Thread: True?? Good Bye GOP: Illegal Alien Amnesty Slipped Into Mili

Someone sent this to me by email without a source. Im requesting a source. Can anyone tell me if this is true as soon as possible???

W

Good Bye GOP: Illegal Alien Amnesty Slipped Into Military Funding Bill
Posted By | Permalink | Comments (27) | TrackBack (10) | Print Ready

This just makes me want to vomit. Violently. These are the clowns that I and so many others stridently and energetically supported in 2002 and 2004. What are our champions of representation doing? They have slipped President Bush's insane illegal alien amnesty language into the emergency funding bill for the troops' operations overseas, setting up anyone who dissents to be painted as not supporting the troops should they vote 'nay'. I wonder how many Republicans (or Democrats for that matter) plan to vote against the bill in it's current form and run the risk of being the new poster child for a recycled version of "I voted for the bill...before I voted against it" slogan, circa 2006-2008?

Joe Scarborough has the best lambasting of this loathesome maneuver that I have read yet, which is posted on his MSNBC 'blog'.

As a former congressman, I know how this scam works.
You pick the most offensive bill you can find and attach it to a piece of legislation that everyone knows must be passed.

So what have Republican leaders in the U.S. Senate decided to hold hostage?

The safety of U.S. troops overseas.

That's right, sports fans.

U.S. Senators are holding American soldiers and Marines in Iraq and Afghanistan hostage because of this Illegal Immigrant Protection bill. And these politicians have done it by tying the Illegal Alien Protection Act with an $80 billion Emergency Funding bill aimed at funding our troops overseas.

Well, sports fans, as they say..."That'll leave a mark."

Do you read me, George W. Bush? Bill Frist? Newbie Mel Martinez? ...and anyone else who fails to publicly scream in loud protest of this insanity. This is going to leave a mark indeed. And a foul taste that will not go away.

I nearly renounced my Republican affiliation last week in disgust over recent gutless maneuvers and non-stands against judicial tyranny and labeling concerned citizens vigilantes.

Allow me to renounce my Republican status now. I am done. I have no faith in the Republican leadership to lead from a positiion of conservatism.

I am a Blue State Conservative. I am NOT a Blue State Republican. I never have been. I have always stated that I am American first, Conservative second and Republican a decided and very distant third.

We conservatives expect the socialist leadership of the Democrat party to anger us. They are what they are. But when the Republican party abandons us by abandoning the conservatism they touted in elections, there is a more fiery Hell that awaits them than awaits even The Bitter Left's socialist guiding wing. From a months-old post titled "In Defense of Zell Miller", I offer some clarity:

Zell did what he figured a 'good Democrat' should do. Support him [favorably introducing Kerry once before blasting him at the RNC convention in 2004], as he is a member of your own party. But soon after came a point of critical mass and as his time in Washington DC wore on, he began to realize just how much of a real 'Dog and Pony Show' it really was...camera time, mike time, face time, back biting, self interest...all of which he knew were part of the atmosphere, but the degree to which he saw it astounded him. Say anything, do anything to get the sound bite out there and worry about the details some other time. But get the dig in for effect. This he saw going on on both sides, mind you, not just within his own party.
But let me ask you something: Two men are cheating on their wives. One is your friend, one is your brother. Which one saddens, angers or hurts you the most? Your brother, of course. He is your family and you expect more from family.

When our own betray us, they recieve treatment far worse than those who openly battle and oppose our ideas with rhetoric. Republicans are now poised to return to their homes from Washington in two successive waves. One is called 2006 and the other is called 2008. I am telling you now that I will sooner vote for Hillary Clinton than I will for Bill Frist or any other current member of the Republican Washington Brigade, with few exceptions. (This is to say that I will vote for a third party or not at all...which is painful to even imagine.)

You tell me...Who in Washington represents conservatives? Who?

I still have a framed Bush/Cheney '04 campaign sign hanging in my home office and it will remain, but not out of love for George Bush. It will remain because it bears the signature of J.C. Watts, who signed it at the RNC convention. J.C. Watts is one of the few Republicans I hold in high personal regard. He is a stand up man who says what he thinks and thinks what he says (like George W. Bush) and is unfailingly and consistently conservative (unlike George W. Bush). I regret that his voice is no longer in Washington, but then maybe that is why I continue to respect him so much. His job is not / was not to win elections.

