Tragedy or Farce ?

[B-Man]

Now THIS a "poison pill" amendment:

 

Read more: http://www.politico....l#ixzz2S3tvIKZ6

 

 

 

Everyone understands that in order for a bill to pass, that it will take as many conservatives as possible to vote for this bill. One of the major boosters of this bill coming from Conservative quarters is coming from the Evangelicals, and Leahy and other liberals know full well that if they add this amendment, the Evangelicals will bail and will absolutely derail whatever hopes there are to get a bill through.

 

You know Senator Leaky (excuse me, I meant Leahy)

 

If you are truly concerned regarding this as a "Gay rights" issue, you could simply bring it up as a seperate bill (?)

 

but by doing it this way, you are threatening the whole immigration reform movement.

 

One might think that you are more concerned with having it "as an issue" than having it addressed

 

 

 

Talk about tragedy or farce.........................................

 

 

 

 

 

 

..

Edited May 1, 2013 by B-Man

[IDBillzFan]

Now THIS a "poison pill" amendment:

 

Someone is in desperate need of a hammer for 2014.

[Magox]

Someone is in desperate need of a hammer for 2014.

 

I don't doubt for a second that there are many on the left who would rather keep this immigration bill unresolved so that they can use it as a "hammer" as you would say for 2014 and beyond. My contention was that I don't believe that Obama does, simply because he has a legacy at stake. Did you see all the columns written yesterday about Obama and how he has lost control etc.?

 

This is his best shot at getting something meaningful passed for his second term. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. He did get lots of support from the LGBT donor class and they did play a pivotal role during the elections, specially amongst younger voters, will he come out with a full-throated support of this amendment or will he behind the scenes look to try to get this out of the bill in order to help get a bill passed.

 

 

 

Also, to the point you brought up earlier regarding Rubio. Obama should pay attention to how Rubio works. See how this guy is earning the respect from people from both sides of the aisle? He is building a consensus, he is working hand in hand with Liberals and he is going to virtually all the conservative news/entertainment outlets which usually are opponents of immigration reform to pitch the plan and build support. He is making sure that this will be an open process and he is respecting opinions that differ from his. Without a doubt, Rubio is the most important person in this entire process. If he goes, the bill dies. The only shot it will ever happen is with Rubio's full support, energy and skill. I believe that he will get a lot of the credit as he should for making this happen, if it happens.

[meazza]

I don't doubt for a second that there are many on the left who would rather keep this immigration bill unresolved so that they can use it as a "hammer" as you would say for 2014 and beyond. My contention was that I don't believe that Obama does, simply because he has a legacy at stake. Did you see all the columns written yesterday about Obama and how he has lost control etc.?

 

This is his best shot at getting something meaningful passed for his second term. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. He did get lots of support from the LGBT donor class and they did play a pivotal role during the elections, specially amongst younger voters, will he come out with a full-throated support of this amendment or will he behind the scenes look to try to get this out of the bill in order to help get a bill passed.

 

 

 

Also, to the point you brought up earlier regarding Rubio. Obama should pay attention to how Rubio works. See how this guy is earning the respect from people from both sides of the aisle? He is building a consensus, he is working hand in hand with Liberals and he is going to virtually all the conservative news/entertainment outlets which usually are opponents of immigration reform to pitch the plan and build support. He is making sure that this will be an open process and he is respecting opinions that differ from his. Without a doubt, Rubio is the most important person in this entire process. If he goes, the bill dies. The only shot it will ever happen is with Rubio's full support, energy and skill. I believe that he will get a lot of the credit as he should for making this happen, if it happens.

 

Rubio sucks

 

/SOB

[B-Man]

Schumer-Rubio Backs Assimilation? Don't Believe It.

 

Granting amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants at a time when our patriotic assimilation system is broken makes no sense. With this criticism of Schumer-Rubio gaining ground, advocates of amnesty have adopted a new strategy: Praise the bill as a fount of assimilation. Today’s Christian Science Monitor features an article that claims even critics of Schumer-Rubio are pleased with its provisions for the integration and assimilation of immigrants. Bad timing, since John Fonte has a piece today here at NRO that tells the truth about Schumer-Rubio’s assimilation provisions.

