Thread: Senate Amnesty push update + Setback in Hazleton, PA

Feinstein did want to get the AG's bill in there but Reid had already called rule 16 ( adding a bill that did not relate to the funding) she was up set and Reid told her maybe she could get it in the farm bill coming to the floor in Sept. Reid asked Chambless if he would let her add the ag's bill on the farm bill and Chambliss asked her if the Amnesty was still in it, and if it was still in it he could not agree with it, they went round and round and said they would work together. So it is something we should keep our eye on, even though Chambless was pretty adament.
I was told the Dream Act was going to come up also but so far as I know it never has come up yet and doubt that it will because of rule 16, although I would not trust them.
I will tell you this they are looking to stick both of those bills in something and I would think the most likely would be the Education funding bill, I heard was suppose to come to the floor, does anyone know anything about it or has it already gone through the Senate? We need to watch them like a hawk and stay on them every minute until they recess.

Originally Posted by Dixie

The judge ... claimed both ordinances were unconstitutional.

I knew this would happen at some point. I am SO FED UP with these disgusting activist judges who destroy everything we the people try to accomplish. It started with Prop 187 in California, and they've been on a roll ever since.

The constitution needs to be amended so that one stinking judge can't overturn the will of millions of people. And we need to be able to get rid of activist judges.

Duh

William, Jean posted a Washington Times Story in Members News Stories called "Democrats Pitch Path For Some Illegals." It tells what happened on the Senate floor yesterday.

Another thing, there is another story that bears watching in Members News Stories that Specter got together with Bush and intends to bring back a diluted version of the Amnesty Bill that gets rid of the z visa, but the illegals would still be allowed to stay. The bill would take them out of the Fugitive status and they could still stay here legally. The posts on this thread are hot and we could use some direction on this one.

Article:

http://www.alipac.us/modules.php?name=F ... ic&t=75135

When Hazelton appeals this latest court ruling, especially to the U.S. Supreme Court, three points need to be kept in mind during their defence. 1) the economic impact on their city, 2) being forced to take part in this illegal activity by involving themselves through business activity with these lawbreakers, thus breaking the law themselves and becoming part of the problem, 3) with the North American Union already partially implemented without any congressional voting, there isn't any intention by Bush to enforce our current immigration laws.

If the federal government isn't enforcing our immigration laws, this country is through as a sovereign entity as one municipal area after another folds under the weight of this invasion. Hazelton should warn the court of this by explaining that eventually if circumstances don't change, they will be forced to file bankruptcy, and how is this good for our country?

We are not about turning immigrants away but in favor of an orderly influx of immigrants into our economy while we control the process. This isn't happening, and it doesn't have to be this way. If Hazelton can't enforce this ordinance, then the court should do everything it can to see to it that the Bush administration enforces our current immigration laws.

The higher court needs to be asked what these cities are supposed to do? And what do they imagine will happen if this situation continues to be ignored. And why is it unconstitutionsl for any city, county or state to enforce all laws? If the federal government's public enemy #1 were in Hazelton, wouldn't it be legal for them to detain him and hold him for the FBI?

eleighs,

Welcome to Alipac!

Dixie

Does anyone have a list of the sell out senators that were making those comments so I can target them directly.

surfwolf,

They are the senators that voted yes for cloture on the immigration bill in the Senate.

Here are the 46 who voted Yes on S. 1639 :

Akaka (D-HI)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Boxer (D-CA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Conrad (D-ND)
Craig (R-ID)
Dodd (D-CT)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Graham (R-SC)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Obama (D-IL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Schumer (D-NY)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

Thank you Dixie for that list but I was referring to the latest bulletin with regards to attaching parts of the failed immigration to the troop funding. The article said that some seanators were making pro amnesty comments on the senate floor but it didnt say who it was.