A reprieve! Senate delays closure of debate on immigration bill

(Correction: What the AP story failed to report is that there was in fact a cloture vote, which passed overwhelmingly, 69 to 23. But this vote, for reasons I am still trying to determine, appears to have the exact opposite meaning from what we thought it would have. We were told that the passing of cloture would mean that the Senate had to complete the debate on the bill this week and have a final vote on it this week. But knowledgeable persons are now telling me that that the passing of cloture in this instance meant not a set termination to the debate, but rather the opening of the debate. It all makes perfect sense, right? Perhaps there are two types of cloture, one which bypasses committee hearings and sends the bill to a floor debate while setting a term to the debate and excluding amendments, and the other which also bypasses committee hearings and sends the bill to a floor debate, while not setting a term to the debate and not excluding amendments. That’s just my guesswork out of the fragmentary information that I have at this point. In any case, the substance of the story doesn’t change: a final vote has been put off by at least two weeks, giving our side more time to defeat this bill. See further explanation by Roy Beck below.)

No details yet on the why’s and wherefore’s, but the AP reported at about 6:30 p.m. that the Senate leadership, contrary to its previously stated intentions, has decided not to move toward a final vote on S.1348 this week. Now they’re talking about finishing the bill in June. Majority Leader Harry Reid said on the floor:

“It would be to the best interests of the Senate … that we not try to finish this bill this week. I think we could, but I’m afraid the conclusion wouldn’t be anything that anyone wanted.”

Apparently then, there was not even a vote on a cloture resolution, because the Senate leadership called off the cloture resolution. They must have picked up on the shock the public felt at such a monumental bill being forced to a vote before anyone even knew what was in it.

However, it’s not clear whether this means that the Senate leadership will now allow committee hearings and a full debate on the bill, or whether they are just putting off a cloture resolution until sometime in June.

I’m sure the telephone calls made to the Senate from immigration critics including the readers of this website played a role in persuading the Senate to hold off.

We have, at the least, gotten a temporary reprieve. I confess that last night and this morning I had dreadful premonitions and feelings, which I won’t describe, about what the passage of this bill would mean for the country and how it would affect us all.

- end of initial entry -

Roy Beck writes:

Here’s where you are getting confused. This was not a cloture vote on the bill. It was a cloture vote on a motion to bring the bill to the floor. No amendment on that motion (nothing to do with amending the bill itself).

Reid changed the rules of debate before the cloture vote so that people voting for cloture would know that they would get two full weeks of debate. The cloture vote itself never set the time limit, it just was about agreeing to bring bill to floor under whatever rules Reid set. So, he changed those debate rules. If he hadn’t, there would have been a lot more NO votes.

Varied comments from readers continue below, with the discussion going beyond the immigration issue:

Conservative Swede writes:

So far so good. It’s not over yet, but at least it doesn’t look hopeless now.

Be sure to check this link about France: France says no to mass legalisation of undocumented immigrants

“France’s minister of immigration and national identity, a new ministry created by President Nicolas Sarkozy, has ruled out legalizing undocumented immigrants en masse.”

Amazing to read this about France, considering what’s going on in the United States at the same time. The new French government “has ruled out legalizing undocumented immigrants en masse,” just like that! And the new minister of immigration make a public promise not to deport too few (aiming for 25,000). This doen’t make France into a politically sound country. But these things are said and done. Things that are considered unthinkable and undiscussable in America. And that just before the upcoming parlamentary election in June. The political climates in America and France are like night and day, right now, on this issue. Advantage France.

A reader writes:

Thank you for “being there” with VFR at a time like this.

I have never called a representative before but did so today, just because it’s the right thing to do.

I might suggest that people call their representatives in the House as well, who will need to be primed to resist if some version of this is passed.

For instance, Deborah Pryce’s (R-Ohio) office was quite responsive and I found that she had actually made a statement condemning the Senate bill, even if it was only on the grounds that it’s unfair to the other people waiting their turn for naturalization.

Thanks,

Larry G. writes:

We need a march on Washington. One million people. With torches and pitchforks.

Just like the last time they did this in 2006, I feel like I’m on Flight 93. Insane people have hijacked the government, they’re telling us to be calm, that everything is fine, but they intend to kill us all one way or another.

Josh writes:

I think the mumbling from the pro-immigrant side should be made loud and clear and help infuse this “comprehensive” deal an even more repugnant essence. One thing that is becoming clear is that the pro-immigrant side is claiming this deal isn’t sufficient in its America-altering concessions and benefits to entitled-minded law breakers. Make no mistake though, this isn’t just about law breakers (as most of the conservatives argue), but about law breakers trying to break America.

Joseph C. writes:

I have not fully read the Rape of America Act (a/k/a the Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 2007). Indeed, will anyone have the time to read this in detail? But the provisions that have made surfaced are troubling enough. Most disturbing is how organizations like The Heritage Foundation—who are decidedly not restrictionist—are expressing reservations, which tells me there is a lot more not to like once the onion is peeled. (The “economic opportunity” part is curious and invidious at the same time. I don’t see why congress—small c intended—feels it is the responsibility of the U.S. to give economic opportunity to the citizens of other nations!)

