Senate's Betrayal of The American Voter's Trust

Senate Approves Immigration Bill
Measure Faces Tough House Opposition

By Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 26, 2006; Page A01

The Senate yesterday approved legislation that would trigger the biggest changes to U.S. immigration policy in decades, by strengthening border security, establishing a guest-worker program, and providing the means for millions of illegal immigrants to stay in the country and possibly become citizens.

The product of a tenuous bipartisan coalition that faced tough conservative opposition, the measure calls for 370 miles of triple-layer fencing along the Mexican border, a complicated three-tiered system for determining who can stay and who must leave the country, and more jail cells for those awaiting deportation. It would declare English the country's national language, a gesture that many advocates found insulting but accepted in hopes of helping millions of undocumented workers achieve legal status.

But even as the Senate approved the bill 62 to 36, the measure's backers acknowledged that it faces formidable opposition in the House, whose political dynamics differ markedly from the Senate's. Numerous House members insist that Congress do nothing about legalizing immigrants until illegal border crossings are dramatically reduced.

Democrats and Republicans alike said a House-Senate accord will be nearly impossible without the vigorous involvement of President Bush, who favors an approach similar to the Senate's. The White House has already begun lobbying efforts, but it faces resistance from more than 200 House Republicans seeking reelection this fall, many in districts where the sentiment against illegal immigrants runs high.

"This is the most far-reaching immigration reform in our history," Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), a leader of the Senate effort, said of the bill's passage. "It is a comprehensive and realistic attempt to solve the real-world problems that have festered for too long in our broken immigration system."

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Kennedy's partner in the effort, said more than 11 million illegal immigrants "harvest our crops, tend our gardens, work in our restaurants and clean our houses" and added: "Some Americans believe we must find all these millions, round them up and send them back to the countries they came from. I don't know how you do that. And I don't know why you would want to."

But opponents called the bill fundamentally flawed and predicted that it will be completely rewritten by a House-Senate conference committee, which will try next month to craft a compromise version acceptable to both chambers.

Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) called the measure "a bad bill" that "puts more emphasis on amnesty than on border security."

Only 36 Senators chose to stay true to their oaths of office, to protect and defend the Constitution. What was interesting about this vote, is that it was not a straight party line vote. It was also not divided by philosophy-Liberal/Conservative-or geography-North/South. It is true that most of those in the Republican Party who voted for it were the more Liberal, RINO's, in the party, Lugar, Specter, Snow, McCAin, DeWine, Voinivich, Chafee, you know the usual gutless "Look at me, I'm not a cold heartless bastard. I'm a caring, enlightened, progressive thinker." But they were joined by some of those who have been consistently, one might even say stalwart in their conservative voting record. Senators like Norm Coleman, Sam Brownback, and Mitch McConnell, inexplicably joined in. Perhaps they were driven by their belief in the needs of businesses, mistaken though that belief is. You can see the vote breakdown here

On the other side, Democrats who are usually reliably Liberal like Senators Byrd, Dorgan and Stabenow joined with usually moderate Republicans like Grassley, Alexander, and Sununu to cast their votes against the bill. Perhaps some, like Robert Byrd (D-WV) are such ardent believers in the Constitution and the necessity of protecting our nation that they couldn't bring themselves to vote with their fellow Democrats.

Even those in the states most effected by illegal immigration were unpredictable (with the exception of those from the Peoples Republic of California, Boxer and Feinstein who voted "Nay". Surprise!). Cornyn and Hutchison, Kyl, Lott and Cochran, all conservative and in states effected by massive illegal immigration, were joined by the Senator who lead the opposition, and was probably the best informed as to what the bill actually said Alabama's Jeff Sessions.

With these muddled alignments, perhaps the answer which most covers the bizarre nature of this vote is that they were more interested in getting a bill than they were in getting a bill that solved the problem.

Full Story: Sad Day for Americans

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below