Dawn of the Immigration Reform Bill

Ezra Klein explains a bit about its rise from the dead: "The key is a pay-to-play structure, in which precisely 22 amendments will be offered, and every Senator who offers an amendment agrees to vote for cloture in return. This, theoretically, will get the bill through cloture -- and Reid and McConnell wouldn't be bringing it back if they believed it would fail a second (well, technically, a fifth) time." I'm fine with the bill, as amended by Byron Dorgan to sunset the guest worker provisions. Of course, for those of us who are neither deeply opposed to anything including an amnesty, nor committed to an amnesty above all else, the bill that matters will be the one that emerges from the inevitable House-Senate conference committee.

Comments

More likely whatever 'compromise' emerges will be mishmash confusion full of impractical bs. It will fail to make any material difference and the problem will only get worse with people on both sides of the divide getting more pissed off. What wrong with taking some time out and thinking this one through a bit?

Posted by 2cynicalbyhalf | June 15, 2007 8:49 AM

Why doesn't the bill do anything to speed the process for American citizens to get their spouses into this country and allow them to work?

Current law makes it virtually impossible to get a spouse or a finace a work permit in under a year.

You try and come here legally and it takes a long time and there is a long time where you can not work and you can not leave the country. It appears the 5 year ban is a serious threat.

You come here illegally and ....

Posted by neil wilson | June 15, 2007 9:42 AM

Neil,

Anyone in that situation who expects this bill to pass would be best off having his spouse come here on a tourist visa or something and overstaying it. Then she could apply for amnesty and a z visa with the Mexicans.

Posted by Fred | June 15, 2007 9:46 AM

The amnesty provisions of the bill will be honored, the enforcement provisions will be ignored. Count on it. BushCo and the corporations that hire our "representatives" won't have it any other way.

Posted by kafka | June 15, 2007 1:31 PM

"...Reid and McConnell wouldn't be bringing it back if they believed it would fail a second (well, technically, a fifth) time."

I figured Harry Reid let come back to life so the White House couldn't whine about how mean old Harry Reid killed their awesome immigration bill when it dies its final death.

Posted by Robert Earle | June 15, 2007 2:31 PM

It was inevitable that the votes would be obtained one by one for trinkets.

The mindset of probably 95% on both sides of the aisle is that no bill is good or bad of itself. It is good or bad only if you personally don't benefit from your vote.

Does anyone expect this bill to improve anything? Or even make it worse? Neither is intended. The intent is to pass something, anything, in 2007 rather than in the election year of 2008.

Posted by K | June 15, 2007 3:34 PM

Fred,

You've touched on what irritates me most about this bill. Someone who plays by the rules would be better off breaking the law (or at least claiming to CIS they had) and taking the immediate Z visa instead of waiting months or years for CIS to get to their legal visa application.

I don't understand how this cloture deal works. Since a supermajority approval is required for just about anything to pass the Senate, who cares if your pet amendment is voted on-- the threshold question should be, will it pass? If it won't, why bother agreeing to give up your bit of leverage (i.e. voting against cloture)?

It appears Senate Republicans think they can finesse screwing their base by pulling a Lieberman-style ploy-- they'll vote for cloture, put up their amendment which inevitably gets shot down, then vote against the bill (which only requires 51 and not 60 votes to pass). Then they can go home and if the "yahoos" are still pissed off, they point to their no vote and say they voted the right way.

I know senators think voters are that stupid, but this will all end very badly when they face re-election (I suspect Lindsay Graham and Saxby Chambliss will be getting their lobbying careeers rolling in 2009).

Posted by beowulf | June 16, 2007 3:18 AM