Has anyone at the Grand Old (Good Ol' Boys) Party bothered to stop and think why Conservatives hold J.C. Watts and Condi Rice in such high regard? Let me spell it out for you: They are not traditional politicians (Rice not a politician at all) because they do not compromise their positions for public consumption. They are conservative first and conservative at their core. No ambiguity. No nuance. No Jedi Mind Tricks.

I dream of a Rice/Watts or Watts/Rice ticket. What leadership that would be. I would likely tithe to that campaign. But, aren't I supposed to be the poster child for bigoted racism? With all of my anger over illegal immigration and the fact that I grew up a farmboy in the Midwest and my mean conservatism...I just have to be a racist simpleton Redneck, right? Wrong. Who's doing the stereotyping now? Why, the tolerant, peace loving Left would never do that would they? (Dean and his Confederate Flag slip come to mind?)

Here is my Clarion Call to the Republican pinheads at party headquarters:

Conservatives like me are no longer available to fire up the electorate on your behalf. Don't bother asking us to 'Come home to the Republican Party'. You had better wake up to the fact that it is the Party that had better come home to its conservative base. Being conservative and being a Republican are NOT synonymous.

Go ahead. Stick you your marketing-plan styled strategy. Keep listening to the 'genius' Karl Rove. Keep spending your 'earned political capital' on junk food with fancy wrappers. Keep forsaking border security because the numbers point to more hispanic voters in the years ahead. Senators and Congressmen, keep following the shepard at your own peril.

We elect these stagehands to do a job. However, they see their job as getting re-elected. Elections apparently ARE their job. Congress, Senate, the presidency.these are just things they do between jobs.

That's what is really going on here. Bush (via Rove) thinks that Republicans can lock up the hispanic vote like the Democrats locked up the black vote. I've got news for you, Senior' Bush: The hispanics you so desperately seek to woo are...(gasp)...conservative! They live conservative lives, are mostly Catholic (many devout and not of the Chris Matthews / John Kerry variety), they are family-centric and values driven. You offend them by cheapening their status/citizenship with blanket amnesty for law-breaking illegals, or whatever you choose to call it. (Note to W: Avoid nuance at all cost. It is not your strong suit.)

The Illegal Alien Amnesty package would never sail in a public Senate debate, when election-driven politicians would have to attach their name to it in open support. They know they would never survive their next election. So, the powers that be in DC have decided to slide it through an unopposable bill to fund the troops and thus providing plausible deniability and passage of the Bush Illegal Alien Amnesty / Republican Party Base-Building Lunacy Plan. Plausible deniability for one and all! That's why the lot of them who keep silent need to learn a lesson. I am sure their home states will welcome them home with open arms.

How can Ken Mehlman, Karl Rove, President Bush and each and every weak Republican Senator and Congressman not see that, in their efforts to make gains in Republican numbers down the road, they are destroying Republican numbers right now?

The Republican morale that was so high in November has now waned to anemic levels. Why? Conservatism IS the Republican Party and Conservatism just took a backhanded slap to the face...and we don't like it and won't tolerate it.

To borrow (and edit) a line from a loud feminist:

We're Fierce.

We're Conservatives.

And we're in your face!

Stand with me. Shed the Red 'R' jersey. It's no more than a scarlet letter. Stand for conservatism. Conservatism must define the Republican Party and not the other way around. We do not need the Republican Party to tell us what we believe, as many Democrats follow their party.

I am done. The Republican Party has betrayed conservatism and I will stand for it no more.

American first.

Conservative second.

Republican registration not required.


Update: From the Center for Security Policy link added to first graph...

