Skip to main content

Differing Views on the Senate immigration bill

Newt Gingrich: "a sellout of every conservative principle." "I can't imagine anybody running for president being nominated if they support this bill,"

Mitt Romney: "I strongly oppose today's bill going through the Senate," "It's the wrong approach."

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff: "He's(Ted Kennedy) awesome,"

Democratic Senator Edward Kennedy: "the deal was true to America's 'humanity and our tradition of a nation of immigrants'."

Colorado Sen. Ken Salazar: "an important start"

Republican Representative Tom Tancredo: "a slap in the face" to working Americans
"I was listening to President Bush speak on the border, and I'm thinking to myself, 'I'm listening to Bill Clinton reworking every word, reworking every definition.'?"

Gilberto Escalante, a 41-year-old fisherman from Topolobampo in Sinaloa state: "We don't want the house or the latest car in the U.S. We want to go and work so that our families can have a good life in Mexico." So much for wanting to become an American and assimilating.

Victor Aviles, a spokesman for Mexico's Foreign Relations Department: "cautiously welcomed the initiative"

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist: "This is a success for the American people. It is a success for people who hope to one day participate in the American Dream,"

Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa: "This legislation I think is well outside of what I would consider responsible reform. It's misfocused. It puts the cart before the horse," "This bill is dangerous precedent and sends a chilling message about our national integrity: America has lost the will to enforce her laws, and her sovereignty is for sale currently, for around $2,000."

Rep. John Shadegg, R-Ariz: "I think there is strong sentiment in the House that passing a bad bill, a bill that sets policies that will hurt America, a bill that has not been fully thought through that Americans aren't aware of would be worse than passing no bill at all."

Sen. Jeff Sessions: "The vast majority of the 11 million or so people here will be given every benefit this nation can bestow as a product of their illegality. I don't think that's a good principle," "This bill prioritizes low-skilled and chain migration over skill-based immigration, an approach we should reject."

Sen. John Ensign: "I'm hopeful that the House will save us from this bill,"

Mexican President Vicente Fox: "a historic step"

Former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson: urged Congress to "scrap this bill and the whole debate until we can convince the American people that we have secured the borders or at least have made great headway."

Frank Sharry, executive director of the National Immigration Forum, a pro-immigrant group: "The ones who think this is just amnesty ... we're not terribly concerned about those guys. We weren't expecting their votes,"

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas): "serious concerns"

Caroline Espinosa , spokesman for Numbers USA, an immigration law reform group: "This has definitely hit a nerve. There's no question in our minds that this is amnesty,"

Sen. John McCain: "Some Americans believe we must find all these millions, round them up and send them back to the countries they came from. I don't know how you do that. And I don't know why you would want to."

Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.): "a bad bill" that "puts more emphasis on amnesty than on border security."

Sen Jim DeMint: "The Senate rejected an amendment by Senator Isakson that would have prohibited the implementation of any guest worker program that grants legal status to those who have entered the country illegally until the Secretary of Homeland Security has certified to the President and to the Congress that the border security provisions in the immigration legislation are fully funded and operational."

Sen Charles Grassley: "Under the bill, illegal aliens get an option to only have to pay three of their last five years in back taxes. Law-abiding American citizens do not have the option to pay some of their taxes. The bill would treat lawbreakers better than the American people. The bill also makes the IRS prove that illegal aliens have paid their back taxes. It will be impossible for the IRS to truly enforce this because they cannot audit every single person in this country."

Ira Mehlman with the Federation for American Immigration Reform: the government would be "allowing everybody who applies for amnesty the right of judicial review, so if anybody is rejected, they are entitled to their day in court." And in addition to the amnesty, he notes, "they're talking about a huge guest-worker program, probably 400,000 unskilled workers coming to this country every year with their dependent relatives. The enforcement mechanisms are an absolute joke."

Sen Johnny Isakson; GA: “I’m very disappointed that the Senate has refused to put border security first. The Senate is sending the message to the American people that we should continue to give a wink and a nod to those who would cross our borders illegally, and that is a terrible message to send,”

David Vitter, R-La: “This is amnesty,”

Sen. Mel Martinez, R-Fla: “I’m going to celebrate here.”