 

 

Schumer-Rubio almost quadruples federal funding for immigrant-integration programs, while also setting up a bureaucratic apparatus designed to channel tens of millions more in corporate funding into public-private partnerships designed to support such assimilation. Sounds good. But in practice this will channel tens of millions of dollars into the coffers of “non-profit groups,” many of them Alinsky-style community organizations that focus on recruiting and politicizing immigrants.

 

As Fonte explains today on NRO, that’s exactly where money for immigrant integration already goes in many states. This bill will add a huge federal bonanza on top of that, to be overseen by Obama-appointed bureaucrats who will no doubt do everything in their power to channel those dollars into the hands of left-leaning community organizers.

[Magox]

Schumer-Rubio Backs Assimilation? Don't Believe It.

 

Granting amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants at a time when our patriotic assimilation system is broken makes no sense. With this criticism of Schumer-Rubio gaining ground, advocates of amnesty have adopted a new strategy: Praise the bill as a fount of assimilation. Today’s Christian Science Monitor features an article that claims even critics of Schumer-Rubio are pleased with its provisions for the integration and assimilation of immigrants. Bad timing, since John Fonte has a piece today here at NRO that tells the truth about Schumer-Rubio’s assimilation provisions.

 

 

Schumer-Rubio almost quadruples federal funding for immigrant-integration programs, while also setting up a bureaucratic apparatus designed to channel tens of millions more in corporate funding into public-private partnerships designed to support such assimilation. Sounds good. But in practice this will channel tens of millions of dollars into the coffers of “non-profit groups,” many of them Alinsky-style community organizations that focus on recruiting and politicizing immigrants.

 

As Fonte explains today on NRO, that’s exactly where money for immigrant integration already goes in many states. This bill will add a huge federal bonanza on top of that, to be overseen by Obama-appointed bureaucrats who will no doubt do everything in their power to channel those dollars into the hands of left-leaning community organizers.

 

So the way you help solve this possible risk is by addressing it through the amendment process. It's not as if the "Schumer-Rubio" proposal is a finished product. Just the way Rubio has always said, it is a "framework" or foundation for what a bill could look like.

Edited May 2, 2013 by Magox

[Magox]

I don't doubt for a second that there are many on the left who would rather keep this immigration bill unresolved so that they can use it as a "hammer" as you would say for 2014 and beyond. My contention was that I don't believe that Obama does, simply because he has a legacy at stake. Did you see all the columns written yesterday about Obama and how he has lost control etc.?

 

This is his best shot at getting something meaningful passed for his second term. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. He did get lots of support from the LGBT donor class and they did play a pivotal role during the elections, specially amongst younger voters, will he come out with a full-throated support of this amendment or will he behind the scenes look to try to get this out of the bill in order to help get a bill passed.

 

 

 

Interesting piece in the WAPO that touched on many of the points I've recently brought up.

 

 

Obama to liberal supporters, don't doom the immigration bill.

 

 

 

President Obama is warning liberal supporters that their push to make changes in a comprehensive immigration bill could jeopardize the strategy of Senate leaders, who are aiming to win up to 70 votes for the measure.

While much of Washington has focused on objections from Republicans, Obama and other Democrats have mounted a behind-the-scenes campaign in recent days aimed at mollifying advocates, who argue that an 844-page Senate bill excludes too many illegal immigrants and makes it too hard for the rest to become citizens.

 

 

The president made clear that he expected the people in the room to support the Senate proposal even if they had doubts about some details, participants said. Once an overarching plan was locked in place by Congress, Obama told the group, the administration would be able to revisit some of their concerns and figure out ways to improve it.

 

This is basically what you were somewhat alluding to earlier B Man

 

 

 

Meanwhile, gay rights advocates said they expect Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) to introduce an amendment that would provide visas to foreign same-sex spouses of U.S. citizens, a provision that Republicans have said could kill a deal.

At a news conference this week, Obama praised the Senate group for its bipartisan work. He said there were elements of the bill that he does not agree with but emphasized that he supports the overall package: “I do think that it meets the basic criteria that I laid out from the start.”

In private meetings, Obama has told liberal groups that they must be realistic at a time when Republicans control half of Congress.

 

 

After the defeat of his gun-control agenda and little progress on a “grand bargain” solution to curbing the national debt, Obama has turned to immigration reform as his best hope for passing a key second-term priority.

“I think the president is worried about his legacy,” Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), one of eight co-sponsors of the Senate immigration bill, said during a talk at the University of Southern California this week. “He knows that compromises need to be made.”