In short, S.359, the Craig-Kennedy Agricultural Job Opportunity, Benefits, and Security Act of 2005 (better known as the AgJobs bill), amounts to an amnesty for a class of illegal aliens. While the proponents insist it is something else - for example, "hard-earned legalization" - there is no getting around the fact that it hugely rewards people for coming to this country illegally. And, as we have seen with previous, misbegotten immigration amnesties, the effect is to encourage more people to do so.
That will surely be the case with the Craig-Kennedy AgJobs bill, too. Even though it requires the illegal alien's 100 days of agricultural work in the U.S. to have occurred during any 12 month period between February 2002 and August 2003 - and, therefore, is not something new "invaders" could cash in on - this legislation further reinforces the expectation that, if you can get into this country by whatever means, you will at some point likely be allowed to stay legally.

Interestingly, Messrs. Craig and Kennedy have significantly fewer co-sponsors (43) on their legislation this year than they did in the last session of Congress (62). At this writing, it is unclear whether many of those Senators who no longer want to be publicly associated with this amnesty bill will nonetheless vote for it.

...and from a recent Letter to the Editor in Capital Press (Oregon):

In the article, "AgJOBS Bill resurfaces in Congress," it stated that the bill "will provide farmers with a stable workforce." That point is completely undercut by the quote of one of the potential workers, Luz Vezquez who states, "This (act) will allow me to get a better job. ..." So much for a stable workforce. When the current illegal alien farm workers get amnesty under the bill they will move on to other better-paying jobs.
Look, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out.

Here. Have a look at the language for yourself:

Title I establishes a program whereby agricultural workers in the United States who lack authorized immigration status but who can demonstrate that they have worked 100 or more days in a 12 consecutive month period during the 18-month period ending on December 31, 2004 can apply for adjustment of status. Eligible applicants would be granted temporary resident status. If the farmworker performs at least 360 work days (no less than 2,060 hours) of agricultural employment during the six year period after the date of enactment, including at least 240 work days (no less than 1,380 hours) during the first three years following adjustment, and at least 75 days (no less than 430 hours) of agricultural work during each of three 12-month periods in the six years following adjustment to temporary resident status, the farmworker may apply for permanent resident status.
During the period of temporary resident status the farmworker is employment authorized, and can travel abroad and reenter the United States.

Someone tell me that's not amnesty! Get here by any means and work for 12 months and you can stay! Wow, what a deal!

Now, I would suggest that when they 'prove' they have worked for 12 months while illegal...errr...lacking status...that the employer they proved they worked for should be brought to justice for breaking labor laws by hiring illegals in the first place. Can anyone please explain the logic behind awarding status by proving you (AND the employer) have broken US Labor laws? How 'bout we just dry up the well by eliminating the empoyers the illegals incriminate?

What car in the Logic Train flew off the tracks and allowed this language to even come up for a vote?

How much do we pay these rocket scientists to dream up this stuff?

Do the bills Senate supporters (62 last year, 43 now) even read? Or do they roll their eyes over words without thinking?

You make the call.

Exellent, lets hope all the Republicans will stay home if te canidateis an Open Borders Clown...

They need to learn the HARD WAY. Stay Home. Third Party might do something, even split so Dems get in though....

Rough waters ahead.......

W.,

Is this it?

http://www.alipac.us/modules.php?name=F ... highlight=

The above leads to the Denver Post Article 7/25/2006

http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_2663758

Dixie

I found this... It is dated April 07, 2005 though ...

http://www.radiobs.net/thebluestatecons ... op_il.html

Good Bye GOP: Illegal Alien Amnesty Slipped Into Military Funding Bill
Posted By | Permalink | Comments (27) | TrackBack (10) | Print Ready

This just makes me want to vomit. Violently. These are the clowns that I and so many others stridently and energetically supported in 2002 and 2004. What are our champions of representation doing? They have slipped President Bush's insane illegal alien amnesty language into the emergency funding bill for the troops' operations overseas, setting up anyone who dissents to be painted as not supporting the troops should they vote 'nay'. I wonder how many Republicans (or Democrats for that matter) plan to vote against the bill in it's current form and run the risk of being the new poster child for a recycled version of "I voted for the bill...before I voted against it" slogan, circa 2006-2008?

Joe Scarborough has the best lambasting of this loathesome maneuver that I have read yet, which is posted on his MSNBC 'blog'.

