Republicans in House Resist Overhaul for Immigration

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by Row6, Jul 11, 2013.

  1. Row6

    Row6 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2009
    Messages:
    15,997
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +26
    NY Times article on House Republicans typically reactionary response. Boehner is sticking to the Hastert Rule - no vote allowed on a bill which would pass with combined Dem and Repub support if it doesn't have majority support among Republicans - which means immigration reform is probably dead. The fact that the senate bill - which the House could modify and negotiate, but which they now will refuse to do - is scored by the CBO to save the Treasury about $150 billion over 10 years and decrease illegal immigration by about 1/3 isn't good enough for these radicals. They insist on dreaming about 100% illegal immigration elimination - ain't happening in the real world folks - while playing to their low info, know-nothing voters in their gerrymandered districts.

    "WASHINGTON — Meeting for the first time as a group to hash out their approach to immigration, House Republicans on Wednesday came down overwhelmingly against a comprehensive overhaul of the nation’s immigration laws, putting in jeopardy the future of sweeping legislation that includes a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.

    Despite the resistance, Speaker John A. Boehner warned about the steep price of inaction, telling House Republicans that they would be in a weaker political position against a bipartisan Senate coalition and President Obama if they did nothing to answer the immigration measure passed by the Senate last month.

    House Republicans huddled in a crucial two-and-a-half-hour session in the basement of the Capitol as their leaders tried to devise some response to the demand for immigration legislation, especially the Senate provision that would grant a path to citizenship for the 11 million undocumented immigrants already in the country. The bill also mandates tough border security provisions that must be in place before the immigrants can gain legal status.

    The bottom line was clear: The Republican-controlled House does not plan to take up anything resembling the Senate bill, which many believe is bad policy and smacks of an amnesty strongly opposed by the conservatives who hold sway over much of the rank and file. The House also does not intend to move very quickly, and some Republicans are wary of passing any measure at all that could lead to negotiations with the Senate, talks that could add pressure to the House to consider a broader plan...."​

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/11/u....html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130711
  2. MichiGator2002

    MichiGator2002 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    15,765
    Likes Received:
    422
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,835
    What's reactionary about not abetting crappy legislation? I love liberal word-of-the-day calender talking points, especially when they are so easy to spot.

    But they should go to the extent of not bringing any bill at all to the floor that could end up in conference with the Senate's amnesty bill. Then they can be labeled reactionary for... doing what Harry Reid does all the time?
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Row6

    Row6 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2009
    Messages:
    15,997
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +26
    Using BS claims about border security aimed at nativist yahoos to avoid voting on a bill which increases it, while saving the treasury money is what I call reactionary.
  4. MichiGator2002

    MichiGator2002 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    15,765
    Likes Received:
    422
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,835
    Which is great if nobody is interested in the word reactionary actually having any useful meaning.

    The Senate bill is pure fraud on border security -- everything is illusory, subject to discretionary change by executive officers. So unless you are objecting to having border security as even a policy objective of the amnesty bill, there's nothing to talk about.

    It's hardly the only flaw in the Senate bill, of course, just the most glaring. Sure a lot of conversation space could be devoted to the comically irrational breadth of criminal immunities the Senate's provisional status confers, not to mention how it seems to apply backwards, forewards, and side to side, as if the goal is to make it apply to anyone and everyone.
  5. rivergator

    rivergator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    31,751
    Likes Received:
    364
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,763
    such as?
  6. VAg8r1

    VAg8r1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    5,940
    Likes Received:
    39
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +145
    Pure fraud?
    link
  7. MichiGator2002

    MichiGator2002 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    15,765
    Likes Received:
    422
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,835
    That would be the fence that has been required by law already for several years, now somehow by getting re-required and probably also re-abandoned satisfies the border security demands of America's southern border.
  8. rivergator

    rivergator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    31,751
    Likes Received:
    364
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,763
    you're saying the wall is discretionary in the legislation?
  9. mastoidbone

    mastoidbone VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    7,239
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Ratings Received:
    +18
    I would love to see immigration reform but I agree the senate bill is a bad one. This is like obamacare---just because we need reform---does not mean we need bad reform.

