One of the keys to immigration reform, if it’s going to pass, is that the Senate bill has to pass with some fat still on the bone. There needs to be some things that the Dems can give up in negotiations with the House, which means that they can’t agree to them now as the bill winds its way through the Senate. I don’t know if the Cornyn Amendment is a true deal killer or not. Perhaps a slightly softened version of it could provide the key to a completed bill that can pass both Houses.
In this sense, passing the Senate bill with 63 or 64 votes without adopting the Cornyn Amendment is probably preferable to passing it with the Cornyn Amendment and 70 votes. Simply put, the bill cannot be weakened much further on the pathway to citizenship without Democrats walking away from the table, but it is probably not possible to hold things as they are.
The Cornyn Amendment sounds like we are negotiating with the illegals. That is wrong. It’s a poison pill to me for that reason.
The immigration bill ought to be about righting wrongs (kids) and dealing with the fact that no one is going to hunt out 12 million people or three million if dataguy is right, any number of millions will do. But I’ll give you this if others quit coming over? Leaves a bad taste in my mouth. The adult illegals are willful lawbreakers. We are willing to give amnesty to save money, and to avoid turning the USA into (more of) a police state. No apologies and no dickerings.
It isn’t about negotiating with anybody, it’s about stalling for time. Cornyn doesn’t want a path to citizenship, so if it depends on Homeland Security meeting unrealistic goals then it will be put off indefinitely.
I can’t really get too worked up over whether someone is here legally or not, anyway. The western United States, especially, has been stolen so many times over that I don’t know how to say who has a right to live here. I’ve never felt entirely comfortable with the idea of telling Mexicans they can’t go to places that used to be in Mexico.
Then maybe we should give the West back to Mexico, since it was stolen.
Why the hell would we do that? That would be stupid.
Set aside the moral-right element of Stephen’s argument.
That history of the west being part of Mexico is still manifested in the migration of people across the border. The seasonal harvest migration, for instance, is a centuries-old way of life one which people continue to depend, which the enforcement of the arbitrarily-drawn border interferes with.
Kind of amusing, since most “Mexicans” were either descended from the Spanish who killed millions or from the Aztecs, who also killed millions. You are saying that the Mexicans have a superior claim due to some extremely dubious moral status having gotten somewhere by murdering the former inhabitants?
That’s a ridiculous line of reasoning.
No, the ridiculous line of reasoning is where you reach your bizarre conclusions from what I said. I’m not saying anybody has a superior claim to anything, just that history is among the many things I like to keep in mind when I’m thinking about what’s just and fair.
This line of argumentation is basically an attempt to legitimize lawbreaking. Following the same line, theft is moral, since the rich have stolen things themselves. Again, another argument is “property is theft”, and therefore taking another’s property is legitimate since they got it by theft themselves. It is simply a justfication, and an extremely lame one, to allow you to accept the fact that others have broken the law, and you want to justify it.
I think that a law is a law. And as a country, we have the right to determine who is a citizen and under what circumstances we will accept aliens to become citizens. In the last 10 years, we have had more than 7,000,000 citizens added by naturalization:
2010 675,967 2005 604,280
2009 743,715 2004 537,151
2008 1,046,539 2003 463,204
2007 660,477 2002 573,708
2006 702,589 2001 608,205
If you want more, up the numbers. I am perfectly comfortable with these numbers myself.
That’s nice. If you feel like responding to anything I actually said, let me know.
Last I heard a bill needs only 51 votes to pass and the Cornyn Amendment is a bill (deal) breaker. It is in the Republican Party’s best interest to have Immigration Reform that leads to Permanent Residency and than Citizenship. I do not see any Republican Presidential Candidate as ever having a chance of winning in 2016 without Immigration Reform.
A legal flow of Immigrants will, reduce the need for tighter security.
That sounds like the illegal aliens are holding our political system ho-stage to their demands.
No the Legal Voting United States Citizens our holding President Obama accountable for his campaign promise. And us Latino Voters, will insure the defeat of any Republican Presidential Candidate in 2016. Its Plain and Simple..no gray areas here.
Yes, that was the line that was used to sell the 1986 immigration reform. That reform failed, and this reform will fail from the same reason.
I don’t think this is 1986 and this bill is very different than the one passed in 1986.
in political terms, this tanks the gop 2016 hopefuls.
Rand Paul and Teddy Cruz will hammer Rubio day and night over this (a vote for Rubio is a vote for amnesty!!!). Then Hillary will take all their statements and play them on a loop, capturing 85% of the latino vote.
To paraphrase Ahrnold: Hasta la vista, GOP