As a former congressman, I know how this scam works.
You pick the most offensive bill you can find and attach it to a piece of legislation that everyone knows must be passed.

So what have Republican leaders in the U.S. Senate decided to hold hostage?

The safety of U.S. troops overseas.

That's right, sports fans.

U.S. Senators are holding American soldiers and Marines in Iraq and Afghanistan hostage because of this Illegal Immigrant Protection bill. And these politicians have done it by tying the Illegal Alien Protection Act with an $80 billion Emergency Funding bill aimed at funding our troops overseas.


Well, sports fans, as they say..."That'll leave a mark."

Do you read me, George W. Bush? Bill Frist? Newbie Mel Martinez? ...and anyone else who fails to publicly scream in loud protest of this insanity. This is going to leave a mark indeed. And a foul taste that will not go away.

I nearly renounced my Republican affiliation last week in disgust over recent gutless maneuvers and non-stands against judicial tyranny and labeling concerned citizens vigilantes.

Allow me to renounce my Republican status now. I am done. I have no faith in the Republican leadership to lead from a positiion of conservatism.

I am a Blue State Conservative. I am NOT a Blue State Republican. I never have been. I have always stated that I am American first, Conservative second and Republican a decided and very distant third.

We conservatives expect the socialist leadership of the Democrat party to anger us. They are what they are. But when the Republican party abandons us by abandoning the conservatism they touted in elections, there is a more fiery Hell that awaits them than awaits even The Bitter Left's socialist guiding wing. From a months-old post titled "In Defense of Zell Miller", I offer some clarity:

Zell did what he figured a 'good Democrat' should do. Support him [favorably introducing Kerry once before blasting him at the RNC convention in 2004], as he is a member of your own party. But soon after came a point of critical mass and as his time in Washington DC wore on, he began to realize just how much of a real 'Dog and Pony Show' it really was...camera time, mike time, face time, back biting, self interest...all of which he knew were part of the atmosphere, but the degree to which he saw it astounded him. Say anything, do anything to get the sound bite out there and worry about the details some other time. But get the dig in for effect. This he saw going on on both sides, mind you, not just within his own party.
But let me ask you something: Two men are cheating on their wives. One is your friend, one is your brother. Which one saddens, angers or hurts you the most? Your brother, of course. He is your family and you expect more from family.


When our own betray us, they recieve treatment far worse than those who openly battle and oppose our ideas with rhetoric. Republicans are now poised to return to their homes from Washington in two successive waves. One is called 2006 and the other is called 2008. I am telling you now that I will sooner vote for Hillary Clinton than I will for Bill Frist or any other current member of the Republican Washington Brigade, with few exceptions. (This is to say that I will vote for a third party or not at all...which is painful to even imagine.)

You tell me...Who in Washington represents conservatives? Who?

I still have a framed Bush/Cheney '04 campaign sign hanging in my home office and it will remain, but not out of love for George Bush. It will remain because it bears the signature of J.C. Watts, who signed it at the RNC convention. J.C. Watts is one of the few Republicans I hold in high personal regard. He is a stand up man who says what he thinks and thinks what he says (like George W. Bush) and is unfailingly and consistently conservative (unlike George W. Bush). I regret that his voice is no longer in Washington, but then maybe that is why I continue to respect him so much. His job is not / was not to win elections.

Has anyone at the Grand Old (Good Ol' Boys) Party bothered to stop and think why Conservatives hold J.C. Watts and Condi Rice in such high regard? Let me spell it out for you: They are not traditional politicians (Rice not a politician at all) because they do not compromise their positions for public consumption. They are conservative first and conservative at their core. No ambiguity. No nuance. No Jedi Mind Tricks.

I dream of a Rice/Watts or Watts/Rice ticket. What leadership that would be. I would likely tithe to that campaign. But, aren't I supposed to be the poster child for bigoted racism? With all of my anger over illegal immigration and the fact that I grew up a farmboy in the Midwest and my mean conservatism...I just have to be a racist simpleton Redneck, right? Wrong. Who's doing the stereotyping now? Why, the tolerant, peace loving Left would never do that would they? (Dean and his Confederate Flag slip come to mind?)

