|
| On Jun 28, 6:15 am, Kyle Schwitters <slipuva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Your White House war criminal and your AMNESTY-LOVING hack John McCain
> have a saying: "Immigrants do jobs Americans don't want to do."
>
> If you buy this, then you also bought "They'll be welcomed as
> liberators!" or "Democracy's on the march in Iraq."
>
> FACT IS, no test of this faux-"theory" has ever been conducted.
> That's because jobs like bricklayer, crop harvester, roof installer,
> house painter, garbage worker, ditch digger, carpenter's helper,
> janitor, and yard worker ARE being done by ILLEGALS! And the pay is
> low, if at all!
>
> BUT -- if the illegals were somehow "disappeared," LEGAL Americans,
> including business and industry leaders and property owners, IF they
> still WANTED those jobs done, would either RAISE U.S. citizens' PAY-
> SCALES enough to attract applicants - or find other alternatives, like
> not having the jobs done, or having the kids do 'em.
>
> But, if they found all these jobs once performed by illegals WERE
> necessary, but true citizens still refused to do the works at
> illegals' pay levels, THEN we'd see a true push and mass support for
> immigration reform.
>
> So in reality, as things stand, the presence of ILLEGALS on the job(s)
> are now holding WAGES DOWN!
>
> And don't let the worst president in U.S. history or John "I Am Still
> A Former POW" McCain brainwash you with their immigration lies!
>
> Promise you won't.
>
> ---------------------------------------
>
> "Immigration Measure Appears Imperiled Again"
>
> "Defeat of Amendments Briefly Raised Hopes"
>
> By William Branigin and Jonathan Weisman
> Washington Post Staff Writers
> Thursday, June 28, 2007; A06
>
> The Senate yesterday turned back a series of amendments from both
> parties aimed at substantially altering controversial immigration
> legislation, but the bill shed supporters as it became mired in
> procedural problems that left backers concerned about its prospects.
>
> The legislation faces a make-or-break vote this morning when senators
> will decide whether to cut off debate and move to a final vote
> tomorrow. If it does not get the 60 votes necessary, Majority Leader
> Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) has said he will pull the bill, all but dashing
> hopes for any meaningful legislation this year.
>
> Top legislative aides in both parties predicted today's vote would be
> very close but would fall short of keeping the proposal alive.
>
> Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), a key opponent, crowed last night that "they
> tried to railroad this through today, but we derailed the train."
> Another opponent, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), said, "I would say to
> my colleagues: Let's end this thing."
>
> Key Democrats who were on the fence also raised questions. Sen. Robert
> Menendez (D-N.J.) said the failure of his amendment to bolster family
> reunification visas "makes it more difficult to vote in favor" of
> ending debate. The reunification provision was voted down 55 to 40.
>
> Last night's stall came after a day that had left the bill's
> proponents optimistic. The defeat of provisions intended to toughen
> the bill or soften its restrictions suggested that the core of the
> "grand bargain" was holding in the Senate's second attempt to pass an
> immigration bill supported by the White House.
>
> One key amendment rejected yesterday was a Republican proposal to
> require all adult illegal immigrants to return to their countries
> temporarily to qualify for a special new visa.
>
> The provision, an amendment offered by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-
> Tex.), was defeated, 53 to 45. But a similar amendment that would
> require only heads of households to return to home countries is
> expected to fare better if it comes to the floor, after the vote to
> shut off debate.
>
> The defeated amendments were among at least 26 measures up for
> consideration. Some are designed to stiffen the bill in response to
> criticism from conservatives, while others are aimed at weakening
> provisions that immigrants' rights advocates or employers consider too
> burdensome.
>
> The overall bill would create a path to U.S. citizenship for the
> nation's 12 million illegal immigrants and establish a new guest-
> worker program that would allow hundreds of thousands more to enter
> the country to take jobs that President Bush says Americans do not
> want. It also would pour billions of dollars into an effort to tighten
> border security.
>
> A number of Republican senators have bucked the White House on the
> bill, vowing to kill it because its legalization provisions amount to
> "amnesty" for illegal immigrants, a deeply unpopular concept among
> many conservatives. The bill also has come under attack from liberals
> and immigrants' advocates, who oppose some of its restrictions and its
> emphasis on awarding visas based more on skills than on the family
> connections that are given primacy under the current system.
>
> One of the defeated amendments, offered by Sen. Christopher S. Bond (R-
> Mo.), would have denied citizenship to all illegal immigrants. It
> lost, 56 to 41. Another amendment introduced by Sen. James Webb (D-
> Va.), which would have given legal status to only those illegal
> immigrants who have lived in the United States for at least four
> years, went down 79 to 18. The bill would extend eligibility for
> legalization to those who arrived by Jan. 1, 2007.
>
> An attempt to liberalize the bill also failed, as senators voted 56 to
> 41 against an amendment by Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) that
> would have increased the availability of green cards for relatives of
> those already here. Republicans strongly opposed the amendment because
> it would have violated a key tenet of the "grand bargain" behind the
> bill: shifting the allocation of green cards to the skills-based
> system favored by employers.
>
> Hutchison's amendment would have required all adult illegal immigrants
> eligible to work to return to their home countries within two years
> after receiving a temporary permit to remain in the United States. It
> would have applied to those seeking a new "Z Visa," a category
> designed to give probationary status to illegal immigrants before they
> become eligible to apply for green cards, which denote permanent legal
> resident status.
>
> Considered more likely to pass is an amendment offered by Sen. Lindsey
> O. Graham (R-S.C.) that would require heads of households with Z Visas
> -- rather than all adults -- to return home before reentering the
> United States legally.
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy.../06/27/AR200...
Does anyone still support the government in Washington, DC?
ted
|
|