Tragedy or Farce ?

[B-Man]

We haven't had a recent thread about the ongoing Immigration Hearings going on in DC.

 

No matter where your beliefs lie...Amnesty, Pathways, Gang of Eight, please read the following and ask yourself if this is really how we want our Representative government to function ? ? ?

 

 

Have we learned nothing from the way the mis-named Affordable Care Act was pushed through ??

 

 

Tragedy or Farce?

 

By Peter Kirsanow

 

 

On Friday I was one of only two witnesses (the other being Douglas Holtz-Eakin) to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee on the comprehensive immigration-reform bill. My comments here are not about the substance of my testimony, but about process.

 

The proposed measure is poised to profoundly reorder our society, both economically and sociologically, and the Gang of Eight drops a bewilderingly complex 844-page bill with innumerable moving parts

 

— a bill drafted behind closed doors on the rest of the Senate only 48 hours before the hearing.

 

There was hardly time to absorb more than the title and preamble before the hearing, at a time when most of the nation and Congress were rightly occupied with the hunt for the surviving Boston Marathon bomber (indeed, the only other witness scheduled to testify was DHS secretary Janet Napolitano, who had to cancel due to the developments involving the imminent capture of the suspect).

 

My written testimony on the bill had to be submitted barely 24 hours after the bill was unveiled and less than 24 hours before the hearing itself. The hearing lasted two hours (in Washington, that’s quite short), with only one round of questioning by Senate Judiciary Committee members. After complaints about the limited hearing time, the committee hastily scheduled another hearing for today, this time involving 23 witnesses. A friend who will be testifying today tells me he was notified by the committee at the close of business Friday to appear this morning. He was still writing his testimony late last night. Obviously, the witnesses will be a blur, their testimonies will be general. No time for close questioning of the witnesses or engagement over the issues.

 

 

By way of contrast, when the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights conducted a comparatively inconsequential hearing last August on the very narrow issue of the impact of state laws on illegal immigration, 20 witnesses testified. They were notified months in advance. Their written testimony was submitted weeks beforehand, and commissioners had more than ample time to analyze the contents and prepare for the hearing. And the commission, of which I’m a member, wasn’t analyzing an 844-page bill, nor was it in any way poised to radically alter our immigration system. We were just assembling findings to issue a report, which Congress might then consider at some point in the future when debating immigration reform.

 

 

Not to put too fine a point on it, but this process is an abomination. I’ve testified numerous times before the judiciary committee, including the confirmation hearings of the last four nominees to the Supreme Court. Never has the committee treated a matter of such magnitude so cavalierly. One member of the World’s Greatest Deliberative Body used his limited time on Friday to ask me just one urgent question — about my Wikipedia page.

 

 

Regardless of where you stand on the immigration debate, this should infuriate you.

 

We Americans are being horribly served by this process.

Edited April 24, 2013 by B-Man

[DC Tom]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but this process is an abomination. I’ve testified numerous times before the judiciary committee, including the confirmation hearings of the last four nominees to the Supreme Court. Never has the committee treated a matter of such magnitude so cavalierly.

 

 

At least, not since the last time they did it. Maybe they have to pass it to know what's in it...

[B-Man]

Here are some articles about how the "deal" is going........

 

 

 

Democrats find much to like in immigration bill

 

The Senate’s Gang of Eight delivered an immigration overhaul bill this week that was far more generous to their constituencies than Democrats and Hispanic activists expected.

 

http://www.politico....l#ixzz2RL6OpTQM

 

 

 

 

Our Broken System of Assimilation

 

 

 

 

Politico: Immigration reform could be bonanza for Democrats.

 

 

 

 

 

Schumer ran rings around Gang of Eight Republicans. Those Republicans gave away the store on every important issue. This immigration bill is a disaster. But why? Were our negotiators just stupid? I don’t think so. They were desperate. They believed that it was necessary to put the immigration issue “behind them” if the party was to prosper. Schumer used that desperation to stampede our negotiators into buying a bad bill.

 

The Republicans on the Gang of Eight are wrong. The politics of this issue cuts two ways, but as the Politico story you cite claims, the larger effect of this immigration bill will cripple Republicans nationally for the foreseeable future. Maybe there are some Republican pols out there whose personal situation will be improved in the short term by even a bad settlement on this issue, but the party itself will be harmed overall. It’s wrong to think of this battle as politicians who have the long-term interest of the party at heart versus the short-sighted base. The opposite is the case.