 

 

This is what I brought up the other day, Obama had three main goals that he wanted to achieve for his second agenda. Gun Control, "Grand Bargain" on the debt" and Immigration Reform. As of now, the Gun Control issue is not in play, because of it's defeat (even though I wouldn't be surprised if it was revisited), and in regards to a "Grand Bargain"; yeah good luck with that.

 

So that leaves Immigration reform. I know that Obama loves the competition aspect of politics, so he likes the idea of winning the war of politics, I get that, but as I mentioned earlier, if there is one thing that he loves more so than the sport of politics, it's himself. And this is his best shot of having something meaningful done in his second term to have something positive towards his legacy.

[Magox]

White House press secretary Jay Carney said Thursday that the administration supported Sen. Patrick Leahy's (D-Vt.) proposed amendment to allow gay Americans to sponsor foreign-born partners for green cards, but would not insist it be included in the Gang of Eight’s bipartisan immigration-reform bill.

"The legislation crafted by the Gang of Eight broadly reflects the principles that the President has laid out, but it is not word for word in keeping with all of what he would do if he were to write it himself," Carney told reporters aboard Air Force One.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"And we have said that we support that provision, but we also think it's very important to recognize that the overall bill here accomplishes what the President believes needs to be accomplished and is in keeping with his principles."

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/297493-white-house-gay-rights-provision-preferable-but-not-necessary-for-immigration-bill#ixzz2SAy6F7uz

[IDBillzFan]

 

Read more: http://thehill.com/b...l#ixzz2SAy6F7uz

 

If this were a Republican president, the press would use this story to point out how much the president hates gays.

[Magox]

If this were a Republican president, the press would use this story to point out how much the president hates gays.

 

Probably

[Magox]

Heritage foundation came out with a study today, citing that creating a pathway to citizenship similar to what is being proposed would add over the long-term over $6 Trillion to the debt. That's an awfully large and scary number.

 

 

However, Paul Ryan, Conservative American Enterprise Institute, the CATO institute, Grover Norquist, Americants for Tax Reform, the Concord Coalition and Douglass-Holtz Eakin president of the American Action Forum have all come out and said that the Heritage Foundations study is a bunch of poppy rooster.

 

In any case, it appears that there are many more studies that show that it will either be a wash or a positive for the economy than what the Heritage Foundation's report shows.

 

 

 

In what was almost certainly an unprecedented press call, top fiscal conservatives from Americans for Tax Reform, the Cato Institute, the Kemp Foundation and the American Action Network took what had once been the premier conservative think tank, the Heritage Foundation, to the woodshed for its immigration report that sees trillions in cost and no benefits from immigration reform.

 

With a more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger tone, Josh Cullings of ATR said that while Heritage was a “treasured ally,” its work was a rehash of a flawed 2007 study that ignored all the benefits of immigration reform. Cato’s Alex Nowrasteh was even more outspoken saying “how disappointed” he was that Heritage abandoned conservative dynamic scoring (i.e. the impact a piece of legislation’s impact on the economy). He accused Heritage of not following years of their own work, which has striven to look at the impact on behavior of changes resulting from reforming the tax code and other innovations. “They ignored GDP, they ignored productivity,” he said in reeling off the list of items in the Gang of 8 legislation left out of Heritage. Cato’s study, which did use dynamic scoring, found that immigration reform would add $1.5 trillion in growth over ten years while forcing out 11 million immigrants (the Heritage solution) would lower GDP by $2.6 trillion over ten years.

 

The prize for candor, though, went to American Action Forum’s Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who stated flatly, “It really misleads.” Without dynamic scoring, H1-B visas, a guest worker program, and the other economic pluses from immigration reform and with a load of ludicrous assumptions (e.g. everyone would qualify for government benefits and take them) Heritage, he said, “gets a really big number.” He continued in describing the Heritage view of immigrants, “There is no American dream. They start in poverty. They end in poverty. Their kids are in poverty.”

 

Most compelling was Jimmy Kemp, son of the late congressman Jack Kemp, who (in a gravelly voice that sounded a little like his dad’s) was damning. “My dad was a significant supporter of immigration reform.” Objecting strenuously to the idea that immigration reform weakens the economy by adding workers, he exclaimed, “People are not a drain on society.” Saying it was “surprising they took a static approach,” he said bluntly, “You can’t lead from a place of fear.”