Timothy D. Sparapani,ACLU: "The Senate’s bill is filled with provisions that would have serious unintended consequences that would undermine due process and invite invasions of personal privacy,"

Michael Savage: Our "Culture [is] being destroyed by greed, greed, greed." "Bush is the chief culprit. He's wanted this from day one. In fact, we played a sound bite yesterday of him gleefully looking forward to the Democrat-controlled New Congress last Fall! At last he could push through his ultra-internationalist agenda."

Rush Limbaugh: "the Comprehensive Destroy the Republican Party Act, today, and the Republicans are too idiotic to figure out that that's what this is" "This is the big lie in the bill, where they tell us all the measures an illegal has to take to become a citizen, have to pay $5,000, have to go home, come back and so forth. They become legal immediately. All of that is just window dressing to make you think there's going to have to be some sort of effort made on these people's part for this to happen, but it's not. Once they become legal, citizenship or no citizenship, then it's over. They are legally entitled to the welfare state. They are legally entitled to whatever any other citizen is entitled to, even though they're not citizens. Ted Kennedy knows this."

Sen.Craig Thomas: "Unfortunately, the Senate bill includes far too many bad ideas – I can’t support a bill that offers amnesty and benefits as a reward for illegal activity,”

Sen Mike Enzi: “This bill would increase border security and make English our national language, but it also would give illegal immigrants amnesty and put them in line ahead of those who have been following the rules to gain citizenship legally. I could not vote for this bill that rewards people for breaking the rules,”

Rich Lowry, National Review: "The Senate immigration bill is dishonest, unworkable, and radical."

House Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner Jr: Allowing illegals to collect Social Security benefits based on past illegal work, for instance, is "outrageous,"

Posted by scotbrit at 8:22 AM
[http://scotbrit.blogspot.com/2007/05/comments-on-senates-amnesty-bill.html]

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

If Francis is a Heretic, What should Canonically happen to him?

Did Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (the future Pope Benedict XVI) say that Francis is a heretic ?   On June 3, 2003 the then Cardinal Ratzinge r (and future Pope Benedict) , head of the Congregation for the Faith, said that the endorsement of  " homosex civil unions" was against Catholic teaching, that is heterodoxy : "Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimatization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil... The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behavior or to legal recognition of homosexual unions ." (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, "Considerations Regarding Proposals to give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons," June 3, 2003) Gloria.tv reported: " Francis made on October 21 his latest declaration in sup...

A Hour which will Live in Infamy: 10:01pm November 3, 2020

10:01pm November 3, 2020, a hour which will live in infamy, the United States of America presidential electoral integrity was suddenly and deliberately attacked by the forces of the Democrat Machine and some corrupt collaborators within the Republican Party. It will be recorded that "under the pretense of COVID, executive branch officials across a number of key battleground states violated election procedures passed by the legislative branches of those states in a number of ways that opened up the process to fraud on a massive scale, never before seen in the history of this country" which makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks before. During the time before and after the attack the Democrat Machine and its corrupt collaborators in the Media have deliberately sought to deceive the United States by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace.  The attack on United States has caused severe damage to the Ameri...

Could Francis be an Antipope even though the Majority of Cardinals claim he is Pope?

Is it possible for someone to be an antipope even though the majority of cardinals claim he is pope? The case of Antipope Anacletus II proves that it is possible for a majority of cardinals to claim a man is pope while he, in reality, is an antipope. In 1130, a majority of cardinals voted for Cardinal Peter Pierleone to be pope. He called himself Anacletus II. He was proclaimed pope and ruled Rome for eight years by vote and consent of a absolute majority of the cardinals despite the fact he was a antipope. In 1130, just prior to the election of antipope Anacletus, a small minority of cardinals elected the real pope: Pope Innocent II. How is this possible? St. Bernard said "the 'sanior pars' (the wiser portion)... declared in favor of Innocent II. By this he probably meant a majority of the cardinal-bishops." (St. Bernard of Clairvaux by Leon Christiani, Page 72) Again, how is this possible when the absolute majority of cardinals voted for A...