 

http://www.nationalr...lation-ends-now

 

 

 

 

 

 

Flight from Sanity

By Mark Steyn

 

In his column here today, Victor Davis Hanson makes a good point:

The idea of life-saving asylum doesn’t make any sense when supposed refugees, like both of the Tsarnaev parents, can return to live safely in Russia. The elder of the suspected bombers, Tamerlan, himself had likewise just spent six months in a supposedly deadly homeland — for what exact reasons we can only speculate.

Do our immigration authorities really believe that Russia is so dangerous for Muslims that they must be allowed unquestioned admission to the United States, but not so dangerous that they cannot from time to time choose to revisit their deadly place of birth?

 

 

The Tsarnaev family were admitted to the United States as refugees supposedly because they were in fear of their lives in the Russian Federation. It’s so deadly that Tamerlan vacations there for six months. Meanwhile, thanks to Green Cards and a naturalized younger son, any and all of the Tsarnaev family can return to live in the US any time they want. Why is this in the interests (to use a quaint concept) of the American people?

 

 

The immigration “debate”, now apparently concluded, was a joke, and Americans are the suckers of the world for putting up with it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

Edited April 24, 2013 by B-Man

[We Come In Peace]

Despite the idiotic assumption that every illegal immigrant is Hispanic, this article is worth checking out if you want to get a good lather going.

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/immigration-reform-could-upend-electoral-college-90478.html?hp=t1_3

[B-Man]

Not all are in agreement.....

 

 

Former Congressional Black Caucus Foundation head: Immigration bill is ‘immoral’

 

While most Democrats have united behind the Gang of Eight’s immigration proposal, a group of black pastors and leaders is trying to weaken support for the proposal in one key constituency, arguing that new Latino citizens would deprive black workers of jobs.

 

“The Senate Gang of Eight’s immigration bill is not only impractical, but immoral,” Frank Morris, former executive director of the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, said in a statement on the bill. “Increasing immigration levels through amnesty and new visa programs, particularly at the low-skilled level, will flood labor markets with millions more people, leading to higher unemployment, more poverty, and a lower standard of living for many in the black community.”

 

Morris sits on the board of the Center for Immigration Studies, which argues “that current, high levels of immigration are making it harder to achieve such important national objectives as better public schools, a cleaner environment, homeland security, and a living wage for every native-born and immigrant worker.” He issued his statement while announcing a joint press conference opposing the bill that will feature other black leaders such as Dr. William Owens, founder of the Coalition of African American Pastors.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/former-cong.-black-caucus-foundation-head-immigration-bill-is-immoral/article/2527948?custom_click=rss

 

 

 

MAX BAUCUS TO RETIRE FROM SENATE.

 

“Baucus helped guide President Obama’s healthcare law through Congress, but last week said he feared a ‘train wreck’ as the law was implemented. . . .

 

He was angered this week by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-Nev.) decision to bring an online sales tax bill directly to the Senate floor for a vote rather than first having it go through Finance.”

 

This business of bringing bills directly to the floor without the usual run of committee hearings is a disgrace.

 

 

.

[B-Man]

WELL, THIS DOESN’T FIT THE NARRATIVE:

 

Fox News poll: Majority says legal immigration should be reduced.

 

While most voters favor citizenship for illegal immigrants who meet certain requirements, there is widespread agreement that new border security should come first.

 

In addition, more than half say we should cut the number of legal immigrants allowed into the United States.

A just-released Fox News poll finds 55 percent of voters think fewer legal immigrants should be accepted into the U.S. That’s up from 43 percent in 2010.

 

Majorities of Republicans (67 percent) and independents (53 percent) as well as a plurality of Democrats (47 percent) want to decrease legal immigration.

 

Overall, 28 percent of voters say the U.S. should increase legal immigration.

 

 

 

So if the voters aren’t clamoring for this, why the hurry?

 

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/167651/

[Joe Miner]

At least, not since the last time they did it. Maybe they have to pass it to know what's in it...

 

That's a lot like a burrito I ate once...

[B-Large]

I am outraged. No Bill can fix that system in under 1,000 pages.

 

Throw in a ton more color graphs, that should do it.

[Magox]

I do not who Peter kirsanaw is, but I can logically deduce that he is making an intellectually dishonest argument.