    Fix the bill. Legalize those here---but no reason they should be given citizenship and they should pay all back taxes before they get access to fed benefits.

    Bad bill for a big problem.
  10. Row6

    Row6 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2009
    Messages:
    15,997
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +26
    Many illegals have been paying into SS and Medicare for as long as they've been here, with no hope of enjoying benefits. In fact they have been an effective subsidy to those funds. As to federal benefits under the senate version:

    "...Gutierrez said that immigrants with provisional status would pay every tax and get no benefits. His staff said he was talking about means-tested benefits, and to a large extent, Gutierrez was in line with what the Senate immigration bill says. It requires unauthorized immigrants to pay taxes, and so long as they are in a provisional status, they would not be eligible for food, housing or medical assistance.

    There are exceptions under current law that would allow them to get some public benefits, but these are limited and in any event, the Senate bill does not change the status quo. A subset of immigrants, children brought to the country at a young age and agricultural workers, would be eligible for green cards in less than 10 years, but the majority, about 70 percent, would have to wait the full time.

    We rate the statement Mostly True."​

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...tierrez/senate-bill-says-undocumented-immigr/
  11. g8rjd

    g8rjd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2008
    Messages:
    7,236
    Likes Received:
    261
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Tallahassee, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +387
    There's a way to do that other than killing a bill, you know. It's called an amendment. The House could have passed what it thought was better via amendment and send it back to the Senate or go to a conference committee.

    Killing a bipartisan Senate bill, irrespective of the merits, just looks obstructionist.
  12. Row6

    Row6 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2009
    Messages:
    15,997
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +26
    It is obstructionist, the modis operandi of the House since 2011 and Senate Repubs since 2007.
  13. LittleBlueLW

    LittleBlueLW Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    5,498
    Likes Received:
    765
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +1,214
    Nice Row. Nice.
  14. tim85

    tim85 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    Messages:
    4,117
    Likes Received:
    307
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Jacksonville, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,141
    There's a multitude of issues with this bill. What happens, if this bill gets passed, when someone from the Democratic side starts saying, "Hey, we did all this to help these illegals, but they're not even allowed to vote for 20-30 years(can't remember), we should allow them to vote in five!" How long would it take for that to start to become a rallying cry of the left? Sure, I'll admit, I'm being purely speculative -- but I wouldn't even state if I didn't really think some would try this.

    Also, the border security is just another thing our government will claim to do, and then not do. What makes this bill really any different from the one in 1986?

    The problem isn't our current laws, the problem is our government not upholding the laws we already have in place.
  15. Row6

    Row6 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2009
    Messages:
    15,997
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +26
    Border security with Mexico is very difficult. No one who knows anything about it thinks we can "solve" the problem though the present bill provides enough added people and equipment to cut it by about 1/3, and still increase treasury funds.. IAW, this bill is in your interests if you care about border security.
  16. T3goalie

    T3goalie VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    2,752
    Likes Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +22
    Like a vast majority of Senators, my best guess is that neither you nor Row, et al, have read the bill. You may want to do so because it is not as advertised. Editorializing on editorials is a waste of your time. Positioning that this somehow solves problems is based on faulty premises. Read the bill, it is disappointing. The bill does not follow the talking points. :no:
  17. diehardgator1

    diehardgator1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,653
    Likes Received:
    124
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +324
    obama will not enforce obama care laws that he passed. If border security is passed what makes you think he would enforce them? obama has been proved to be a liar and unreliable to enforce anything
    • Like Like x 1
  18. rivergator

    rivergator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    31,751
    Likes Received:
    364
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,763
    A simple "I don't know" would have sufficed.
  19. oaklandroadie

    oaklandroadie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2007
    Messages:
    1,554
    Likes Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +137
    +1 Billion.

    The OA has a sorry record on enforcing legislation.
  20. adamgator96

    adamgator96 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    1,860
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Ratings Received:
    +58
    Decreasing illegal immigration by 1/3 is supposed to be okay? When did a 66% fail rate become okay? I must be missing something here.

    We need immigration reform, not another bad piece of legislation.

Share This Page