ADVERTISEMENT

Senate passes immigration bill

TheCainer

HR Legend
Sep 23, 2003
26,374
23,717
113
The Senate on Thursday passed the most monumental overhaul of U.S. immigration laws in a generation, which would clear the way for millions of undocumented residents to have a chance at citizenship, attract workers from all over the world and devote unprecedented resources for security along the U.S.-Mexico border.

The vote was 68-32. Fourteen Republicans crossed the aisle to vote with all Democrats in favor. Thursday’s vote now puts the onus of immigration reform on the Republican-led House, where leaders have been resistant to the Senate legislation.


“The strong bipartisan vote we took is going to send a message across the country, it’s going to send a message to the other end of the Capitol as well,” said Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), the leader of the so-called Gang of Eight. “The bill has generated a level of support that we believe will be impossible for the House to ignore.

( Also on POLITICO: Republicans who voted for the bill)

The bill was a product of not only weeks of floor debate and committee rewrites, but months of private negotiations by the Gang of Eight — the group of four Democrats and four Republicans — to produce legislation that would give the Senate a shot at passing immigration reform, something it was unable to do just six years ago.

Republicans, shellacked by Mitt Romney’s 44-point loss among Latinos in the 2012 presidential election, almost immediately coalesced behind immigration reform as a top priority. The Gang of Eight got together last fall and recruited veterans of the 2007 immigration battle such as Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), long-time champions of reform such as Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) and high-wattage Senate newcomers, like Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.).

If Congress passes immigration reform, it would make good on a promise from President Barack Obama and likely become his most significant policy achievement in his second term. In a statement, Obama emphasized that the bill was collaborative effort.

( PHOTOS: Pols react to immigration deal)

“The bipartisan bill that passed today was a compromise,” Obama said. “By definition, nobody got everything they wanted. Not Democrats. Not Republicans. Not me. But the Senate bill is consistent with the key principles for commonsense reform that I – and many others – have repeatedly laid out.”

He called on the House to act and emphasized to supporters that the fight is not over. “Now is the time when opponents will try their hardest to pull this bipartisan effort apart so they can stop commonsense reform from becoming a reality. We cannot let that happen,” Obama said.

The Gang of Eight bill would essentially revamp every corner of U.S. immigration law, establishing a 13-year pathway to citizenship for millions of undocumented immigrants, with several security benchmarks that have to be met before they can obtain a green card. The measure would not only increases security along the border, but requires a mandatory workplace verification system for employers, trying to ensure no jobs are given to immigrants who are not authorized to work in the United States.

( PHOTOS: 10 wild immigration quotes)

It also includes a new visa program for lesser-skilled workers – the product of negotiations between the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and labor unions. And it shifts the country’s immigration policies away from a family-based system to one that is focused on more on work skills.

In another marked change from the failed 2007 effort, no Democrats voted against the immigration bill on Thursday. Six years ago, 15 Senate Democrats did.

This year, all five Senate Republican leaders rejected the bill, with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) saying he didn’t believe there was sufficient border-security measures to stem future illegal immigration.

The late afternoon vote in the Senate had much pomp and circumstance. Senators voted from their desks, a practice usually saved for historic pieces of legislation. Vice President Joe Biden arrived from the White House to preside. And dozens of young activists wearing shirts that said “11 Million Dreams” filled the Senate gallery, watching the last hours of floor debate.

( PHOTOS: 20 quotes on immigration reform)

They broke out in chants of “Yes we can,” after the final vote count was announced, despite being warned by Biden in advance to stay quiet.

Before the final vote, the legislation’s chief authors took turns defending the bill and reflecting on the hard-fought path toward reform. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) spoke of the ups and down of his 12-year fight on behalf of undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children. And Rubio detailed the journey of his parents as they emigrated from Cuba.

“Here in America, generations of unfulfilled dreams will finally come to pass,” Rubio said on the Senate floor. “That’s why support this reform.”


