Discussion On The Politics of Immigration Reform (Comprehensive Or Otherwise)

I hate to dissappoint with my prediction but I highly suspect that House judiciary committe will kill the bill

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gs1968

The cloture vote is tomorrow after which the Majority & Minority leaders will start filling up the amendment tree. Unlike the judiciary committee the amendments will be in the few dozens rather than the hundreds as seen in the Committee but the amendments will be complex and will need debate on their own.

I am confused by this news item below which contradicts my earlier "deliberate pace" news story. But this is coming from the leadership or their aides while the other story was from Rep.Goodlatte -Are they not talking to each other?

http://www.newsmax.com/politics/hous...6/10/id/509060

Another story with slightly more detail

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/pol...ill-by-summer/

---

This is quite positive and ambitious plan that Boehner has put. I am surprised that it has not received wide coverage.

"Mr. Sessions goes to Washington"

After the senate closing remarks are done(more than a hour ago), he started talking and is still talking for more than a hour. Almost reminded me of "Mr. smith goes to washington" :)

bieber - all of us wish that this debate results into something practical common sense and progressive actions. But i think the border control argument is there to throw the CIR off. I think all of us can figure out why total border control is unattainable - cost vs returns. Physical wall would cost $30B and will be best control. Electronic walls are already in place and are not the best control.

Now the immigrants actually come in and help in wage suppression - work hard - do jobs that most people won't do. In Arizona we can pay somebody to take care of our lawns. How many people in NY can afford that? Anyway ... the but point is - total border control is not only expensive from implementation perspective - it will also negatively affect economy. That's why no US administration (dems or reps) is going to enforce border control and neither they should (IMHO). It's stupid. It's not India Pak border where terrorists are sneaking in. These are just simple people looking for a better life. And it works better for everybody. Only politicians make a big deal about it when they sense that can get them elected.

Sorry for little speech. I respect the rights of legal folks. But I also believe that all immigration is generally good. And that border control is a legal correctness that could harm a greater good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bieber

Q
It may very well be true that border control is better with this administration. But admission of unattainability defeats the purpose of whole immigration reform. It's hard for americans to believe that superpower can not control it's borders regardeless of this reform while their phone records, emails being scanned every minute. If border indeed cannot be controlled 100 or 90% then isn't it true that the country is not ready for this. I hope the this debate results into a practical and possible method to control the border and legalize who is inside already

---

Good Analysis..Immigration reform back from the brink..

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...the-brink.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by qesehmk

bieber - all of us wish that this debate results into something practical common sense and progressive actions. But i think the border control argument is there to throw the CIR off. I think all of us can figure out why total border control is unattainable - cost vs returns. Physical wall would cost $30B and will be best control. Electronic walls are already in place and are not the best control.

Now the immigrants actually come in and help in wage suppression - work hard - do jobs that most people won't do. In Arizona we can pay somebody to take care of our lawns. How many people in NY can afford that? Anyway ... the but point is - total border control is not only expensive from implementation perspective - it will also negatively affect economy. That's why no US administration (dems or reps) is going to enforce border control and neither they should (IMHO). It's stupid. It's not India Pak border where terrorists are sneaking in. These are just simple people looking for a better life. And it works better for everybody. Only politicians make a big deal about it when they sense that can get them elected.

Sorry for little speech. I respect the rights of legal folks. But I also believe that all immigration is generally good. And that border control is a legal correctness that could harm a greater good.

---

If infact 30B number is accurate, then cost/benefit analysis is piece of cake. Current administration ran 100B+ MONTHLY deficits for last 50+ months, so that cost is nothing in big picture. Regarding Ind/Pak border type scenario, there is evidence that such crossings (with wrong intentions) are already happening from south and there are groups in that country who r helping

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rupen86

Good Analysis..Immigration reform back from the brink..

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...the-brink.html

---

Thanks for the link rupen.However Mr.Boehner's interview this morning is not very convincing with a lot of vague replies/stuttering/stammering etc.Here is the transcript and please go to pages 3/4

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trans...2#.UbdWa5wUz6N

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gs1968

Thanks for the link rupen.However Mr.Boehner's interview this morning is not very convincing with a lot of vague replies/stuttering/stammering etc.Here is the transcript and please go to pages 3/4

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trans...2#.UbdWa5wUz6N

---

I went through the link. Yes, answers are vague. But they are supposed to be. Questions were well pointed and direct. But he did not want to answer them in direct way. He did not want to say that he would bring a bill to the floor even if majority of republicans are opposed to it. The positive thing is he did not promise that he would not do that. He again said he expected some bill by end of the month which again is a good thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rupen86

I went through the link. Yes, answers are vague. But they are supposed to be. Questions were well pointed and direct. But he did not want to answer them in direct way. He did not want to say that he would bring a bill to the floor even if majority of republicans are opposed to it. The positive thing is he did not promise that he would not do that. He again said he expected some bill by end of the month which again is a good thing.

