Thread: Senate Resumes Debate on S1348

Anyone out there got a few minutes to find out more about the 4 amendments that Salazar introduced before adjourning? - especially 1163 - the author of which I didn't catch in time...


A couple of notes about commonalities that run through all this...

1. The proponents of the 'deal' (aka 'grand bargain') are issuing constant warnings about the introduction of 'killer amendments' by non-proponents.
See how all this develops.... they are obviously concerned about the quagmire or obfuscation that could result in dealing with amendments that strike at the core of the bargain by the MOTU (Masters of the Universe).

2. Not much was done today. Mostly, the time was given to proponents of the bill w/ Sessions the only non-believer allowed to speak much at all.

3. The real work begins tomorrow - I suppose they'll go for a vote on the 4 recently introduced amendments by Salazar.

-PhE

The thing that pisses me off the most is that they speak of the great immigrants the same as they do the illegal ones, are they really so dense that they don't know the difference?

A few notes of commentary about the earlier senate debate today:

First, what was talked about was essentially a recap of what took place within the last 2-3 weeks of floor talks. Second, several senators outlined important provisions / amendments that they felt were important. They also described upcoming amendments to be considered and mentioned which type were likely to cause problems for the overall passage of the bill.

Let me offer a few observations - many of these will be self-apparent to those tuned in today, and some others may not be.


General Observations

First, what is noteworthy, is that the group of MOTU ("Masters of the Universe" to Sen. Sessions) that crafted the 'grand bargain' bill, remains basically unchanged. Kyl, with some assistance from Salazar, have been the point person(s) speaking on behalf of the core bill on the floor today. In terms of opposition, both Sessions and Dorgan have spoken strongly against the core bill as it exists.

So, it is safe to say, that there is bi-partisan support and bi-partisan opposition - to some degree, against the bill. Whether the groups shake-out in the final vote like last year, well, that's hard to say. Alliances could change, and amendments have yet to be considered.


Chain Migration / "Family Reunification"

Interesting twists have developed in that Menendez has spoken publicly on his desire (I believe he has an amendment which is pending - already introduced and waiting for debate and/or a vote) to loosen the restrictions on family re-unification. In short, he wants to allow [more] Chain Migration (CM). The specific part of the current bill as proposed is the usage of a cut-off date to determine eligibility to be considered for entry. He wants the threshold date moved back to the present (May 2007) as opposed to May 2005.

Kyl had spoken clearly that he cannot support the bill if Menendez achieves passage of his amendment (considers it a 'bill-killer'). Kyl is trying to stay true to the detail of the bill by vastly reducing CM. It would be very interesting to learn who is leaning on Menendez in order to offer an amendment for this specific purpose. Of course, the irony of Kyl holding fast on this minor point while working with Bush and the other senators to craft a bill in secret and not even disclose the text, well... you can make your own mind up on that point. We should watch for the debate and vote for the Menendez amendment. It may happen as soon as tomorrow.


Guest Worker/Temp Worker Numbers

Regarding Guest Worker (GW) or Temp Worker programs...
There are also interesting issues being kicked around as well. There are an array of different perspectives which span the range of:

a. Allow no GWs at all (ala Dorgan, Sessions, maybe Sanders, etc) - at least until border security is effected - not just slated to take effect 'on-paper'.

b. Reduce GWs to more modest level (ala Bingaman, Sanders and some others)

c. No opinion or approval of larger level of GWs - not completely identified, but these would likely include the core sponsors and crafters of the bill - although this is not necessarily a certainty).

I think it's safe to say that the business lobby combined with the USCoC (Chamber of Commerce) is where the major pressure is originating. The underlying debate with respect to GWs revolves around the question: "What is the appropriate level or number of GWs needed for the country?"
Of course, the business perspective will likely exaggerate the problem and ask for an unrealistically high-end number (just like budgeting in the Federal Government, for those that are familiar with such thing!) What the 'true' need might be, well, anyone can contest that as it is extremely difficult to validate any particular number.


Misc. Thoughts and Comments

Kyl (as did ALL the other senators that spoke today) repeated that he has received a lot of feedback from his constituents on the issue and went way out of his way to defend the opinions of the critics of the bill (that's us folks). He also pointed out that the critics of current and past approaches have every legitimate right to be untrusting as to the past and current proposed solution to the problem. On the down side, he is using some twisted charaterizations to describe the problem in these terms: "well, the opponents don't acknowledge that what we have now is NO law" [vs. SOME law]. So, he is implying that by not supporting the current bill - even with it's warts and imperfections - these hardline opponents are FOR lawlessness (and also aren't truly interested in solving the underlying problem). Don't buy into that line, folks.

Finally, let me add that the pace and structure of the speeches so far today, suggests to me at least, that there are some serious divergences developing in certain aspects about the bill. Also, the fact that so many amendments have been written and/or introduced so far, also suggests that either the senators are going to great lengths to put their own little imprint on the presumed final product, OR, they are offering targeting customizations in order to please certain interest or business groups (or something similar). The real objective of the MOTU group - to have the senators vote and pass - the largely intact and unadulterated (from their point of view) bill is what this is beginning to center around.
I wonder how many senators would vote for passage of the original bill as originally proposed...?
In hindsight, it is looking like that would be fewer and fewer as time progresses.

Just my humble comments from a pure amateur...

-PhE

[Double post - sorry]