I figured appealing to reason, rather than emotional threats, might be more persuasive. Was I wrong?
Senator Gregg:
As a New Hempshire resident, politically-involved and interested citizen and blogger (http://joustthefacts.typepad.com) I urge you to vote against cloture for the current poorly defined and even more poorly considered back-room deal Senate immigration bill. That the body of the bill and the body of the major amendments weren't even available for review as they were being debated speaks volumes.
Scott Rasmussen has polling information (ed: link added here) that indicates a large majority of Americans are both against this bill and in favor of seeing progress on enforcement of the border, i.e., controlling the influx of illegal immigrants, before considering legalization and work visa provisions. I believe the latter two would be much more acceptable to most Americans, as they are to me, if we could be convinced that we won't be revisiting this problem again and again in the future.
While I understand that the President is in favor of the Senate approach, I feel certain in saying that even he doesn't know what's really in the bill. There are far too many uncertainties and contingencies, particularly on the enforcement side, to make Americans comfortable that this will solve more problems than it creates.
Sincerely,
'Giacomo' at Joust The Facts
This is unlike even the Iraq War, which is held up as an issue on which a large majority of Americans disagree with the President's approach. In the instance of the war, when it was instituted a majority of Americans supported the action, and a large majority approved eight months after Baghdad fell. This has majority opposition from conception.
6/28/07 1240: Wow, 14 votes short. It wasn't even close.
WASHINGTON - The Senate drove a stake Thursday through President Bush's plan to legalize millions of unlawful immigrants, likely postponing major action on immigration until after the 2008 elections.
The bill's supporters fell 14 votes short of the 60 needed to limit debate and clear the way for final passage of the legislation, which critics assailed as offering amnesty to illegal immigrants. The vote was 46 to 53 in favor of limiting the debate.
Senators in both parties said the issue is so volatile that Congress is highly unlikely to revisit it this fall or next year, when the presidential election will increasingly dominate American politics.
Senator Gregg was a 'yea', Senator Sununu a 'nay'. If they're going to consider it only as a comprehensive package then revisiting the issue is probably unwise. When you're performing surgery, you need to see. Achieve hemostasis first - stop the bleeding. Then address the problems.
Others: Wizbang, Ace, Malkin, Captain Ed, Curt, MK Ham at Townhall
6/28/07 1715: DJ Drummond, who has been quite supportive of the bill, and whose writing I generally like, goes off the deep end a bit at Wizbang!.
Once again, the Senate has killed the unpopular bill which would, judging from the vitriol hurled around in the past month, have surrendered the United States to a hated foreign power, replaced all happiness and joy with dismal angst, banished the sun and the laughter of children from our lives, and subjected the nation to the maniacal designs of the denizens of hell. Of course, the actual bill did none of those things, but the hatred against it took on a dark identity of its own, and rational debate was one of its first victims.
The actual bill, of course, "did none of those things." Neither did it 1) adequately address the concerns of a large majority of Americans that we would only have to do this again in a few years after a new influx of illegal immigrants, due to inadequate border security provisions, had overwhelmed the new systems, 2) reassure Americans that those who came here illegally were not being rewarded to a greater degree than either legal immigrants or our own working poor, or 3) convince Americans that this wasn't all back-room Senate deals, payoffs and used-car salesmanship on the part of the crafters of this unwritten legislation. Perhaps it would have - and should have - passed had it done those three simple things.
But it wasn't hatred or racism that killed it. There was never any "palpable rage" in these quarters. We like a civil discussion and a civil tone at Joust The Facts. Get used to it. Hell, my father was a legal immigrant. As I've written before, if someone wants to come here legally, obey the laws, work hard, and become part of the American fabric, hey, the more the merrier.
The goals Congress is pursuing are not clear. They say they don't want "Amnesty", but some opponents say that's where the bill leads, while other opponents demand a clear vote for amnesty. Congress says they want to secure the border, but won't state specifics on how they plan to make that happen. Congress says they will punish employers who hire illegals, but not how they will avoid hurting legitimate businesses with undue bureaucracy, or how they will make the charges stick. But worse than that, Congress did an amazingly-poor job of bringing supporters on board.
Well, I think we can all agree on that. Why exactly did the Senate try to build a Taj Mahal of an immigration bill in less time than it would take to build a lean-to?