---

Paul Ryan will be key in putting some pressure to bring the bill to vote in house as he wants to be in the race for 2016.

If the bill is brought to vote in house it will pass.

1. points to consider how soon the house bill will pass.
2. how different will it be from senate bill.

No one knows answer to these two

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by indiani

Paul Ryan will be key in putting some pressure to bring the bill to vote in house as he wants to be in the race for 2016.

If the bill is brought to vote in house it will pass.

1. points to consider how soon the house bill will pass.
2. how different will it be from senate bill.

No one knows answer to these two

---

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...est-92586.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by girish989

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...est-92586.html

---

almost everyone agrees that it will pass senate latest by July.

Margin is what everyone is counting on.

simple majority will embolden house leadership to delay and hope to kill eventually.

70+ will keep immense pressure to bring it to vote.

Today's vote is just an OK to proceed to debate and bring to vote in 3-4 weeks ( not necessarily an approval of bill by everyone who voted yea )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by qesehmk

"But i think the border control argument is there to throw the CIR off. I think all of us can figure out why total border control is unattainable - cost vs returns."

---

I most certainly disagree with that perspective.
If you start with the perspective of "border control is unattainable" then you have to agree "eradication of illegal immigration" is also "unattainable".
If it is not totally possible to stop future illegal immigration, then US would have to file for Amnesty bills every other decade to solve the issues being talked about in the CIR.

From a common sense point of view, if you are talking about total amnesty then you need to stop/stem the flow that generates the illegal immigration.
I do not know enough about border control measures to give a stronger perspective about cost/benefit & practical/ideal for different measures.
But, I find it hard to believe that there is not good set of stronger border control measures that cannot be added to stem the future illegal immigration flow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by indiani

almost everyone agrees that it will pass senate latest by July.

---

Ted Cruz (one who sponsered 5 poison pill amendments in committee) announced on senate floor just now that the bill has enough precooked votes to pass the senate at the end of this month.

He said it will crash and burn in the house and asked house members to take a look at this amendments :)

Game is clear now as it is affirmed by an insider.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rupen86

I went through the link. Yes, answers are vague. But they are supposed to be. Questions were well pointed and direct. But he did not want to answer them in direct way. He did not want to say that he would bring a bill to the floor even if majority of republicans are opposed to it. The positive thing is he did not promise that he would not do that. He again said he expected some bill by end of the month which again is a good thing.

---

This link confirms this analysis that interview was actually positive.

http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/...0#.Ubd6QdiWS-U

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by girish989

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...est-92586.html

---

The negative thing here was that Sen. Mark Kirk voted against it who was considered moderate to vote in favor of the bill.

Sen Leahy is not giving up

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...ent-92612.html

That's ok. When you will reach a position of power whatever field you are working - you will realize that even if you are the topmost guy - you just can never have 100% control over anything. It's always a compromise.

Same goes with immigration, crime, childbirth-deaths, rapes and what not. If you have a 100% control over something then that thing can't be important enough for the world.

So the moment anybody talks about 100% border control as a precondition to CIR - that person/organization is opposed to CIR - just that they dont' want to say so publicly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seahawks2012

I most certainly disagree with that perspective.
If you start with the perspective of "border control is unattainable" then you have to agree "eradication of illegal immigration" is also "unattainable".
If it is not totally possible to stop future illegal immigration, then US would have to file for Amnesty bills every other decade to solve the issues being talked about in the CIR.

From a common sense point of view, if you are talking about total amnesty then you need to stop/stem the flow that generates the illegal immigration.
I do not know enough about border control measures to give a stronger perspective about cost/benefit & practical/ideal for different measures.
But, I find it hard to believe that there is not good set of stronger border control measures that cannot be added to stem the future illegal immigration flow.

---

LoL!! Watch out he is acting anti-CIR. GLBT is such a minor issue in the grand scheme ... but a sure shot no no for republicans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gs1968

Sen Leahy is not giving up

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...ent-92612.html

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by qesehmk

That's ok. When you will reach a position of power whatever field you are working - you will realize that even if you are the topmost guy - you just can never have 100% control over anything. It's always a compromise.