 

 

 

 

The proposed measure is poised to profoundly reorder our society, both economically and sociologically, and the Gang of Eight drops a bewilderingly complex 844-page bill with innumerable moving parts

 

— a bill drafted behind closed doors on the rest of the Senate only 48 hours before the hearing.

 

There was hardly time to absorb more than the title and preamble before the hearing, at a time when most of the nation and Congress were rightly occupied with the hunt for the surviving Boston Marathon bomber (indeed, the only other witness scheduled to testify was DHS secretary Janet Napolitano, who had to cancel due to the developments involving the imminent capture of the suspect).

 

My written testimony on the bill had to be submitted barely 24 hours after the bill was unveiled and less than 24 hours before the hearing itself. The hearing lasted two hours (in Washington, that’s quite short), with only one round of questioning by Senate Judiciary Committee members. After complaints about the limited hearing time, the committee hastily scheduled another hearing for today, this time involving 23 witnesses. A friend who will be testifying today tells me he was notified by the committee at the close of business Friday to appear this morning. He was still writing his testimony late last night. Obviously, the witnesses will be a blur, their testimonies will be general. No time for close questioning of the witnesses or engagement over the issues.

 

 

Basically what he is trying to achieve is give the impression that this is a huge bill that surely no one will understand (844 page bill) and that they are rushing through the process and jam this bill down the throat of the American Public.

 

That is what he was trying relay to whoever took the time to read that article.

 

So, here is what we do know. This bill will not be jammed down our throats like the health care bill. When the ACA became a finished product, they gave everyone 3 days to read the bill before they voted on it. This is not a finished product. Secondly, the way Rubio is maneuvering this debate is that this is going to be an open and transparent process. Kirsanaw gives the impression that this deal will be crafted behind closed doors and then voted on. What the Gang of 8 did was put a framework in place, and with that framework, Rubio has stated that this will be debated on the floor for a lengthy period of time, allowing for changes to be made. Rubio is building a consensus, he and many others are open to the process to strengthen and improve the plan.

 

They have made it abundantly clear that there will FIRST be border protection. And that each individual governor on the border will have to OK their approval before citizenship begins. Sure, if you have doubts about how effectively it will be enforced, well, that's a valid concern, but certainly is not a reason to automatically disqualify the entire proposal.

 

Let's be real here, Most Americans want Immigration reform, they also want border security. This bill, as has been initially proposed, will do both, first border then a pathway to citizenship.

 

The American public have spoke, and this was an important issue during the elections. So it is the will of the people that want to see something effective get done on this issue.

 

So you can either be part of the resistance or part of the solution. The solution that people want is a pathway to citizenship and border enforcement. Any proposal that doesn't include both, is not acceptable to what most voters want, and those politicians that stand in the way of the will of the people, in a national election, will eventually get voted out or never voted in.

[IDBillzFan]

While most Democrats have united behind the Gang of Eight’s immigration proposal, a group of black pastors and leaders is trying to weaken support for the proposal in one key constituency, arguing that new Latino citizens would deprive black workers of jobs.

 

Right. As if the WH gives a flying crap about helping black workers get jobs. If Barack Obama was white, he'd be branded a racist on black unemployment alone. The problem is, he knows they'll vote for him anyway, so he need not waste time on them.

 

So you can either be part of the resistance or part of the solution.

 

On the upside, it appears people are saving money by using the same argument on immigration that worked so well on ACA.

 

If the immigration bill does, in fact, secure the borders first, then why the rush for hearings? Let's have them read the whole bill on C-Span for everyone to hear, and then have a debate. What's the hurry? We have 11 million illegals in the country right now. If we wait another two weeks, we'll have what? 11,000,235? BFD.

 

I get so freaking tired of being told that these fast-moving bills have a little of this and a little of that, and no bill is perfect and it's "not a finished product" but it's something to build on and you're either part of the solution or part of the problem, and then we wake up in 12 months to find out the abortion of a bill doesn't do what it was supposed to do because of a little-known clause or paragraph or failed milestone that no one caught because they "had to be part of the solution."

 

Slow down. Do it right. Or don't do it at all? What's the worst that can happen? Will all the minorities elect another liberal president? Terrific. Let's see how long they can take liberal rule before it starts affecting them hard.

 

Sometimes it's just better to let the schitt hit the fan. The key is to be built for it.

[Magox]

Right. As if the WH gives a flying crap about helping black workers get jobs. If Barack Obama was white, he'd be branded a racist on black unemployment alone. The problem is, he knows they'll vote for him anyway, so he need not waste time on them.