Here is my Clarion Call to the Republican pinheads at party headquarters:

Conservatives like me are no longer available to fire up the electorate on your behalf. Don't bother asking us to 'Come home to the Republican Party'. You had better wake up to the fact that it is the Party that had better come home to its conservative base. Being conservative and being a Republican are NOT synonymous.

Go ahead. Stick you your marketing-plan styled strategy. Keep listening to the 'genius' Karl Rove. Keep spending your 'earned political capital' on junk food with fancy wrappers. Keep forsaking border security because the numbers point to more hispanic voters in the years ahead. Senators and Congressmen, keep following the shepard at your own peril.

We elect these stagehands to do a job. However, they see their job as getting re-elected. Elections apparently ARE their job. Congress, Senate, the presidency…these are just things they do between jobs.

That's what is really going on here. Bush (via Rove) thinks that Republicans can lock up the hispanic vote like the Democrats locked up the black vote. I've got news for you, Senior' Bush: The hispanics you so desperately seek to woo are...(gasp)...conservative! They live conservative lives, are mostly Catholic (many devout and not of the Chris Matthews / John Kerry variety), they are family-centric and values driven. You offend them by cheapening their status/citizenship with blanket amnesty for law-breaking illegals, or whatever you choose to call it. (Note to W: Avoid nuance at all cost. It is not your strong suit.)

The Illegal Alien Amnesty package would never sail in a public Senate debate, when election-driven politicians would have to attach their name to it in open support. They know they would never survive their next election. So, the powers that be in DC have decided to slide it through an unopposable bill to fund the troops and thus providing plausible deniability and passage of the Bush Illegal Alien Amnesty / Republican Party Base-Building Lunacy Plan. Plausible deniability for one and all! That's why the lot of them who keep silent need to learn a lesson. I am sure their home states will welcome them home with open arms.

How can Ken Mehlman, Karl Rove, President Bush and each and every weak Republican Senator and Congressman not see that, in their efforts to make gains in Republican numbers down the road, they are destroying Republican numbers right now?

The Republican morale that was so high in November has now waned to anemic levels. Why? Conservatism IS the Republican Party and Conservatism just took a backhanded slap to the face...and we don't like it and won't tolerate it.

To borrow (and edit) a line from a loud feminist:

We're Fierce.

We're Conservatives.

And we're in your face!

Stand with me. Shed the Red ‘R’ jersey. It’s no more than a scarlet letter. Stand for conservatism. Conservatism must define the Republican Party and not the other way around. We do not need the Republican Party to tell us what we believe, as many Democrats follow their party.

I am done. The Republican Party has betrayed conservatism and I will stand for it no more.

American first.

Conservative second.

Republican registration not required.


Update: From the Center for Security Policy link added to first graph...

In short, S.359, the Craig-Kennedy Agricultural Job Opportunity, Benefits, and Security Act of 2005 (better known as the AgJobs bill), amounts to an amnesty for a class of illegal aliens. While the proponents insist it is something else - for example, "hard-earned legalization" - there is no getting around the fact that it hugely rewards people for coming to this country illegally. And, as we have seen with previous, misbegotten immigration amnesties, the effect is to encourage more people to do so.
That will surely be the case with the Craig-Kennedy AgJobs bill, too. Even though it requires the illegal alien's 100 days of agricultural work in the U.S. to have occurred during any 12 month period between February 2002 and August 2003 - and, therefore, is not something new "invaders" could cash in on - this legislation further reinforces the expectation that, if you can get into this country by whatever means, you will at some point likely be allowed to stay legally.

Interestingly, Messrs. Craig and Kennedy have significantly fewer co-sponsors (43) on their legislation this year than they did in the last session of Congress (62). At this writing, it is unclear whether many of those Senators who no longer want to be publicly associated with this amnesty bill will nonetheless vote for it.


