PDA

View Full Version : Will Senate take on Secure Fence Act?


GCard_Dream
09-15-2006, 01:25 PM
Now that the "Secure Fence Act" has been approved in the house, will senate take on this bill and pass its own version? Has there been any indication at all from the senate leadership that they intend to pass something similar and if so, when? The reason I ask is that I strongly believe that if this bill were to taken on by the senate then our friendly senators like Specter might include some relief for us. This is the only chance I can see this year and next year is a whole different ball game.

arnet
09-15-2006, 02:18 PM
if they take the bill, they might listen to us and include our provisions in this bill because our provisions are part of the CIR bill which they passed it.

but they will make changes to 'secure act' and pass it in such a way it goes to conference committee (big chance of this going because senate wants 370 miles fence, house wants 700miles) and they wont have time for that committee now, so they will work on it next yr after elections. again after elections, it is diff game as you said. anyhow we caught in the middle of their game.


Now that the "Secure Fence Act" has been approved in the house, will senate take on this bill and pass its own version? Has there been any indication at all from the senate leadership that they intend to pass something similar and if so, when? The reason I ask is that I strongly believe that if this bill were to taken on by the senate then our friendly senators like Specter might include some relief for us. This is the only chance I can see this year and next year is a whole different ball game.

GCard_Dream
09-15-2006, 02:41 PM
You bring up a good point about the conference committee. When is the conference committee needed? Is it when bills are significantly different or even for slight differences. I thought conference is only needed if the bills are significantly different and needs to be negotiated between 2 houses. If only few provisions ( like ours) are different then can it be voted on by the house as it is without any conference and get a up or down vote? Now this all assumes that republicans are actually serious about some kind of relief to legal folks which I am seriously starting to doubt.

if they take the bill, they might listen to us and include our provisions in this bill because our provisions are part of the CIR bill which they passed it.

but they will make changes to 'secure act' and pass it in such a way it goes to conference committee (big chance of this going because senate wants 370 miles fence, house wants 700miles) and they wont have time for that committee now, so they will work on it next yr after elections. again after elections, it is diff game as you said. anyhow we caught in the middle of their game.

arnet
09-15-2006, 04:05 PM
nt for slight difference i think....but they will pass with much difference....

who knows, even they might have difference in areas like lighting,technology,patrols,who construct it, funding, etc.....if they add our provisions then it will definitely goes to committee.....

GCBy3000
09-15-2006, 04:49 PM
Everybody knows about legals and illegals. Will it gain any grounds for them to get big vote this november is important. The SKIL bill or any legal provisions in the CIR will not fetch even a single vote for them. In fact it MAY reduce the vote from anti immigrant groups if they add anything for legals.

So I strongly doubt either house or senate to include any provisions related to legal immigrants at this point. Nobody wants to take a chance at this juncture of election period. From politicians point of view, it is better for them to maintain status quo now rather than including something which might create a huge noise later during the election period.

So keep on talking about this. Nothing is going to happen till March 07. Even after march, we have to start with some new bills and start the work on educating the senators and others about legal immigration issues. At this point,I think we are back to one and our hands are tied up till they decide to talk about legals.

GCard_Dream
09-15-2006, 05:31 PM
I am not sure if this is entirely true. Yes we can't vote but folks who are pro-immigrant can and they will decide if legal immigration is good for this country or not. Trust me, if everyone was against legal immigration in this country then none of us would be here in the first place. Everyone knows that there is a shortage of labor and migrants are needed to fill the jobs.

Why do you think most of the minorities vote for democrats? One of the reason, amongst various others, is that people think of democrats as pro-immigration party. In fact that's one of the reason I like dems.

Because of this 9/11 case, everyone is kind of worried about the security and it makes sense. Americans want to get a handle on who is coming in and who is going out and I can't and won't argue against that. Everyone wants to live without the fear of terrorism and that's understandable.

To make long story short, there are plenty of people who will vote based on what the candidate's standing is on the immigration. In fact, that's precisely the reason house didn't bring up the immi bill this year because they didn't want to have their candidates vote one way or the other on the immigration issue and have to explain that to voters in couple of months.

Everybody knows about legals and illegals. Will it gain any grounds for them to get big vote this november is important. The SKIL bill or any legal provisions in the CIR will not fetch even a single vote for them. In fact it MAY reduce the vote from anti immigrant groups if they add anything for legals.

GCBy3000
09-15-2006, 06:03 PM
My argument is it better to take a side on immigration issue or not. Maintaining status quo is better than including some releif for legal immigrants. I bet people in US like legal immigrants to legal immigrants, but how many people is ?. Will this favor any politicians to garner some votes or will it back fire? No one knows and that is why I said at this time of election period, it is better for them to maintain status quo than favoring legal immigrants.

If they pass something for legal immigrants for sure they are going to lose some votes who are favoring illegal immigrants which is bigger number than people favoring legals. So I dont think they will take a risk at this time to favor legal immigrants in any bills if at all there is one before the election.

I am not sure if this is entirely true. Yes we can't vote but folks who are pro-immigrant can and they will decide if legal immigration is good for this country or not. Trust me, if everyone was against legal immigration in this country then none of us would be here in the first place. Everyone knows that there is a shortage of labor and migrants are needed to fill the jobs. ............
.

GCard_Dream
09-15-2006, 06:39 PM
No one knows and that is why I said at this time of election period, it is better for them to maintain status quo than favoring legal immigrants.


You are exactly right and that's what house is doing, keeping the status quo. As close to losing the house as repubs are, they don't want to take any chances by upsetting either pro or anti immigration group and are just keeping the status quo for the most part. They have certainly pissed off the illegal folks but I am not sure how that impacts them on Nov 7th.

On the flip side, however, repubs might have pissed off both pro and anti immigration group by not doing anything at all about the illegal immigration. It just depends on how much people care about immigration issue and if that translates in to votes in November. They might be perceived as a do-nothing party. It is such a dividing issue for both repubs and dems that it will probably be a while before it is settled. We shall wait for that to happen. ;)