 

 

 

On the upside, it appears people are saving money by using the same argument on immigration that worked so well on ACA.

 

If the immigration bill does, in fact, secure the borders first, then why the rush for hearings? Let's have them read the whole bill on C-Span for everyone to hear, and then have a debate. What's the hurry? We have 11 million illegals in the country right now. If we wait another two weeks, we'll have what? 11,000,235? BFD.

 

I get so freaking tired of being told that these fast-moving bills have a little of this and a little of that, and no bill is perfect and it's "not a finished product" but it's something to build on and you're either part of the solution or part of the problem, and then we wake up in 12 months to find out the abortion of a bill doesn't do what it was supposed to do because of a little-known clause or paragraph or failed milestone that no one caught because they "had to be part of the solution."

 

Slow down. Do it right. Or don't do it at all? What's the worst that can happen? Will all the minorities elect another liberal president? Terrific. Let's see how long they can take liberal rule before it starts affecting them hard.

 

Sometimes it's just better to let the schitt hit the fan. The key is to be built for it.

 

It's not fast moving. The bill is not even suppose to be voted on for months down the road. There will be tons of debate, Rubio has stated this ad nauseum, and I take him at his word. He knows that this is not a popular position amongst a portion of the right wing base, and make no mistake, he does have presidential ambitions. So knowing full well that this could be his demise during the primaries, he is doing everything he possibly can to assuage many of these fears. He is going all around Conservative Radio outlets, right into the lions den of opposition to explain the proposed framework of the bill. He is adamant that this will be a lengthy and open process. He also understands that if he doesn't come through with this process that he will be held accountable. I believe him.

 

And in regards to those who believe that this will be an economic burden to our economy.

 

Well, you like Paul Ryan don't you? Speaking to the conservatives of course. You guys think he has his **** together right?

 

http://www.realclear...rican_idea.html

 

 

And in regards to this:

 

On the upside, it appears people are saving money by using the same argument on immigration that worked so well on ACA.

 

So it's not the will of the people to offer a pathway to citizenship while enforcing the borders?

 

You dispute that?

 

The ACA was not the will of the people.

 

So this statement that you just made doesn't logically apply to our conversation.

Edited April 24, 2013 by Magox

[IDBillzFan]

It's not fast moving. The bill is not even suppose to be voted on for months down the road. There will be tons of debate, Rubio has stated this ad nauseum, and I take him at his word. He knows that this is not a popular position amongst a portion of the right wing base, and make no mistake, he does have presidential ambitions. So knowing full well that this could be his demise during the primaries, he is doing everything he possibly can to assuage many of these fears. He is going all around Conservative Radio outlets, right into the lions den of opposition to explain the proposed framework of the bill. He is adamant that this will be a lengthy and open process. He also understands that if he doesn't come through with this process that he will be held accountable. I believe him.

 

And in regards to those who believe that this will be an economic burden to our economy.

 

Well, you like Paul Ryan don't you? Speaking to the conservatives of course. You guys think he has his **** together right?

 

http://www.realclear...rican_idea.html

 

It's just this easy for me: show me secure borders. And I mean lock-down secure. Raise my taxes just to pay for more people to stand in riot gear along the borders for the next three years and haul off anyone who so much as taps a toe across the line. Let's get some drones out there, too. We're so happy to fly them around...let's set them up on the border.

 

Do that, and make a pathway to citizenship based on proven milestones of border security, and then I'm fine. But we both know...we BOTH know...border security will get pushed out, held up, unfunded, etc., while 11 million people get citizenship.

 

It's really just that simple. Secure the border. Enforce the laws we have and make immigrants come here legally. What's so hard about that?

Edited April 24, 2013 by LABillzFan

[B-Man]

Good responses Mr. Magox.

 

My biggest concern is that many of the conservative articles that I have read, and even some of the liberal ones, hint that the "taking care of the border security first" portion of this Gang of Eight agreement, is really just all smoke and mirrors. The "triggers" for citizenship kick in by standards of money spent towards security and not actual results.

 

I hope that this is not the case, as I find myself in the majority of Americans, who want real border security and a specific pathroad to citizenship.............not just blank amnesty.

 

 

 

 

 

Also, one other criticism.

 

That "you're part of the resistance or part of the solution" sounds eerily familiar, I know that I read it in many of the "Healthcare Reform is inevitable" articles in 2009.