 

 

 

Why are these conservative heavyweights so exercised? It is not merely about immigration. Mario Lopez from the Hispanic Leadership Fund said, “There is a reason why dynamic scoring is important. In a word, it’s capitalism.” Citing former Heritage chief Ed Feulner and Nobel Prize winner Milton Friedman he bemoaned Heritage for setting a bad precedent and succumbing to a view that more people mean only costs, poverty, government benefits and higher unemployment.

In response to my question as to whether Heritage’s rejection of dynamic scoring would hurt the conservative movement over the long haul, Cullings said, “It’s a concern. Heritage ceded the superiority of dynamic scoring. CBO is basically to the right of Heritage. It is a worry.”

 

Interestingly, none of the callers had heard directly from Heritage after “pre-rebuttals” warning against its false methodology. Holtz- Eakin said bluntly, “[Heritage Foundation President Jim] DeMint communicates with me through press conferences.”

 

And that really is the rub of it. These are longtime allies of Heritage and promoters of free market capitalism who are witnessing the intellectual bastardization of a once great institution to adopt a cause that is inherently unconservative, namely opposition to immigration. (As Lopez said, if shrinking population was the answer, Japan and Europe would be in hog heaven, not economic decline.) Fiscal, pro-growth conservatives are concerned (as they should be) that the movement may turn reactionary, rejecting not just dynamic scoring but faith in a dynamic economy and society.

 

As an aside, the American Enterprise Institute, which did not take part in the call, has also put out a critical analysis, saying Heritage missed the boat: “The problem here is not offering legal status to a population that largely has been working hard, paying taxes, and contributing to the economy. The problem is the growth of government programs, the perverse incentive effects that those programs create, and the failures of our education system.”

However the debate turns out, one hopes that real scholars at Heritage and its supporters reject the slovenly work in the Heritage report and reaffirm the conservative message that more workers create more wealth, higher incomes and upward mobility. For if they do not, then virtually all their criticism of the Obama administration has been wrong and free markets (for labor and goods) are a cruel farce.

 

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2013/05/06/conservative-leaders-slam-heritage-for-shoddy-immmigration-study/?hpid=z2

 

 

Also, it's kinda funny how the Heritage Foundation bemoans the CBO when Dynamic scoring isn't applied in "conservative" budgets, yet they don't apply Dynamic scoring to make their case regarding Immigration Reform. Sorta makes them hypocritical on this issue....Probably more so than that, it makes them extremely ideological, which tells me that they aren't motivated on the economics of this issue as much as it has to do with some other ulterior motive.

[B-Man]

Sadly, this is not surprising.

 

Senate Committee Rejects Stricter Border-Security Requirements

 

 

The Senate Judiciary Committee has rejected an amendment to the Gang of Eight’s immigration reform legislation that would require the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to effectively secure the Southern border for six months before granting legal status to illegal immigrants.

 

Polling suggests that a significant majority of voters favor such an approach, and think that other elements of immigration reform, such as granting legal status to illegal immigrants, should only be considered once the border is secure. As written, the legislation merely requires that the DHS secretary submit a plan to secure the border before illegal immigrants become eligible for legal status. The amendment, offered by ranking member Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa), would also require that heightened security measures be applied to all nine sectors of the Southern border, as opposed to just three sectors identified as “high risk.”

 

Grassley’s amendments was defeated by a vote of 6 to 12. Senators Jeff Flake (R., Ariz.) and Lindsay Graham (R., S.C.), the GOP committee members who are also part of the Gang of Eight, voted no.

 

 

 

.

.

[Magox]

Sadly, this is not surprising.

 

 

 

 

 

.

.

 

B-Man I looked into this a little more and here is what I found:

 

 

In a direct appeal to Republicans, the Senate Judiciary Committee made the first major change to the bipartisan immigration bill, agreeing Thursday to require the government to achieve “effective control” of the entire Southern border, not just high-risk areas.

This one amendment alone isn’t likely to sway undecided Republicans and guarantee Senate passage, but it helps the Gang of Eight build a case that it’s addressing GOP demands for an open committee process and tighter border security measures.

 

 

Supporters of the amendment said it wouldn’t delay the path to citizenship, but it could add to the cost of the measure by requiring another $2 billion to be spent on securing the border over the next decade.

