over how to deal with 11 million people breaking the law, and how to tighten up our border security. The issues has simmered on America's back burner for quite a while, but it boiled over with the (false) security issues raised by the Dubai Ports Deal two months ago, when we started talking about how porous our borders are.
The Democrats problem on this issues isn't so much with the Senate bill, but with what would come out of a conference committee with the House, which has a much more restrictive, enforcement based bill. If the Senate bill, with it's amendments passes, and goes to a conference committee, the GOP will dominate that committee.
Guys like Mel Martinez will in all likelihood agree on less amnesty to please the House, and Tom Tancredo will agree to some sort of legitimization program for some illegals to please the Senate. While it won't please everyone on either side of the issue, the compromises would be more explainable than strictly enforcement or strictly amnesty.
That leaves the Democrats to either support a bill largely crafted by the GOP, or stage a Senate filibuster of it, and be known for killing any immigration reform. Neither is an acceptable option, so they just won't let anything happen.
Thanks Harry Reid, crass politics over the best interest of America is what you've become known for, and you and your party aren't changing that perception with your conduct on this issue.
Technorati Tags: Mexico, Border Control, Congress, Harry Reid, immigration, Mel Martinez, amnesty, Senate
It's not often that the Washington Post fires a broadside at the Democrats on issues, but in "Immigration 'Nirvan' Lost", they let it be known that it wasn't the 'meanies' in the Republican Party that killed the bill. Instead, they lay the blame on the left side of the aisle, where they "wanted an issue, not a bill" according to Frank Sharry from the National Immigration Forum.
By playing "stupid parlimentary tricks", Senate Democrats prevented any enforcement type amendments from being brought to the floor for a vote, killing any chance that the GOP would vote for the bill itself.
As I mentioned a few days ago, this is a case of Democrats pandering to the voters they are trying to import, instead of working for the one's who put them in office. Every poll out there; even the one's that support some sort of amnesty; show that the people want enforcement as party of any solution. Yet Harry Reid has decided on a strategy in the Senate to kill the whole bill instead of bringing up amendments on enforcement for a vote.
When Monday's rally on the National Mall happens, Democrats will point to it as proof that enforcment measures are wrong, ignoring the fact that it shouldn't be the immigrants that the legislation should be trying to work for exclusively.
What certain legislators on both sides of the aisle are forgetting is that this debate didn't start over how to make 11 million illegal immigrants legal. It started over how to deal with 11 million people breaking the law, and how to tighten up our border security. The issues has simmered on America's back burner for quite a while, but it boiled over with the (false) security issues raised by the Dubai Ports Deal two months ago, when we started talking about how porous our borders are.
The Democrats problem on this issues isn't so much with the Senate bill, but with what would come out of a conference committee with the House, which has a much more restrictive, enforcement based bill. If the Senate bill, with it's amendments passes, and goes to a conference committee, the GOP will dominate that committee.
Guys like Mel Martinez will in all likelihood agree on less amnesty to please the House, and Tom Tancredo will agree to some sort of legitimization program for some illegals to please the Senate. While it won't please everyone on either side of the issue, the compromises would be more explainable than strictly enforcement or strictly amnesty.
That leaves the Democrats to either support a bill largely crafted by the GOP, or stage a Senate filibuster of it, and be known for killing any immigration reform. Neither is an acceptable option, so they just won't let anything happen.
Thanks Harry Reid, crass politics over the best interest of America is what you've become known for, and you and your party aren't changing that perception with your conduct on this issue.
Technorati Tags: Mexico, Border Control, Congress, Harry Reid, immigration, Mel Martinez, amnesty, Senate
posted by Crazy Politico at 5:39 AM
4Comments:
The problem lies with both parties trying to please everybody, which can't be done. Both parties are pandering for votes and calling one party corrupt without recognizing the equal corruption of the other is just plain partisan as corruption is a bi-partisan problem.
CUG, six words to say what I took 5 paragraphs on, I guess that makes you a minimalist :)
Shoprat, well said. What they both need to do is figure out what the majority of the people want, and do that. Or, if for some reason it's not doable, reasonable, whatever, at least explain it to them. Neither has attempted that yet.
Kevin, my response is in the haloscan section, since you decided you need to post your statement twice.
Very well said!!!
I especially liked this line:
"Thanks Harry Reid, crass politics over the best interest of America is what you've become known for, and you and your party aren't changing that perception with your conduct on this issue."
Ascan, you are correct, there are lunkheads on both sides of the aisle on this one, and they are both driving folks mad by stalling any real immigration reform. I don't want your wife bothered anymore than I want my cousin's chinese husband annoyed. And I'm pretty sure both of them would rather not see millions skirt the legal process and get naturalized as a reward.
LMC, I just read Bull Moose (on my blogroll) and he's come to the same conclusion. Evidently there is hope that moderate democrats will pressure Reid.
Post a Comment
<< Home