Senate panel adds immigration measure to Iraq supplemental

I am livid, how could these people who are suppose to be looking out for us sell us down the river. We the people have told them over and over that we want no amnesty of any kind and they just keep on shoving it on us. Now this is just about as low as it gets, to threaten the funding of our troops just to get this passed. I am so mad Our men and women are sent to a far way country to keep them safe all the while our own corrupt government is giving away the land they are fighting for. Grrrrrrrrr. How do we stop the treason?

I just sent an email to each of my Senators. I told them that Feinstein's move is the sneakiest I have ever seen. I said she puts the lives of our young people tin the military at risk to help her Ag friends in CA. I will not vote for anyone who votes for this bill. I am tired of the B---S---. DC is populated with special interest boot lickers who do not care a fig what the people want. I was so angry today, I said to my wife. "In spite of my age, I feel that I will not die in my bed of natural causes".
Let 'em pass all the bills they want to try to control us, their butts will be out on the street after the next election. And all the fools who are going to put more Democrats in office are sending the message that they approve of illegal immigration, the North American Union and the subjugation of the US to foreign powers.

I hear you misterbill & thanks for helping out.

Action thread on this latest amnesty scheme here:

http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-115596.html

Amesty action ALERT!!! PLEASE TAKE ACTION!!!!

http://www.alipac.us/ftopicp-685939.html#685939

Related & updated (scroll down for highlighted & relevant info):

TheHill.com
Senate panel approves Iraq war funding bill
By Manu Raju
Posted: 05/15/08 07:22 PM [ET]

The Senate Appropriations Committee on Thursday approved a sweeping emergency wartime funding package that includes restrictions on President Bush’s Iraq policy and provides tens of billions for new domestic programs.

The voice vote approval sets up a floor fight next week between the two parties over domestic priorities and the Iraq war on the eve of Congress’ one-week Memorial Day recess.

The package includes three separate amendments: $169 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan through part of next year; more than $25 billion in new domestic spending; and language that sets a goal for the president to transition troops out of a military role in Iraq by June 2009.

The three different amendments will give Democrats who oppose the war an opportunity to vote for withdrawing troops without jeopardizing funding for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Senate is expected to ultimately reject the war policy amendment, which also includes a ban on permanent military bases in Iraq and language to give troops longer lag time in between troop deployments.

The chamber is anticipated to approve the troop-funding provision, but the prospects for the amendment adding domestic spending remain unclear.

Through a procedural maneuver, the bill would land on Bush’s desk as one bill. But the package first must clear the Senate and House, which earlier Thursday rejected a provision to spend $162 billion on the wars.

Bush has vowed to veto any bill that exceeds $178 billion for the wars through the rest of this fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30, and for part of fiscal year 2009. He has called on Congress to keep the bill free of domestic add-ons, but Democrats are daring him to veto the bill at a time when a growing number of Americans are concerned about the economy and the direction of the country.

Republicans say Democrats are putting troops at risk by loading up the supplemental, which Appropriations Committee Chairman Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) characterized as “horse-blank.â€

I thought that any tax funded bill had to be born in the House. Could this bill be blue-slipped by the House?

You'll see every illegal in the U.S. suddenly become an instant AG worker. It will end up being a total amnisty for all of them.

I thought they had reached the bottom of the barrel before, but I was wrong. This is lower than even I imagined Feinstein would go. I suggest, even if the number of signatures needed is not met, Californians start a recall drive against Frankenstein.

Thursday, May 15, 2008
Feinstein farmworker bill takes a baby step forward
Democrat from California says agriculture industry has acute need for laborers; attaches immigrant worker measure to war spending legislation.
By DENA BUNIS
The Orange County Register

WASHINGTON - Determined to address what she says is an emergency situation in the U.S. agriculture industry, Sen. Dianne Feinstein persuaded her colleagues on the Appropriations Committee today to add a scaled-down version of her Ag Jobs bill to the Iraq spending bill destined for the Senate floor.

"We need this legislation because in the last year 13,280 farms in the United States have shut down, and others have moved their operation to Mexico'' between 2006 and 2007, Feinstein, D-Calif., said at the Appropriations panel meeting to vote on the Iraq bill. Of the closed farms, 1,000 were in California.

The committee approved her measure by a 17-12 vote.

The provision Feinstein hopes can survive a Senate floor vote and get approved by House members as well falls short of the permanent fix she had hoped to provide for an industry she says is in crisis because of an acute labor shortage.

Under today's amendment, farm workers who have worked in agriculture within the past four years will be able to work legally for growers for five years. The measure doesn't include any path to legal status or citizenship.

There was little debate on the amendment in committee according to Scott Gerber, Feinstein's communications director. Appropriations Committee Chairman Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., who has consistently opposed any measures to provide benefits to illegal immigrants, urged colleagues to vote against it. And Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, who has partnered with Feinstein on this legislation, spoke for it.

Immigration bills involving agricultural workers have traditionally gotten more support than other more broad immigration measures but Feinstein has still been unable to get such a bill enacted into law.

This more modest approach is likely to draw support, especially from lawmakers who don't want to give any permanent status to immigrants who entered the country illegally or who overstayed their visas.

But there is a determined group of senators and House members who oppose any benefits for people who broke immigration law and say there wouldn't be a labor shortage if growers paid higher wages. And it's likely that those lawmakers might try and add enforcement provisions to the bill that would be objected to by members who might otherwise approve of the agriculture provisions.

Some immigration advocates have also expressed concern that if individual immigration issues are dealt with separately, it will make it harder to get a broad comprehensive bill passed.

But Michele Waslin, senior policy analyst for the Immigration Policy Center, a pro-immigration think tank, said agriculture "has always been its own issue. I think Feinstein is showing us there is an appetite for balanced reform. Employers need workers and it just makes sense at this point in time."

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/fein ... ittee-vote

From K-Lo, National Review Online:

An aide to Senator Vitter alerted me to the amendment's return and says "It looks like amnesty for sure and Sen. Vitter intends to offer an amendment to strike this language when the supplemental hits the floor." If you respect the rule of law, you might want to get on the horn to your senator tomorrow.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/? ... M3OWZiMTE=