Gang of Eight members say they agreed to the proposal from Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) to show they are willing to making changes. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), a key member of the Gang of Eight, has said the bill needs stronger border provisions or it would struggle to pass the Senate and fail in the House.

 

The amendment passed on an unanimous voice vote, signaling that it was uncontroversial to the committee. But if the legislation moves much further to the right, negotiators risk losing support from Democrats, who view spending more money along the border as unnecessary after years of significant investments.

“This improves it,” said Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), a leader of the Gang of Eight.

The first day of the bill’s markup in the Senate Judiciary Committee is focused on border security triggers and other enforcement measures — a nod to Republicans pressuring colleagues for tougher measures before a pathway to citizenship opens for immigrants living without documents in the country.

Thus far, the four members of the Gang of Eight who sit on the committee have held together to turn back amendments that they view as poison pills.

A more restrictive border security amendment that would have required “effective control” of the southern border before allowing illegal immigrants to apply for the registered provisional status failed by a 6-12 vote.

Reform backers argued that doing so would substantially halt the legalization process for unauthorized immigrants. Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) called it a “wrong approach,” and Schumer said the legalization process would be delayed, “probably forever.”

 

Read more: http://www.politico....l#ixzz2SomkXat2

 

 

 

So actually, they did make it a tougher border security measure, not just for the "high risk" measures that the National Review reported on but the entire "Southern Border"....The portion that they rejected from the Grassley amendment had more to do with setting up more requirements than what is being proposed for illegal immigrants to get green cards issued.

 

 

You have to understand, the National Review has come out strong against any sort of pathway to legalization for illegal immigrants, so when you read anything from them regarding this topic, you have to take it with a grain of salt. Not saying that you have to dismiss what they say, just keep in mind what their position is regarding this topic. For instance in this case, they state: The amendment, offered by ranking member Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa), would also require that heightened security measures be applied to all nine sectors of the Southern border, as opposed to just three sectors identified as “high risk.”

 

 

Which is true, however that measure was already addressed today that achieves the same goal.

 

 

The Grassley amendment that passed the committee would set up more requirements for the government to meet before it can begin issuing green cards to undocumented immigrants, and makes it more likely that the Southern Border Security Commission would be established.

The measure would require“effective control” of the entire Southern border, which means the government must catch at least 90 percent of border crossers and maintain “persistent surveillance.” If the benchmark isn’t met in each of the first five years after the bill is enacted, the commission of governors and congressional appointees would make recommendations to the president on how to achieve the border security goals. Another $2 billion would also be made available.

 

Edited May 9, 2013 by Magox

[B-Man]

B-Man I looked into this a little more and here is what I found:

Read more: http://www.politico....l#ixzz2SomkXat2

 

So actually, they did make it a tougher border security measure, not just for the "high risk" measures that the National Review reported on but the entire "Southern Border"....The portion that they rejected from the Grassley amendment had more to do with setting up more requirements than what is being proposed for illegal immigrants to get green cards issued.

 

 

You have to understand, the National Review has come out strong against any sort of pathway to legalization for illegal immigrants, so when you read anything from them regarding this topic, you have to take it with a grain of salt. Not saying that you have to dismiss what they say, just keep in mind what their position is regarding this topic. For instance in this case, they state: The amendment, offered by ranking member Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa), would also require that heightened security measures be applied to all nine sectors of the Southern border, as opposed to just three sectors identified as “high risk.”

 

 

Which is true, however that measure was already addressed today that achieves the same goal.

 

 

 

Good research and response sir, thank you.

 

As a rule, I read several sites a day (with differing views) before I post something (from my "right-wing" blogs...............lol)

 

but this was the only mention I saw regarding Grassley's ammendment.

 

Thanks again for the updated information.

 

 

.

[Magox]

Good research and response sir, thank you.

 

As a rule, I read several sites a day (with differing views) before I post something (from my "right-wing" blogs...............lol)

 

but this was the only mention I saw regarding Grassley's ammendment.

 

Thanks again for the updated information.

 

 

.

 

No Problem B-Man

[Magox]

B-Man

 

 

This is what we've seen today

 

 

http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/

 

 

And here is the amendment from Grassley that was approved.

 

http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/legislation/immigration/amendments/Grassley/Grassley1-%28HEY13237%29.pdf