 

 

 

.

 

Edit: I have to learn to type faster......lol............I see the last two replies are almost the same....oh well

 

.

Edited April 24, 2013 by B-Man

[IDBillzFan]

My biggest concern is that many of the conservative articles that I have read, and even some of the liberal ones, hint that the "taking care of the border security first" portion of this Gang of Eight agreement, is really just all smoke and mirrors. The "triggers" for citizenship kick in by standards of money spent towards security and not actual results.

 

Exactly my point. Sounds good. Looks good. And all of sudden, one little detail about triggers is glossed over and everyone is standing around saying "Well, next time we'll get it right."

[Magox]

Good responses Mr. Magox.

 

My biggest concern is that many of the conservative articles that I have read, and even some of the liberal ones, hint that the "taking care of the border security first" portion of this Gang of Eight agreement, is really just all smoke and mirrors. The "triggers" for citizenship kick in by standards of money spent towards security and not actual results.

 

I hope that this is not the case, as I find myself in the majority of Americans, who want real border security and a specific pathroad to citizenship.............not just blank amnesty.

 

 

 

 

 

Also, one other criticism.

 

That "you're part of the resistance or part of the solution" sounds eerily familiar, I know that I read it in many of the "Healthcare Reform is inevitable" articles in 2009.

 

 

 

.

 

Edit: I have to learn to type faster......lol............I see the last two replies are almost the same....oh well

 

.

 

There is valid concern for the border security part of the bill. However, the way it is being crafted, there will be additional border security that will cost Billions of dollars, and that there will be safeguards to help make that happen.

 

There is no doubt in my mind, by the time that this bill becomes a finished product, it will be even MORE conservative then what is being proposed today. Everyone realizes that this has to get through the house, and in order for it to get through the house, it will HAVE to become more "conservative", which in this case means, more border security.

 

It is unrealistic for people to believe that there will be a bill that doesn't include a path to citizenship. Let's face reality here, Conservatives lost over 70% of the latino vote, they were a deciding factor in these elections and they will continue to be. They won. And not only do they win, and not only did latinos play a key role in the elections, but poll after poll shows that Americans, including Independents want a pathway to citizenship with secure borders.

 

The bill has to have both, if it doesn't, then that doesn't reflect reality. If you want just to secure the borders, that would be a wish list amongst conservative right wingers. This country is made up of those from the right, from the left and the center, and when you combine everyone, they want both to get accomplished.

 

The more constructive approach to make this happen is to try to improve the bill and help ensure border security. The reactionist approach is to just staunchly say no, and say "Border Security Bill first".

 

Again, that doesn't reflect reality or what the American people wish and what they just voted for.

[IDBillzFan]

There is valid concern for the border security part of the bill. However, the way it is being crafted, there will be additional border security that will cost Billions of dollars, and that there will be safeguards to help make that happen.

 

There is no doubt in my mind, by the time that this bill becomes a finished product, it will be even MORE conservative then what is being proposed today. Everyone realizes that this has to get through the house, and in order for it to get through the house, it will HAVE to become more "conservative", which in this case means, more border security.

 

It is unrealistic for people to believe that there will be a bill that doesn't include a path to citizenship. Let's face reality here, Conservatives lost over 70% of the latino vote, they were a deciding factor in these elections and they will continue to be. They won. And not only do they win, and not only did latinos play a key role in the elections, but poll after poll shows that Americans, including Independents want a pathway to citizenship with secure borders.

 

The bill has to have both, if it doesn't, then that doesn't reflect reality. If you want just to secure the borders, that would be a wish list amongst conservative right wingers. This country is made up of those from the right, from the left and the center, and when you combine everyone, they want both to get accomplished.

 

The more constructive approach to make this happen is to try to improve the bill and help ensure border security. The reactionist approach is to just staunchly say no, and say "Border Security Bill first".

 

Again, that doesn't reflect reality or what the American people wish and what they just voted for.

 

We have a bogeyman in the White House. He wants this to fail in the House so he can club his way to winning back the house in 2014. They will TRY to make it more conservative, liberal votes will jump ship, the bill will fail, Republicans get the blame, and throwing the name Rubio around won't be enough for anyone.

 

It almost worked with the gun bill. He wants it to work on immigration. I give Obama better odds for getting his hammer than I'll ever give Rubio for getting this bill through.