The legislation easily cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee in late May, earning the support of three Republicans and all Democrats after a marathon markup that left the core elements of the legislation mostly intact. An eleventh-hour effort to attach a provision extending immigration rights to gay couples was the main drama in the committee – an intraparty dilemma for Democrats that wasn’t resolved until this week, when the Supreme Court overturned the Defense of Marriage Act.

But the bill’s legislative route became more complicated once it moved to the full Senate. Republicans, as well as conservative Democrats, insisted on more border security measures to win their support. Their biggest advocate was Rubio, who signaled he could not support his own bill until its border security provisions were toughened up.

A breakthrough deal brokered by Republican Sens. Bob Corker of Tennessee and John Hoeven of North Dakota on a so-called “border surge” along the U.S.-Mexico boundary lured at least half a dozen Republican votes in favor of the bill, leaving little doubt that the legislation would have the minimum 60 votes needed to break a filibuster.

The agreement, which came on the heels of a Congressional Budget Office report that tallied nearly $900 billion in deficit savings over two decades, will add 20,000 border patrol agents, force the government to finish 700 miles of fencing and set aside billions of dollars for high-tech surveillance equipment.

“I believe that voting against this bill is voting against border security,” Corker said Thursday.

The Gang of Eight fell just short of an ambitious, 70-vote mark set by some of its members, who had believed a broad bipartisan majority would force the Republican-led House move on its bill. Last-minute efforts to lure Republican Sens. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia and Rob Portman of Ohio failed — negotiators viewed Chambliss’s demands as too onerous and Portman’s request for a vote on toughening E-Verify provisions got snagged in the procedural rules of the Senate.

“If they don’t get 70, it’s a strategic defeat for them,” Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) told POLITICO shortly before the final vote. “Not because 68 is a whole lot different than 70, but because they were touting that they were going to get 70 votes and be able to shove it down the throats of the House of Representatives.”

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a member of the Gang of Eight, told reporters that the bill did not secure 70 votes because of “procedural shenanigans” that consumed the legislation’s final days in the chamber. Both parties scurried back and forth to strike a deal on amendments, but repeatedly faced objections.

Still, “I consider this an astounding success,” a jubilant Graham said Thursday. “You could ratify a treaty or override a veto. This is as good as it gets in the Senate.”


Schumer also brushed away notions that not reaching the 70-vote goal was a failure.

“We had always said we wanted a large, significant number of Republicans, we got them,” Schumer said at a news conference following the vote. “When we said 70, that was our utmost goal. We’re very, very happy with 68.”

But the conservative majority in the House is moving on a different track, passing separate pieces of legislation to revamp the nation’s immigration system. The House Judiciary Committee has cleared a handful of bills, but has yet to release any legislative solution for the estimated 11 million immigrants living illegally in the United States.

The GOP leadership in the House, as well as its conservative rank-and-file, have stressed repeatedly that the Senate bill faces almost certain death in the chamber.

“The House is not going to take up and vote on whatever the Senate passes,” Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) reemphasized on Thursday. “We’re going to do our own bill, through regular order, and it’ll be legislation that reflects the will of our majority and the will of the American people.”


https://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/immigration-bill-2013-senate-passes-093530
 


I posted the above story from 2013 as a reminder to those who are currently whining about the situation on our southern border and are wondering why Congress cannot get anything done. There is a simple answer to that question.

The Republican party does not want a solution, at least one where they might have to make some compromises. The Senate bill would have passed the House IF it had been brought up for a vote. John Boehner, Speaker of the House at the time of the Senate legislation did not even bring the Senate bill up for a vote, because of the House’s stupid Hastert Rule. Yes, that Hastert, the pedophile who had previously been the GOP Speaker of the House. Did you forget what the Hastert Rule says?

Per Wikipedia (and other sources):

The Hastert Rule says that the Speaker will not schedule a floor vote on any bill that does not have majority support within their party—even if the majority of the members of the House would vote to pass it. ... The Hastert Rule is an informal rule and the Speaker is not bound by it; they may break it at their discretion.