Same goes with immigration, crime, childbirth-deaths, rapes and what not. If you have a 100% control over something then that thing can't be important enough for the world.

So the moment anybody talks about 100% border control as a precondition to CIR - that person/organization is opposed to CIR - just that they dont' want to say so publicly.

---

Q,
you made very good point. anytime we strive to do something we have to access what degree of success we want to achieve at what expense.

Republicans are saying stuff to appease their base at the same time didn't want to sound anti-immigrant.

No matter how much technology is advanced and how much money is spent , there never can be 100% success rate in something as complex as illegal immigration.

But I also want to add that republicans ( voters ) do not trust that WH will implement any serious border control measures , so republican voters like congress to have control over it.

Q,

I disagree with you, just like we get frustrated when people think few tens of thousands of indians discrimiated and suffering for decades is not being taken seriously, gays will feel the same.

Leahy has done the right thing but almost everyone knows that the amendment will be defeated even by democrats.
( even Leahy knows that )

It is just symbolic on his part.

I am all for GLBT. Just saying that - the provision just guarantees defeat in the house.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by indiani

Q,

I disagree with you, just like we get frustrated when people think few tens of thousands of indians discrimiated and suffering for decades is not being taken seriously, gays will feel the same.

Leahy has done the right thing but almost everyone knows that the amendment will be defeated even by democrats.
( even Leahy knows that )

It is just symbolic on his part.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by qesehmk

I am all for GLBT. Just saying that - the provision just guarantees defeat in the house.

---

I got your point now and i agree completely if this amendment is included in final bill , CIR will never become law.

But Leahy as I mentioned before knows that even his democratic colleagues will vote down this amendment.

He is hoping for some political contributions from LGBT community for his next election..lol

From Oh Law firm,
06/12/2013: Sen. Grassley Supports the CIR Bill and Propose his Amendment #1195

It is very surprising that the Senator Grassley introduced his amendment S. AMDT 1195 with a statement that he supports the CIR bill and just amend RPI trigger provision as follows: (Purpose: To prohibit the granting of registered provisional immigrant status until the Secretary has maintained effective control of the borders for 6 months). On page 855, strike line 24 and all that follows through page 856, line 9, and insert the following:
"(1) PROCESSING OF APPLICATIONS FOR REGISTERED PROVISIONAL IMMIGRANT STATUS.--Not earlier than the date upon which the Secretary has submitted to Congress a certification that the Secretary has maintained effective control of the Southern border for a period of not less 6 months, the Secretary may commence processing applications for registered provisional immigrant status pursuant to section 245B of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as added by section 2101 of this Act." This amendment will be voted today.
Very good!


Although it appears very positive and surprising that senator like Grassley will support the bill, this amendment is unlikely to pass.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by indiani

I got your point now and i agree completely if this amendment is included in final bill , CIR will never become law.

But Leahy as I mentioned before knows that even his democratic colleagues will vote down this amendment.

He is hoping for some political contributions from LGBT community for his next election..lol

---

But as per one of the statement from The President, he won't sign the bill without this provision and 11 million path to citizenship.. so anybody think he may Veto the bill without this provisions???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rupen86

From Oh Law firm,
06/12/2013: Sen. Grassley Supports the CIR Bill and Propose his Amendment #1195

It is very surprising that the Senator Grassley introduced his amendment S. AMDT 1195 with a statement that he supports the CIR bill and just amend RPI trigger provision as follows: (Purpose: To prohibit the granting of registered provisional immigrant status until the Secretary has maintained effective control of the borders for 6 months). On page 855, strike line 24 and all that follows through page 856, line 9, and insert the following:
"(1) PROCESSING OF APPLICATIONS FOR REGISTERED PROVISIONAL IMMIGRANT STATUS.--Not earlier than the date upon which the Secretary has submitted to Congress a certification that the Secretary has maintained effective control of the Southern border for a period of not less 6 months, the Secretary may commence processing applications for registered provisional immigrant status pursuant to section 245B of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as added by section 2101 of this Act." This amendment will be voted today.
Very good!


Although it appears very positive and surprising that senator like Grassley will support the bill, this amendment is unlikely to pass.