 

The bogeyman needs his hammer.

[Magox]

We have a bogeyman in the White House. He wants this to fail in the House so he can club his way to winning back the house in 2014. They will TRY to make it more conservative, liberal votes will jump ship, the bill will fail, Republicans get the blame, and throwing the name Rubio around won't be enough for anyone.

 

It almost worked with the gun bill. He wants it to work on immigration. I give Obama better odds for getting his hammer than I'll ever give Rubio for getting this bill through.

 

The bogeyman needs his hammer.

 

I don't believe that most liberals will jump ship. While I agree that Obama loves bogeymen, he also loves himself, EVEN more so than bogeymen. The failed gun push was a huge blow to Obama. I honestly don't believe you guys have any idea how much this damaged Obama's second term agenda. They absolutely thought they were gonna win, and they didn't. Obama wants to have a legacy, and he knows that Immigration is a huge part of his second term.

 

He had three goals for the second term:

 

1) Gun control legislation

 

2) Immigration Reform

 

3) Budget Deficit Deal

 

 

Unless the house flips over to Democrats in 2014 (Which is HIGHLY unlikely), there is no deal to be made on Gun control.

 

So that leaves The budget Deficit deal (Grand Bargain), and Immigration reform.

 

 

Raise your hands if you believe a grand bargain will happen?

 

That's right, it won't.

 

So that leaves immigration reform. He wants this badly, and they will not look to torpedo this deal. They want it to happen, even if that means making the bill more "conservative" than they had hoped for.

 

Also, this is more for BMan

 

Remember the Immigration Bonanza for democrats article.

 

Here is an article from Sean Trende, who I know for a fact that you share his views much more so than Emily Super lefty Schulteis

 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/04/24/an_immigration_bonanza_for_democrats.html

 

It pretty much debunks what she wrote, and he goes into detail.

[IDBillzFan]

I don't believe that most liberals will jump ship. While I agree that Obama loves bogeymen, he also loves himself, EVEN more so than bogeymen. The failed gun push was a huge blow to Obama. I honestly don't believe you guys have any idea how much this damaged Obama's second term agenda. They absolutely thought they were gonna win, and they didn't. Obama wants to have a legacy, and he knows that Immigration is a huge part of his second term.

 

I appreciate your optimism on this, and don't assume that because I'm a far right wing extremist who wants children to starve and grandmas to fall off cliffs that I don't see the genuine need to address immigration, but I don't care if they call it the Marco Rubio Immigration Bill, if it doesn't genuinely address border security FIRST, beyond a funding milestone, then they can all go to hell. There is no way...no way in hell...the stream of illegals are going to start voting for Republicans just because they joined the liberals in giving them amnesty.

 

And let's face it. The ONLY reason the right is doing this is because they need the Mexican vote.

 

I'd rather lose them to a liberal world of suckitude like Obama is currently doing then give them a green card on the hopes they may become a Republican.

[Magox]

I appreciate your optimism on this, and don't assume that because I'm a far right wing extremist who wants children to starve and grandmas to fall off cliffs that I don't see the genuine need to address immigration, but I don't care if they call it the Marco Rubio Immigration Bill, if it doesn't genuinely address border security FIRST, beyond a funding milestone, then they can all go to hell. There is no way...no way in hell...the stream of illegals are going to start voting for Republicans just because they joined the liberals in giving them amnesty.

 

 

Well that's the plan. And there will be plenty of debate that will be geared towards border security along with pathway to citizenship. Make no bones about it, border security will be discussed and if the bill passes, which I predict it will, then there will be plenty of safeguards, triggers and measures that will help ensure that the border is more adequately protected and enforced than the status quo.

[B-Man]

Well that's the plan. And there will be plenty of debate that will be geared towards border security along with pathway to citizenship. Make no bones about it, border security will be discussed and if the bill passes, which I predict it will, then there will be plenty of safeguards, triggers and measures that will help ensure that the border is more adequately protected and enforced than the status quo.

 

Well, I also appreciate your optimism.

 

Unfortunately the scenario that I envision, is the Senate passes the "compromise" (left-leaning) bill. Then, and as you stated Magox, the House will try to even the bill out, shoring up the security part.

 

However, those in the Senate will refuse to compromise and following their track record, the Dem leaders and the President will let the bill collapse rather than make ANY concession at all, for the purely political reason of helping the democrat party in 2014.

 

its what they do.

 

 

 

 

.