There you have it. That is why we are where we are, because the GOP and the newfound “Tea Party” at that time instituted their purity test, which has even morphed into something worse today and why the GOP is being torn apart today. The GOP has been setting this country back this century with their obstruction tactics and purity “tribal” tests, not to mention their worthless permanent war footing they set this country on after 9/11.



If you are not happy where we are today, maybe you should reconsider your voting preferences.
 
I posted the above story from 2013 as a reminder to those who are currently whining about the situation on our southern border and are wondering why Congress cannot get anything done. There is a simple answer to that question.

The Republican party does not want a solution, at least one where they might have to make some compromises. The Senate bill would have passed the House IF it had been brought up for a vote. John Boehner, Speaker of the House at the time of the Senate legislation did not even bring the Senate bill up for a vote, because of the House’s stupid Hastert Rule. Yes, that Hastert, the pedophile who had previously been the GOP Speaker of the House. Did you forget what the Hastert Rule says?

Per Wikipedia (and other sources):

The Hastert Rule says that the Speaker will not schedule a floor vote on any bill that does not have majority support within their party—even if the majority of the members of the House would vote to pass it. ... The Hastert Rule is an informal rule and the Speaker is not bound by it; they may break it at their discretion.



There you have it. That is why we are where we are, because the GOP and the newfound “Tea Party” at that time instituted their purity test, which has even morphed into something worse today and why the GOP is being torn apart today. The GOP has been setting this country back this century with their obstruction tactics and purity “tribal” tests, not to mention their worthless permanent war footing they set this country on after 9/11.



If you are not happy where we are today, maybe you should reconsider your voting preferences.
As has been repeatedly stated, the Quepublicans no ideas to run on. They aren't interested in governing. They only want to stay in DC to stay in DC.
 
I posted the above story from 2013 as a reminder to those who are currently whining about the situation on our southern border and are wondering why Congress cannot get anything done. There is a simple answer to that question.

The Republican party does not want a solution, at least one where they might have to make some compromises. The Senate bill would have passed the House IF it had been brought up for a vote. John Boehner, Speaker of the House at the time of the Senate legislation did not even bring the Senate bill up for a vote, because of the House’s stupid Hastert Rule. Yes, that Hastert, the pedophile who had previously been the GOP Speaker of the House. Did you forget what the Hastert Rule says?

Per Wikipedia (and other sources):

The Hastert Rule says that the Speaker will not schedule a floor vote on any bill that does not have majority support within their party—even if the majority of the members of the House would vote to pass it. ... The Hastert Rule is an informal rule and the Speaker is not bound by it; they may break it at their discretion.



There you have it. That is why we are where we are, because the GOP and the newfound “Tea Party” at that time instituted their purity test, which has even morphed into something worse today and why the GOP is being torn apart today. The GOP has been setting this country back this century with their obstruction tactics and purity “tribal” tests, not to mention their worthless permanent war footing they set this country on after 9/11.



If you are not happy where we are today, maybe you should reconsider your voting preferences.
It would be nice if people like you actually held ALL politicians to account and not just the anti American leftists, I might agree with your position if you did. However, the libs are the ones not interested in solving this problem. If the left really wanted to solve the problem, they would have agreed to the Republican position from years ago, stop all or most illegal immigration from the southern border and then we would deal with the illegals already here. That would be the only way to not encourage even more illegal immigration. What signal are you sending offering amnesty while leaving the border porous? We would be inundated with more illegal immigration. Just ask Reagan the conservative president who did offer amnesty to illegal occupants in a good faith gesture to solve the issue but of course the left reneged (lied) and refused to stop further immigration.
 