...and from a recent Letter to the Editor in Capital Press (Oregon):

In the article, “AgJOBS Bill resurfaces in Congress,” it stated that the bill “will provide farmers with a stable workforce.” That point is completely undercut by the quote of one of the potential workers, Luz Vezquez who states, “This (act) will allow me to get a better job. ...” So much for a stable workforce. When the current illegal alien farm workers get amnesty under the bill they will move on to other better-paying jobs.
Look, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out.

Here. Have a look at the language for yourself:

Title I establishes a program whereby agricultural workers in the United States who lack authorized immigration status but who can demonstrate that they have worked 100 or more days in a 12 consecutive month period during the 18-month period ending on December 31, 2004 can apply for adjustment of status. Eligible applicants would be granted temporary resident status. If the farmworker performs at least 360 work days (no less than 2,060 hours) of agricultural employment during the six year period after the date of enactment, including at least 240 work days (no less than 1,380 hours) during the first three years following adjustment, and at least 75 days (no less than 430 hours) of agricultural work during each of three 12-month periods in the six years following adjustment to temporary resident status, the farmworker may apply for permanent resident status.
During the period of temporary resident status the farmworker is employment authorized, and can travel abroad and reenter the United States.


Someone tell me that's not amnesty! Get here by any means and work for 12 months and you can stay! Wow, what a deal!

Now, I would suggest that when they 'prove' they have worked for 12 months while illegal...errr...lacking status...that the employer they proved they worked for should be brought to justice for breaking labor laws by hiring illegals in the first place. Can anyone please explain the logic behind awarding status by proving you (AND the employer) have broken US Labor laws? How 'bout we just dry up the well by eliminating the empoyers the illegals incriminate?

What car in the Logic Train flew off the tracks and allowed this language to even come up for a vote?

How much do we pay these rocket scientists to dream up this stuff?

Do the bills Senate supporters (62 last year, 43 now) even read? Or do they roll their eyes over words without thinking?

You make the call.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060 ... -9795r.htm

By Charles Hurt and Stephen Dinan
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published July 25, 2006

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advertisement

Two of President Bush's most loyal supporters in Congress yesterday asked him to request that more than $3.5 billion in "emergency" funding be spent immediately on securing the border -- rejecting the White House's assertion that enough is being done along the border.
Republican Sens. John Cornyn of Texas and Jon Kyl of Arizona -- who have long shared Mr. Bush's view that immigration reform should include a guest-worker program as well as increased border security -- said "comprehensive" legislation is dead this year unless the federal government proves that it is serious about enforcing current immigration laws by spending billions along the border.
"What we are offering today is what I believe is the last best hope for a comprehensive immigration reform to pass before the end of the year," Mr. Cornyn told reporters yesterday.
Although Mr. Bush did not directly address the calls for immediate new spending, he pressed yesterday for a guest-worker program at a naturalization ceremony for three immigrant soldiers at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, saying "all elements of the problem must be addressed together, or none of them will be solved at all."
They were the president's first extensive comments since House Republicans began hearings last month to push the enforcement-only approach contained in the bill they approved last year.
Mr. Bush yesterday urged Republicans in the House to broaden their border-security bill and send him legislation that -- as in the Senate bill -- deals with current illegal aliens and creates a foreign-worker program.
But Mr. Cornyn -- one of Mr. Bush's most ardent supporters on Capitol Hill -- told reporters yesterday that there is "no real hope in sight" that Mr. Bush will get such a bill this year. He said the federal government has lost all credibility on the issue and won't gain it back until the border is secure.
Mr. Kyl, who is up for re-election this year in a border state, said everyone he meets wants to talk about immigration.
And, he said, they all have the same question about the comprehensive immigration legislation that he and Mr. Cornyn have lobbied for for years: "Why should we believe that you're going to enforce a new law when the government is not enforcing the current law?"
White House spokesman Tony Snow said that the administration's plan to use National Guard troops to assist the U.S. Border Patrol means border security is already under way and that Congress can turn its attention to the rest of the immigration debate.
But Mr. Kyl and Mr. Cornyn said yesterday that the administration still has more to do.
They said the Department of Homeland Security still releases 600 illegal alien Salvadorans each week, has slacked off on punishing employers who hire illegal aliens and is still short of the number of detention beds and Border Patrol agents that Mr. Bush agreed to in 2004.
Earlier this month, however, Mr. Cornyn and Mr. Kyl were among the overwhelming majorities of senators who rejected efforts to pay for additional fencing and new Border Patrol agents as part of the Homeland Security Appropriations bill approved two weeks ago.
White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said they had just received the senators' letter yesterday evening and would review it, but she said Mr. Bush's commitment to border security "is as clear as day."
She pointed to the $1.9 billion in funding that Mr. Bush signed into law last month to pay for the National Guard troops and for more technology for the Border Patrol.
She also said the administration sees progress in the congressional debate.
"The president continues to be encouraged by the active and ongoing discussions about passage of a comprehensive immigration reform bill," Mrs. Perino said.
Mr. Bush yesterday repeated his assessment that the government cannot deport all illegal aliens, so instead most should be put on a multistep path to citizenship.
"We shouldn't be granting people automatic citizenship, nor is it possible to kick people out of the country," he said.
Jim Manley, spokesman for Minority Leader Harry Reid, dismissed the effort by Mr. Cornyn and Mr. Kyl.
"This is just another attempt to stall and delay efforts to pass comprehensive immigration that includes strong border security provisions," he said.