It was 42 years ago that Congress last passed serious immigration form—and that legislation was unquestionably the most destructive in American history, if not in world history. Now, after waiting 42 years for reform, and 6½ years after George Bush became president, we are handed a bill that we are told demands immediate action. After 42 years and much rancor, it will doom the republic if we don’t vote on this monstrosity before firing up our barbeques for Memorial Day.

Why? I will tell you why. Because the liberals running the country understand that they will never win an honest debate. Every liberal triumph since the 1964 Civil Rights Act (i.a., affirmative action, Roe vs Wade, Lawrence vs. Texas) was handed to them by unelected, unaccountable judges, outside the purview of the legislative process. This legislation is an attempt to short circuit that same process. An honest debate would remind everyone how nearly every promise made when the 1965 legislation was debated (sic) has been proven demonstrably false. Euphemistically, Kennedy et al misunderstood the impact of that law. Plainly speaking, they lied. Reopening this can of worms would spark such an uproar—even among senators not normally given to histrionics or accused of race baiting (e.g., Charles Grassley, Jeff Sessions)—that the bill would not only die a brutal death but probably never again resurface. Not that that would end the problem (see below).

One gets the impression that these poor excuses for statesmen are sorry only that they can’t get the worthless solons on the Supreme Court to declare a fundamental right to U.S. citizenship for every human being on earth and be done with it. They are annoyed about having to show the pretense of a debate, so this is their answer. [LA replies: perfect.] This group of poltroons reminds me of that other band of self-serving elitists from an earlier era—a group known as the Politburo. Once upon a time representatives were elected to serve. Now we have congressmen that believe they are anointed to govern. Republicans have sold out the country in the name of cheap labor and multiculturalism. As for Democrats—have they ever been for deporting any illegal alien other than Elian Gonzales?

Even if this bill fails, the liberal utopians will achieve their goal—by omission. Bush et al will simply refuse to fine scofflaw employers, build a fence, militarize the border, or deport illegals. And then their goal of an open society will be realized—in fact if not in law. They plan to erode our will steadily—a steady stream of illegal crossings, pressure on bureaucrats, closed hospitals, harassing of border guards, street demonstrations—until the populace cries “uncle,” a demoralized people ripe for the final toppling.

The one positive is the Congress’s realization that if they simply said, “We believe every human being on earth has a fundamental right to emigrate to wherever they please, even the United States, because we are only an idea,” or, “We are ashamed of our European heritage, and you should be too,” they would be handed their heads at the polls. Fortunately, since the courts will not bail them out beforehand, they have to take a stand. This gives the House Republicans an excellent opportunity. They should refuse to take part in any debate—even any committee discussions—just like last year, except that this year the Republicans are the minority. If the Democratic majority is determined to ram this bill through, then let them have the ink (and the blood) on their hands. Simply stage a walkout and deprive the Congress of a quorum, and let the American people witness this disgraceful fraud that was perpetrated.

Sadly, Larry, I see little hope for the traditionalist side. Too many people see shame in a culturally pure state and are willing to go along with this experiment. Only a Congress with an overwhelming majority of traditionalists can save America. And that would require men willing to campaign seeking a mandate to preserve America.

Joseph C. writes:

I called both Mel Martinez and Bill Nelson. Of course, I got the runaround from their staff. One of them had the nerve to tell me that “people migrating in search of economic opportunity is a fact of life, and we cannoy hope to stop it.” Of course, people going 80 MPH in a 55 MPH zone is a fact of life. People committing crime is a fact of life. People looking to cheat on their taxes is a fact of life. No, we can’t stop it—but we sure don’t legalize it, do we? I have yet to hear Congress declare a fundamental right to go 80 MPH in a 55 MPH zone, or tell its police officers to stop issuing tickets. When I tried to explain that to the mutant on the other end of the line in Martinez’s office, I got a clueless, “Well, this is a good bill. It is the best we can do.” That is what frightens me more than anything.

LA replies:

I would have said, “If it’s a fact of life and we can’t stop it, then what is the purpose of all the new border measures? Are you saying that this bill is a fraud?”

Or, “If it’s a fact of life and we can’t stop it, why do we have any immigration laws? Why do we have a Border Patriol? Do you think we should disband the Border Patrol?”

If he says “No, of course not,” ask him why not, since he just said that we can’t stop it. then he would reply, “Well I meant we can’t stop all of it.”

“You mean then that some measures do work?”

Then you’ve got him.

(Note: at this point a black poster offered the theory that entire amnesty bill is really a plot by Republicans to “out” illegals so that they could be rounded up. This led me to the discussion about black attitudes toward America that distracted from the present topic which is immigration, so that material was moved to a different entry.)

Posted by Lawrence Auster at May 21, 2007 07:53 PM | Send