It would be nice if people like you actually held ALL politicians to account and not just the anti American leftists, I might agree with your position if you did. However, the libs are the ones not interested in solving this problem. If the left really wanted to solve the problem, they would have agreed to the Republican position from years ago, stop all or most illegal immigration from the southern border and then we would deal with the illegals already here. That would be the only way to not encourage even more illegal immigration. What signal are you sending offering amnesty while leaving the border porous? We would be inundated with more illegal immigration. Just ask Reagan the conservative president who did offer amnesty to illegal occupants in a good faith gesture to solve the issue but of course the left reneged (lied) and refused to stop further immigration.
I tried to ask conservative Reagan but my psychic couldn't reach him. So I asked my psychic to reach out to former President Reagan, who increased the national debt by historic(at the time) numbers by increasing spending(also at historic numbers) and lowering the way to pay for that spending(taxes). Evidently he was taking a nap or reliving past glories of announcing Iowa Hawkeye football and basketball.
 
I tried to ask conservative Reagan but my psychic couldn't reach him. So I asked my psychic to reach out to former President Reagan, who increased the national debt by historic(at the time) numbers by increasing spending(also at historic numbers) and lowering the way to pay for that spending(taxes). Evidently he was taking a nap or reliving past glories of announcing Iowa Hawkeye football and basketball.
Nice try, when you know you were caught in an lie, just change the subject. I'm surprised you even know who Reagan was, that must have been the one day you showed up for history class.
 
It would be nice if people like you actually held ALL politicians to account and not just the anti American leftists, I might agree with your position if you did. However, the libs are the ones not interested in solving this problem. If the left really wanted to solve the problem, they would have agreed to the Republican position from years ago, stop all or most illegal immigration from the southern border and then we would deal with the illegals already here. That would be the only way to not encourage even more illegal immigration. What signal are you sending offering amnesty while leaving the border porous? We would be inundated with more illegal immigration. Just ask Reagan the conservative president who did offer amnesty to illegal occupants in a good faith gesture to solve the issue but of course the left reneged (lied) and refused to stop further immigration.
So nothing to actually add to what the article said? Just the stupid both sides argument. This is why we are where we are, Abigail.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DFSNOLE
Nice try, when you know you were caught in an lie, just change the subject. I'm surprised you even know who Reagan was, that must have been the one day you showed up for history class.
When was I caught in a lie? You seem to be the one changing the subject moving back 30 years to someone whose supporters wanted cheap labor. Perhaps you are the liar. Actually, there is no perhaps about it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tom Paris
When was I caught in a lie? You seem to be the one changing the subject moving back 30 years to someone whose supporters wanted cheap labor. Perhaps you are the liar. Actually, there is no perhaps about it.
What about voter ID? Why are you against it?
 
What about voter ID? Why are you against it?
What does this have to do with the original article? Why do you keep trying to change the topic from the fact that in 2013, not that long ago, there was an immigration bill ready to be passed but it never happened simply because Republicans never even brought it up for a vote.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DFSNOLE
What does this have to do with the original article? Why do you keep trying to change the topic from the fact that in 2013, not that long ago, there was an immigration bill ready to be passed but it never happened simply because Republicans never even brought it up for a vote.
I thought I did respond. The Repubs don't trust the left will do anything to stop future illegal immigration so they certainly aren't going to agree to grant amnesty to current illegals just to encourage more illegals.

Now, I answered your question so please explain your problem with voter ID's.
 
I thought I did respond. The Repubs don't trust the left will do anything to stop future illegal immigration so they certainly aren't going to agree to grant amnesty to current illegals just to encourage more illegals.

Now, I answered your question so please explain your problem with voter ID's.

Answering for me. I have no problem requiring voter ID as long as it is absolutely free of monetary cost, both the ID and obtaining supporting documents.

Do you think it helps maintain free and fair elections to prevent someone from giving out water to people in line.
 
Answering for me. I have no problem requiring voter ID as long as it is absolutely free of monetary cost, both the ID and obtaining supporting documents.

