Brown (D- OH)
If you're upset, let these guys and gals know. I'll be referencing this roll call of shame for every subsequent re-election any of these Senators are ever up for in the future.
But throwing in the towel is premature. Three weeks ago we body-slammed a Congress that wants to replace us, sending S1348 to the graveyard. But the amnesty reincarnate, S1369, won one of the two cloture votes it needs to receive a final vote on the Senate floor. Unlike the cloture procedures, the final vote only requires a simple majority for passage. The Senators listed above are the reasons, if the amnesty does jointly pass, for its doing so.
Some supportive Senators will attempt to cloak their anti-sovereignty stance by pointing out that today's procedural vote allows for a gamut of amendments to be considered. When most of these fail, as they inevitably will (and those that do pass will not strip the 24-hour amnesty provision, the increase in legal immigration, the lack of a mandate for an immediate physical barrier on the US-Mexican border, or any other aspects of the bill that make it so disastrous), a few of these Senators will vote against the final bill. Fourteen of them can afford to do so and still see the bill pass. They know this. And they'll know that they could've prevented it from doing so. But they won't want you to know it. Well, if you didn't, now you do. Don't be fooled by their deceptions.
If we muster a sharp riposte in the next several hours, we have a chance to kill the bill by peeling away five supportive Senators for the next cloture vote on Thursday. If we're setback there, the amnesty is virtually guaranteed to pass the Senate.
If this worst-case scenario comes to fruition in the upper House, however, the fight will still be far from over. The bill will then pass to the House, where a new crop of Democrats has largely sided (in both rhetoric and action) with the citizenry against the national leadership of both parties. Despite his being blacklisted and called all sorts of nasty names by most of the nation's 'mainstream' media organs, a bi-partisan coalition in the House backed Tancredo's anti-sanctuary amendment by a margin of 234-189 on June 15.
Nancy Pelosi is hesitant to demand party obedience on the bill if it reaches the lower House without a guarantee of significant GOP support. Many of our elected leaders want to shove this thing through, but few want to shoulder the blame for doing so--a truly embarrassing situation for a democratic society to find itself in. That guarantee is in doubt, as House Republicans are expected to vote on a resolution signaling their disapproval with the Senate bill later today:
House Republicans are set to vote on a measure Tuesday afternoon rejecting the Senate immigration bill shortly after the upper chamber votes whether to proceed on that debate in yet another hurdle for backers of a comprehensive overhaul. ...The lower House is the portion of elected federal government officials most beholden to the will of the people they're supposed to represent. Unlike two-thirds of the Senate, each representative will be up for re-election in a little more than a year from now. Collectively, they represent the closest thing to a bulwark against open borders that we have. Let your representative know where you stand on the Senate bill now, and remind him repeatedly in the future.
The resolution is a largely symbolic measure, but would signal widespread displeasure of the Senate bill just as that chamber revives debate on the controversial issue, creating an additional roadblock to dissuade wavering Republicans.
The single sentence reads: “Resolved, that the House Republican Conference disapproves of the Senate immigration bill.”
Randall Parker reports that House GOP members are expressing frustration with the White House on immigration that threatens to erode their support for his other awful policies. Not only is that sensible, it's also smart politics. The President's approval rating has descended to another new nadir, sinking into the almost unheard of twenties. On immigration, it's a miserable 15%.
That's angering but hardly surprising. The citizenry, who have been overwhelmingly opposed to the Senate's amnesty since news of its surreptitious creation became public knowledge, have subsequently soured on the bill even more:
In fact, despite a massive White House effort, public opinion has barely moved since the public uproar stalled the bill just over two weeks ago.Immigration restriction (fewer in absolute number and a halting entirely of low-skilled menials) and reform (to a system that is exclusively merit-based) should be top priorities. While progressive taxation and the continued involvement in the Iraq War are damaging, they're things we can recover from or absorb and continue to enjoy a collective standard-of-living and degree of personal freedoms that makes the US the envy of the world. But continued underclass immigration from Latin America will see the US increasingly come to resemble, well, Latin America, which is hardly the envy of the world, the hemisphere, or even much of Latin America. You can blow discretionary income at the casino or buy an inordinate amount of annuity investment vehicles and remain financially healthy, because your earning potential remains strong. But if you start eating paint chips, you're in serious trouble.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that just 22% of American voters currently favor the legislation. That’s down a point from 23% a couple of weeks ago and down from 26% when the debate in the Senate began. ...
Among the public, there is a bi-partisan lack of enthusiasm for the Senate bill. It is supported by 22% of Republicans, 23% of Democrats, and 22% of those not affiliated with either major party. ...
Support is found from 20% of conservatives, 32% of liberals, and 18% of moderates.