Thread: Senator Byrd's Amendment

Reminder - Hold Your Senators Accountable for Rejecting Byrd Amendment to Stop Major Foreign Worker/Immigration Increase

Does anyone know what reason so many had to reject Senator Byrd's Amendment to stop the immigration increase? It seems to me that there had to be a flaw that they could see and we couldn't what with all the flack the senate is getting over illegal immigration these days. Comments?

I don't have an answer to your question. I did call both of my senators on this (the first thing I've ever called about). Maybe I'll get a letter from them in a couple of months attempting to explain their reasoning.

I believe all that the Byrd Amendment did was to strike the language of selling hundreds of thousand of new green cards for dollars and replace that with new fees on employers for already authorized visas raising, I guess, about the same amount of money for the government. The Byrd Amendment was also similar to legislation already in the House. Byrd also made the point that the budget process was not the correct place to be making major changes to immigration policy. From what I know about employment need/availability in the areas affected by this, and what I know about overall immigration numbers, and what I know about open government; I can't see a flaw in the Byrd Amendment.

I imagine the votes had a lot to do with massive lobbying and disinformation concerning the need for additional workers from AILA and Microsoft -- both for their own selfish interest, of course. These groups have the ability to make campaign contributions too and with having the vote hidden in the budget process senators could vote "nay" on Byrd making Microsoft and others happy while not having the vote largely known to the common worker. I doubt that the illegal immigration issue would be much of a factor because the Byrd Amendment wasn't directly related to that.

We need to find some candidates who can't be bought and then work to change the laws so that their terms are limited so that they can't get so entrenched in washington that they become corrupt, that is for sure. If 8 years is all a President can serve, then 8 should be all a senator or congressman can serve.

In colorado we need to get Dick Lamm to run against Wayne Allard. He can win. If you live in colo. or outside Send Dick a letter c/o Denver University

Does anyone know what reason so many had to reject Senator Byrd's Amendment to stop the immigration increase?

Yeah, it's called special corporate interest.

Does anyone know what reason so many had to reject Senator Byrd's Amendment to stop the immigration increase?


Yeah, it's called special corporate interest.

That is possible, dman. But I have a feeling there was something else stuck in there with that bill that would have been twice as damaging to somebody and therefore that part was scrapped.

I admit that I don't read many of the bills because most of it just sounds like legal double talk to me and I get too frustrated trying to figure it all out. Hell, they even make the Constitution sound like political double talk most of the time so I leave that to smarter people than me and go with the explanation that makes the most sense to me.

I may feel like I'm 250 years old sometimes but, in reality, I'm not. Therefore, I can only guess with the rest of them what the people who wrote the original words meant.

But these days I think there are way too many secret deals made among strange bedfellows on Capitol Hill and that is why then entire legislative branch of the government is so counterproductive to the interests of the American people. That cancer is spreading to the judicial branch as well, by the looks of things. The Executive branch has always been no better than the man behind the desk in the oval office and, unfortunately, we haven't had a good one of those since Truman from my vantage point and Truman was out of office shortly after I was born!