In fairness to Z's statement, the vote was 68-32, meaning 13 Republicans, including both Flake and McCain from AZ, voted Yea on the measure.
However, I also believe that a number of those Republican votes in favor were cast for re-election purposes and with the assurance that the measure would never see the light of day in the House. That, after all, is the way politics works in Congress.
PrintSmith wrote: You'll find yourself agreeing with me a lot more often if you continue to examine issues through a lens of reason instead of emotion Z.
I wouldn't be holding my breath if I were you. Your "reason" most of the time is my "insanity" and, I'd venture, vice versa.
I'm serious Z. You cite the talking point about taking up the "bi-partisan" Senate bill while acknowledging the likelihood of it being "bi-partisan" based on the knowledge that it would never see the light of day in the House. Do you not see the bi-polar aspect present in your "reasoning"?
PrintSmith wrote: I'm serious Z. You cite the talking point about taking up the "bi-partisan" Senate bill while acknowledging the likelihood of it being "bi-partisan" based on the knowledge that it would never see the light of day in the House. Do you not see the bi-polar aspect present in your "reasoning"?
You can be serious all you like, PrintSmith. The fact is it was a bi-partisan bill in the Senate, regardless of underlying reasons for Republicans signing off on it. What difference does it make, then regarding "seeing the light of day" in the House? The fact the House is as recalcitrant and obstructive as it is should be more of a concern than not passing the bill in the Senate because "we know it won't see the light of day".
There would be no bi-partisan bill coming out of the Senate if it was going to be voted on in the House Z. It would never have passed the cloture vote and moved to the next step without the knowledge that it wouldn't be acted on in the House prior to the vote occurring in the Senate.
Republicans have no intention of moving forward legislation that includes a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants and the Democrats have no intention of moving forward legislation that doesn't that pathway. Until one or the other gets enough of a majority to ensure the passage of legislation that enacts what they want enacted, there will be no comprehensive immigration reform.
If the Democrats were willing to compromise on the citizenship issue there could be progress towards making them legal workers who were not eligible for the federal individual welfare programs on the Republican side. That's the compromise Z. Legal temporary workers who pay taxes but aren't eligible for individual welfare subsidies or citizenship. That, of course, isn't a compromise according to Obama. A compromise to Obama is him getting everything he wants and that simply isn't going to happen.
PrintSmith wrote: There would be no bi-partisan bill coming out of the Senate if it was going to be voted on in the House Z. It would never have passed the cloture vote and moved to the next step without the knowledge that it wouldn't be acted on in the House prior to the vote occurring in the Senate.
Republicans have no intention of moving forward legislation that includes a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants and the Democrats have no intention of moving forward legislation that doesn't that pathway. Until one or the other gets enough of a majority to ensure the passage of legislation that enacts what they want enacted, there will be no comprehensive immigration reform.
If the Democrats were willing to compromise on the citizenship issue there could be progress towards making them legal workers who were not eligible for the federal individual welfare programs on the Republican side. That's the compromise Z. Legal temporary workers who pay taxes but aren't eligible for individual welfare subsidies or citizenship. That, of course, isn't a compromise according to Obama. A compromise to Obama is him getting everything he wants and that simply isn't going to happen.
You had me until the very end, PrintSmith, when you made your statement of opinion regarding Obama.
What else explains the logjam Z? The Democrats demand that citizenship be part of the deal or there will be no deal. That rigidity comes from one place and one place only, the Oval Office. If Obama was willing to compromise on the citizenship issue we'd have a deal, since he won't we don't.
PrintSmith wrote: What else explains the logjam Z? The Democrats demand that citizenship be part of the deal or there will be no deal. That rigidity comes from one place and one place only, the Oval Office. If Obama was willing to compromise on the citizenship issue we'd have a deal, since he won't we don't.
But there is no such thing as U.S. Citizenship - you said so yourself.