---

I read that too from Matthew Oh but I am unable to find any substantiation that he actually supports the Bill.It would be a great get for the Gof8 if they could bring him aboard as he would pull a lot of conservatives along.I did not see his floor speech but his printed remarks do not suggest support.

http://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/press_releases.cfm

I heard the debate yesterday and I dont recall Grassley making any statement in support of the bill in current shape.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gs1968

I read that too from Matthew Oh but I am unable to find any substantiation that he actually supports the Bill.It would be a great get for the Gof8 if they could bring him aboard as he would pull a lot of conservatives along.I did not see his floor speech but his printed remarks do not suggest support.

http://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/press_releases.cfm

---

This is incorrect. President has not put any such condition regarding LGBT support in the bill.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by immitime

But as per one of the statement from The President, he won't sign the bill without this provision and 11 million path to citizenship.. so anybody think he may Veto the bill without this provisions???

---

Interesting although it is still delaying the inevitable

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...ate-92652.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by qesehmk

That's ok. When you will reach a position of power whatever field you are working - you will realize that even if you are the topmost guy - you just can never have 100% control over anything. It's always a compromise.

Same goes with immigration, crime, childbirth-deaths, rapes and what not. If you have a 100% control over something then that thing can't be important enough for the world.

So the moment anybody talks about 100% border control as a precondition to CIR - that person/organization is opposed to CIR - just that they dont' want to say so publicly.

---

I guess my point was not clear enough, I get that 100% is not possible. But, that should not be the justification for "doing nothing". There is always a middle/common/compromise ground. The debate is about what that middle ground is. It is safe to say the CIR bill is not strong enough on border provisions to even reach that common ground of agreement/compromise between both the parties. So, saying that any border provision amendment is going to be a non-starter is the antithesis of saying "100% is unattainable".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gs1968

Interesting although it is still delaying the inevitable

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...ate-92652.html

---

Quote:

---

Sessions confirmed he is putting the brakes on votes for now — although he indicated it’s more than one Republican senator doing so.

---

As if it is a surprise !

The debate is restarted. Can be seen at:

http://www.senate.gov/floor/index.htm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gcq

As if it is a surprise !

---

Of course. Middle ground is what they should be looking for. But I am afraid - and my point is that - those who want to derail the talks and CIR - talk about completely securing the borders as a precondition to CIR.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seahawks2012

I guess my point was not clear enough, I get that 100% is not possible. But, that should not be the justification for "doing nothing". There is always a middle/common/compromise ground. The debate is about what that middle ground is. It is safe to say the CIR bill is not strong enough on border provisions to even reach that common ground of agreement/compromise between both the parties. So, saying that any border provision amendment is going to be a non-starter is the antithesis of saying "100% is unattainable".

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by delguy

The debate is restarted. Can be seen at:

http://www.senate.gov/floor/index.htm

---

Sessions says "African Americans" can't get jobs so it should not proceed. A guy who cares for African Americans !
"Unemployment going up. There aren't enough jobs" typical arguments of an anti-immigrant.

Sen Dean Heller (R) just spoke and seems to be in favor of bill. Good sign. He proposed few minor amendments but overwass appeared to be cool with current bill.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gcq

Sessions says "African Americans" can't get jobs so it should not proceed. A guy who cares for African Americans !
"Unemployment going up. There aren't enough jobs" typical arguments of an anti-immigrant.

---

Mr. Sessions == numbersusa.com

Their only goal is "Reduce immigration legal or illegal"

Even the republicancs who are against this acknowledged on senate floor that there is enough votes for the bill to pass Senate.

It is a defeat for people like Mr. Sessions in Senate.

House of Representatives is the real deal for CIR now.. They are under huge political pressure and will be forced to do something..

I liked the way Sen McCain provided rebuttal for Sen Cornyn amendment. Sen Cornyn just cooked up an amendment that require billions of dollars in implementation but has no answers to where the money will come from for that. The way McCain and Schumer argued with him was music to ears.

Those who are interested in really improving the bill are providing specific amendments to specific issues whereas monkey wrench throwers are busy with vague amendments.

if you want a good laugh check this out.. idiots want to deport the Statue of Liberty because its an illegal alien

http://deportthestatue.us/

Many GOP senator's feelings hurt. " I am not the guy who takes these lightly" ( Probably senator from Utah )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vizcard

if you want a good laugh check this out.. idiots want to deport the Statue of Liberty because its an illegal alien

http://deportthestatue.us/

---

Take the vote on the page. It's actually the other way.

Conservatives call on Boehner at Congress to stick with hastert rule. the rule dictates that no bill come to the floor without assurance that a majority of GOP members will vote for it.


http://blogs.rollcall.com/goppers/co...-hastert-rule/