July 18 re-launch on Matt.org site

Attention, Readers! Re-think Immigration is moving to its new home tomorrow, Wednesday, July 18. Click here to go to the new website. It is functionally identical to this one except that all past comments will stay archived at this website. Comments to new posts should be posted at the new site and will require a quick, painless sign-up process so that everyone has their own unique username.

Monday, June 25, 2007

Senate begins rehashing S 1348

NPR reports that the U.S. Senate begins its second round of debate regarding S 1438 this week:
The week begins with votes on a series of amendments followed by a procedural vote that determines if the compromise language has the 60 votes needed to keep moving toward final passage. The outcome is too close to call (...) But Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., a leading critic of the legislation, argued that support for the bill continues to plummet, both among senators thought to be behind it and among the public.

8 comments:

ultima said...

There is another bill out there with a different title and a different number S.1639. Aside from the title, the bill looks almost identical to S.1348. What's going on here? Is this another form of Kennedy treachery? Can MATT explain this development and the relationship between these two bills?

There has never been a good reason for comprehensive reform. The case for S.1348 is vastly overstated. Instead of legalizing all of the miscreants already here and establishing some more arbitrary quotas why not enact a process by which our needs can be matched more precisely with willing foreign labor and legal immigrants. Uneducated immigrants cannot replace the well-educated boomers when they retire.

Daniela said...

Ultima,

Good question re: s 1348 v. 1349. Look to a new post for an answer.

MaryST said...

1639 is just the new name for 1348. A trick indeed to fool us and put us off the scent.

tyler moore said...

Um, no. It's just a different number. If that sets you "off the scent", then, well, that's just you.

MaryST said...

Nonsense, tyler. The bill's name change is part of a pattern of deliberate confusion that has been followed by the pro-amnesty forces for some time. Remember the original bill was crafted by the "grand bargainers" behind closed doors with zero input from American citizens. And the grand bargainers continue to try to shut down all discussion of this bill through the use of cloture and other procedural tricks. Why are they shutting down discussion of the bill? Because they don't want the American people to know what is inside of it.

tyler said...

The bill is available in its entirety online. A number and title change puts you off? I agree that more transparent deliberation would have been great, but it's not like we don't know anything that's going on. Things are not that opaque. Agree or disagree with the bill, all the information on it you need is out there, accessible to you and me.

MaryST said...

Tyler,

If I had known about the number switch earlier, such as on Friday, it would have aided my lobbying efforts against cloture. I am sure the number change was deliberate to sow confusion in the ranks of the patriots trying to defend our country.

Anonymous said...

酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,

,酒店,