Thread: Demo Support for Immig Bill May Be Slipping

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld ... ome-center

Democratic support for immigration bill may be slipping

By Nicole Gaouette and Noam N. Levey, Times Staff Writer
8:29 PM PDT, June 26, 2007


WASHINGTON -- Even as the Senate voted Tuesday to restart the stalled debate on immigration legislation, Democratic support for the bill appears to be slipping and could jeopardize it as much as fierce Republican opposition does.

A handful of Democrats who could be crucial to the bill's fate remain undecided. And Tuesday, five Democrats who welcomed debate on the issue a month ago switched position and voted to oppose further discussion of the bill.

The 64-35 procedural vote to move to a debate -- four more than the required 60 -- resuscitated the controversial bill, which collapsed earlier this month in a partisan dispute. But the vote also exposed hardened opposition among Republicans and increased skepticism among Democrats.

The Senate plans to start debate Wednesday on 26 amendments to the bill, with a critical vote on whether to end the debate likely to come Thursday. That will also require 60 votes, a threshold that may be impossible to reach if wavering Democrats reject the bill.

Democrats who are wary of the bill worry about its changes to the family-based immigration system, its border security provisions, its impact on American workers and its sprawling scope. Conservatives have branded it "amnesty" for lawbreakers they say should be forced to go home.

A total of nine Democrats voted against debating the bill. Illinois Sen. Richard J. Durbin, the No. 2 Democrat who is responsible for lining up support for the party's priorities, called them "a tough bunch." There had been efforts to appeal to them, he said, "but there's a limit to how far you can go."

The Democrats who changed their minds and voted against debating the bill were Evan Bayh, Ind.; Mary L. Landrieu, La.; Claire McCaskill, Mo.; John D. Rockefeller IV, W.Va.; and Debbie Stabenow, Mich.

Bayh, McCaskill and Stabenow said Tuesday they would watch to see how the bill is amended, but are doubtful they would support it.

"I'll keep an open mind," McCaskill said, but she quickly added that she could not imagine that the bill could get her vote.

Several Democrats who did vote to proceed with a debate -- including Barbara Boxer, Calif.; Jeff Bingaman, N.M.; Robert Menendez, N.J.; and Jim Webb, Va. -- also remain skeptical that they will be able to vote for the bill.

The architects of the bill, the president and top administration officials have deemed the bill vital to fix the immigration system and have concentrated on winning over Republicans, fashioning several major amendments intended to appeal to them.

But they have made few public efforts to mollify unconvinced Democrats whose votes may now make the difference between the bill's failure or success.

Democrats uneasy about the bill have been allowed to offer several amendments to change the legislation, a factor that convinced some to vote to restart debate and, depending on the outcome, could persuade them to support the bill.

Senate aides also say the bill's backers have worked hard to explain it to lawmakers and insist that Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has been very engaged. "Senator Reid delivered 80 percent of his caucus," said Reid spokesman Jim Manley. "He's worked hard to convince as many Democrats as possible to vote for this bill."

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, who a White House staffer said has "basically been in residence" on Capitol Hill pushing for the bill, said Tuesday that he had been working hard with members of both parties.

Even so, Angela Kelley, deputy director of the National Immigration Forum, an advocacy group that supports the bill, said she has been "troubled" that efforts to woo Republicans seem to have been more intense than efforts to bring Democrats on board. "Every vote could be a deciding vote, it's going to be close," she said. She said that the bill's lead Democratic architect, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., has had his hands full with negotiations and might not have had as much time to cultivate Democratic votes as needed. "Kennedy is working the back room and you can't work the backroom and the floor at the same time," Kelley said. "He's stretched thin."

The bill would bolster border security and make it more difficult for illegal immigrants to be hired. Republicans sought the bill's temporary worker program and shift in future immigration to a point system that would give weight to immigrants with skills and education, instead of the current emphasis on family ties. In exchange, Democrats got a way for the estimated 12 million people living in the U.S. illegally to become legal by paying fees and fines.

Bush, who has personally lobbied a number of GOP lawmakers in recent weeks, Tuesday called the bill "a careful compromise." "The bill we've worked hard to craft is an important piece of legislation that addresses the needs of a failed system," he said.

The bill's critics, meanwhile, promised to keep fighting to kill the legislation in the Senate, and, if necessary, in the House. "It's DOA in the House," said Rep. Mark Souder, R-Ind., at a news conference.

House Republicans passed a resolution Tuesday disapproving of the immigration bill 114-23. Democrats have said that at least 70 Republicans would have to support a bill for it to pass in the House.

Senate opponents of the bill made a short-lived bid Tuesday to obstruct debate. Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., forced a step that required Senate clerks to read all 373 pages of the amendments to the bill before debate could proceed. That marathon reading was later called off by another opponent of the bill.

On Tuesday, 24 Republicans joined 39 Democrats, including California's two senators, Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, and one independent in favor of the debate; 25 Republicans, nine Democrats and one independent voted against it.

(Optional add end)

In addition to the five Democrats who switched positions to vote no, Montana's John Tester and Max Baucus, North Dakota's Byron Dorgan and West Virginia's Robert Byrd also voted against debate -- as they did when the Senate first took up the bill on May 21.