http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_2663758

Article Launched: 07/25/2006 10:11:00 PM MDT

nation / world news
Immigration votes set in Senate
By Suzanne Gamboa
The Associated Press


Washington - Senate Democrats and Republicans reached a deal Friday on how to handle immigration issues attached to a measure paying for U.S. operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The immigration measures spilled into the Senate's debate on an $80.6 billion military spending bill after the House included measures in its version to deny driver's licenses to illegal immigrants and make it harder for foreigners to stay in the U.S. on claims of asylum.

Under the deal, the Senate will vote Tuesday on three immigration measures. Each would require 60 votes to survive, including one sponsored by Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., that would give temporary visas to migrant crab pickers and oyster shuckers in time for Maryland's seafood season.

Another, by Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, would provide workers for the agricultural industry. It has support from growers and farmworker advocates, but it faces opposition for providing legal status to some workers.

Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., said he opposes using the military spending bill to address immigration, but he is proposing an alternative to Craig's measure. Co-sponsored by Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz, it doesn't include the legal residency provision.

"While reforms are needed to provide a legal way to meet our agricultural labor needs, we must also remove incentives for illegal immigration and put stricter provisions in place for seasonal workers coming across our borders,' Chambliss said.

The White House, Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., and other Republicans had pleaded with senators to

keep immigration off the spending bill and address the issue later. Democrats refused, saying it was because Frist wouldn't commit to opposing the immigration provisions in the House version when negotiators try to blend the two.

Mikulski defended her measure to provide Maryland seafood processors and other businesses with more seasonal workers hired through the H2B temporary-visa program, saying "the cat was already out of the bag on immigration.' Businesses are limited to 66,000 H2B workers a year, and that ceiling was reached Jan. 3.

The House's Iraq spending bill includes the immigration measures that its Judiciary Committee chairman, Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., wanted in the intelligence reorganization bill President Bush signed in December. Sensenbrenner withdrew the provisions back then after House and Senate leaders promised he could attach them to the first major legislation likely to reach Bush's desk.

They are almost universally opposed by Senate Democrats but also by state motor-vehicle commissioners, some GOP senators and religious groups that say people fleeing persecution would be harmed.

We need to know where this bill is and if there are amnesty guest worker provisions in this bill.

W

The person that sent me this sent me these source links.

Hope you folks have the time to check this out.

Links referenced in this post:
1. [http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.o...&code=05-D_15]
2. [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6330851/]
3. [http://wordunheard.com/archives/2005...ense_of_z.php]
4. [http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.o...&code=05-D_15]
5. [http://www.capitalpress.info/Main.as...ticleID=15513]
6. [http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache...ecurity+Act+of

W.:

This is where I first heard of it."

http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_2663758

Edit:

Whoops, Dixie already got it. Sorry.

http://senate.gov/pagelayout/legislativ ... g_page.htm

You may be able to find the bill number here.

I've got to run. BRB

Dixie