US senate approves funding to stop illegal immigration
Not all the senators are in favor of what those close to Dubya are, and it looks like some have now approved of measures to curb the illegal flow. From the Washington Times:
Meanwhile, it's a good thing if the public was able to mail enough feedback to protest Dubya's positions, and the senators were hopefully paying attention when this was done.
The Senate yesterday approved immediately spending nearly $2 billion to stop illegal immigration, the largest such infusion of emergency cash for the effort in recent years.I must say, it's quite facinating that the same man who seems to approve of giving amnesty to illegal aliens, which could be against the law, is at the same time approving of funding to stop the same people he's willing to give amnesty to from crossing into the US from Mexico's borders. You could say his positions may be as flaccid as those of the Democrats. Speaking of which...
Nearly every member of the Senate voted in favor of the new spending, but Democrats and Republicans split over whether to find cuts elsewhere in the massive spending bill to offset the border security expenditures. Republicans ultimately prevailed and roughly 3 percent will be cut from defense spending contained in the same bill.
"Porous borders are a threat to our national security, and the Senate has acted today to provide vital funding that will increase our border defenses," Majority Leader Bill Frist, Tennessee Republican, said after the vote.
Republicans turned back an effort by Minority Leader Harry Reid to grant the same expenditures for border security but without making cuts elsewhere in the emergency spending bill, which has ballooned to a $106.5 billion proposal. The Nevada Democrat, whose amendment failed on a mostly party-line 54-44 vote, said the Republican amendment would hurt the military.It wouldn't surprise me if Reid is just trying to take things out of context in order to smear the Republicans. How typical.
"Democrats offered a way to secure our borders and support our troops," he said. "Instead, Senate Republicans chose to slash $2 billion desperately needed by our troops in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere in order to offset the costs of additional border security."
Yesterday's action -- if approved by the House -- would make a comprehensive immigration bill like President Bush wants more difficult to pass through Congress. Border security unites virtually all lawmakers, while the guest-worker program is disliked by liberals who say it creates unfair competition for American workers, and a path to citizenship is disliked by conservatives who view it as amnesty.Well you see, here's the thing: as the AP Wire (via Michelle Malkin) reported some time ago, Bush "privately" favors amnesty. But because he seems to understand that his support for such an idea is unpopular with the general public, he cannot. Either way, it's a real shame that he can't just respect the public's wishes and put his whole amnesty notion on the scrap heap where it belongs. All that Dubya has done is to irritate people and put the Republicans' reputation at risk. And no matter where he stands, that's why the Republicans are doing the right thing to distance themselves from him.
The 59-39 vote came one day after Mr. Bush appeared to endorse a Senate proposal that would give many illegal aliens already in the country a path to citizenship.
After meeting at the White House with more than a dozen senators Tuesday, Mr. Bush told reporters that there was a broad and bipartisan consensus for immigration reform legislation that "recognizes we must have a temporary worker program, a bill that does not grant automatic amnesty to people, but a bill that says somebody who is working here on a legal basis has the right to get in line to become a citizen."
By yesterday, however, there was some dispute about whether Mr. Bush had actually endorsed the Senate proposal hatched early this month by Republican Sens. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Mel Martinez of Florida.
Under that plan, illegal aliens who have been in the U.S. five years or more could apply for citizenship without leaving the country while those who have been here between two and five years would have to apply at a point of entry. Those here less than two years would have to return to their home country to apply for citizenship.
"I'm extremely confident that there was no endorsement," said Sen. John Cornyn, Texas Republican, who didn't attend the White House meeting because he thinks the Hagel-Martinez proposal amounts to amnesty. "Matter of fact, I'm extremely confident that they were told, 'I'm not endorsing the bill.'"
Meanwhile, it's a good thing if the public was able to mail enough feedback to protest Dubya's positions, and the senators were hopefully paying attention when this was done.
Labels: US Congress