Democrats share some concerns with Republicans. Bayh would like to see improved border security provisions, although the bill now includes $4.4 billion to spend on such measures. Tester and Stabenow object to the broad scope of the bill and said they would prefer to see a focus on border security. Like almost all the other undecided Democrats, both said they would wait to see how amendments changed the bill before they decided whether to support or oppose the final bill.

"I just think the stuff with border security and port security is fine, but everything else in that bill from my perspective is already taken care of in current law," said Tester. "And if we can't enforce current law, how can we enforce new ones?"

Webb said his support is contingent on the fate of an amendment he plans to offer that would allow only illegal immigrants in the country for four years or longer to gain legal status and would eliminate a requirement that they return home first. If it passes, Webb said, he would support the bill. "If not, I won't," he said.

McCaskill pinpointed work-site enforcement as a concern, citing a congressional study that concluded the bill would only reduce illegal immigration by 13 percent. "I think enforcement against employers will" have an impact on illegal immigration, she said. "We don't need a new bill to do that, we just need a commitment on the part of the Department of Justice."

McCaskill and Menendez both complained about the Republican provision that would limit the number of foreign family members U.S. citizens would be able to bring into the country. McCaskill also questioned the proposed point system's failure to allot many points for family ties. "The idea that we can't give points for legal American citizens to get their family into the country? That's ludicrous," she said.

Menendez said he was very concerned about amendments written by the bill's Republican backers, including one that would require all adult illegal immigrants who seek legal status to make a trip home within two years after the bill's enactment, or face deportation.

"The tilt and tenor of amendments written by the Republican grand bargainers are becoming increasingly onerous and impractical," Menendez said in a statement.

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, who a White House staffer said has "basically been in residence" on Capitol Hill pushing for the bill, said Tuesday that he had been working hard with members of both parties.

No wonder our borders are not secure, if the supreme head of national security is running around as a step n fetch for the president, instead of his job, which is securing our borders, overseeing deportations, customs...

Is Chertoff just a figurehead?

Dixie

Is Chertoff just a figurehead?

What? Did he get a promotion???

I thought he is still the pandering functionary that he always was...

Also, re: the OP - I think (disclaimer: IMHO) this is an area (working the Dems more intensively; not just focusing on Republicans) that could yield some successes.

Whereas, many of the Republicans that oppose the current bill often cite reasons like: 'laws should matter', 'lawlessness should not be encouraged nor rewarded', 'the current bill penalizes those the come here by following the rules', etc... the Democrats that have also staked out a strong opposition on the bill using justifications like: "It is anti-worker" or "it hurts poor Americans", "it erodes the standard of living of working blue-collar Americans", etc.

In short, there are 2 basic threads which comprise the 'core' reasons for opposing the bill:

1. Laws and legal reasons - per se
2. Worker, class, standard of living issues.

Republicans dominate (but not exclusively) the first area, and the Democrats tend to dominate the second (also, not exclusively).

I personally think that there is *some*, maybe not a whole lot, but some, headway to be made in the Demo side by using a precisely geared pitch that focuses on the country's poor/working poor are affected by illegal immigration/mass legal immigration, etc. - (ala Bernie Sanders, Byron Dorgan, etc). In the last week or so, I know that NumbersUSA action panel alerts have focused more and more on this angle as the issue has intensified. ...I am still thinking on what the best 'pitch' and to whom....
(open to suggestions of course...)

I don't remember voting him into office...does he not have a job he should be attending too... leaving elected folk to do the work on the Hill
He should work on ways to have DHS answer the phones calls on hold in less then 45 MINUTES

Added to Home page
http://www.alipac.us/modules.php?name=N ... e&sid=2325

"I just think the stuff with border security and port security is fine, but everything else in that bill from my perspective is already taken care of in current law," said Tester. "And if we can't enforce current law, how can we enforce new ones?"

That's because this whole bill is a smoke screen to hide legislation that pursues the North American Union (NAU).

http://www.jbs.org/nau

Who is working to create this new Union?
The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP), and the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). Click here to see the CFR's task force report (pdf).

What is the SPP?
(Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America)

The SPP is an initiative by the United States, Canada, and Mexico to bring about the North American Union. It is a process, or tool, that has been created to lead towards a specific, continent-changing goal. Click here for more about the SPP

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtex ... =s110-1639 This is a website that has a copy of S. 1639 and here is a section that discusses SPP...

SEC. 413. BILATERAL EFFORTS WITH MEXICO TO REDUCE MIGRATION PRESSURES AND COSTS.

(b) SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING PARTNERSHIP FOR PROSPERITY- It is the sense of Congress that the United States and Mexico should accelerate the implementation of the Partnership for Prosperity to help generate economic growth and improve the standard of living in Mexico, which will lead to reduced migration

This is very interesting and to me it explains why this bill is so important to be passes right now. It is a smoke screen to promote the NAU and it implements language that will most likely continue on in future legislation (hidden of course in other bills) that will further the efforts to create the NAU. I think that a handfull of leaders are working in conjunction to create a situation that they can argue for the NAU because "It is the best thing we can do to solve the current situation." Which is a statement that has been expressed about the immigration bills which have been developed behind closed doors. I SMELL A RAT AND IT'S NAME IS KENNEDY!

Forgive me.

"Kennedy is working the back room and you can't work the backroom and the floor at the same time," Kelley said. "He's stretched thin."

Seeing this would be worth the airfare.