Do you think it helps maintain free and fair elections to prevent someone from giving out water to people in line.
No I don't. As I said in an earlier post, that is one aspect of the bill that I thought was unnecessary.
 
Answering for me. I have no problem requiring voter ID as long as it is absolutely free of monetary cost, both the ID and obtaining supporting documents.

Do you think it helps maintain free and fair elections to prevent someone from giving out water to people in line.
Do you think people aren’t capable of bringing their own water? If either party were to hand out water close( I believe 150ft?) to a polling place it’s illegal.
Most citizens already have the proper ID. I don’t know anyone without a license or like ID. Anything you would need is very cheap to obtain.
I don’t understand why it’s such an issue to go vote or vote absentee.
 
Do you think people aren’t capable of bringing their own water? If either party were to hand out water close( I believe 150ft?) to a polling place it’s illegal.
Most citizens already have the proper ID. I don’t know anyone without a license or like ID. Anything you would need is very cheap to obtain.
I don’t understand why it’s such an issue to go vote or vote absentee.

There are some people with no extra income. There are many people with no idea where the next meal is coming from. They shouldn’t have to spend a quarter to cast a vote. Paying $10 or whatever for a government issued ID or a copy of a birth certificate is a no go.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: LetsGoHawks83
There are some people with no extra income. There are many people with no idea where the next meal is coming from. They shouldn’t have to spend a quarter to cast a vote. Paying $10 or whatever for a government issued ID or a copy of a birth certificate is a no go.
I’m sure there are many people hungry in this country. That’s why we shouldn’t be letting illegals in. I’m also sure if you’ve held a job in this country you have proper documentation. It’s not really that hard.
 
There are some people with no extra income. There are many people with no idea where the next meal is coming from. They shouldn’t have to spend a quarter to cast a vote. Paying $10 or whatever for a government issued ID or a copy of a birth certificate is a no go.

At least in GA, there is no fee for a voter ID card so that is a non-argument.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 86Hawkeye
At least in GA, there is no fee for a voter ID card so that is a non-argument.

I think that’s true of most jurisdictions. But not every jurisdiction.

What should Republicans compromise on in return for the universal ID to vote? How about nationwide no excuse absentee ballots with a live voting period 21 days before the election?
 
I think that’s true of most jurisdictions. But not every jurisdiction.

What should Republicans compromise on in return for the universal ID to vote? How about nationwide no excuse absentee ballots with a live voting period 21 days before the election?
Why wouldn't everyone be in favor of IDs to vote? Don't all people care about the integrity of our elections?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hawkeyecurtis81
What should Republicans compromise on in return for the universal ID to vote? How about nationwide no excuse absentee ballots with a live voting period 21 days before the election?
Why compromise on anything? Why are you against voter ID? We use ID for many other things besides voting. The whole it’s too expensive to get the proper ID is a joke.
 
Why compromise on anything? Why are you against voter ID? We use ID for many other things besides voting. The whole it’s too expensive to get the proper ID is a joke.

Let me spell it out for you. Studies have shown that people who currently lack proper ID to bite are the poor, elderly, and minorities. Amazingly, those people are, for the most part, Democrat leaning voters. In addition, there’s no real documented problem to solve. Fraud that would be solved by voter ID is exceedingly rare. However, Republicans want to die on this hill. In return, they should have to compromise on something. How about ensuring those voters have additional ways to vote?
 
Let me spell it out for you. Studies have shown that people who currently lack proper ID to bite are the poor, elderly, and minorities. Amazingly, those people are, for the most part, Democrat leaning voters. In addition, there’s no real documented problem to solve. Fraud that would be solved by voter ID is exceedingly rare. However, Republicans want to die on this hill. In return, they should have to compromise on something. How about ensuring those voters have additional ways to vote?
Wow thanks for clearing that up for me. SMH. Besides voting in person and absentee what else do you need? Oh and you want water served is that right? Why would elderly and minorities not have proper ID? They have jobs and need ID for other things right?
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT