Webloggin » Senate Republicans Cast Aside Base with Latest Immigration Vote

Consequences It’s official. Twenty Three members of the Republican Senate have decided that they do not need the support of the Republican base. The New York Times has the story.

The Senate defeated, 55 to 40, a proposal by Senator Johnny Isakson, Republican of Georgia, that lawmakers demand that border-security measures be in place before beginning a guest-worker program of the kind envisioned by President Bush.

The 55 senators rejected Mr. Isakson’s argument that, if the Congress did not act now, it would have to a decade or so from now, and that “instead of 10 million or 12 million, it will be 24 million” illegal immigrants at issue.

The 24 million immigrants that Isakson refers to is a gross underestimate according to the Heritage foundation.

How many people would the Senate’s immigration plan allow into the U.S.? Until now, the focus has been on the 10 million illegals to whom the bill would give amnesty.

Robert Rector adds up all the provisions. He finds the Senate plan would admit 103 million–or one-third the current U.S. population—over the next 20 years.

The number that Mr. Rector comes up with is the result of chained immigration which is what occurs when naturalized immigrants are allowed to legally bring their families into the country.

after naturalizing, an immigrant has the right to bring his parents into the U.S. as permanent residents with the opportunity for citizenship. There are no numeric limits on the number of spouses, dependent children, and parents of naturalized citizens that may be brought into the country. Additionally, the siblings and adult children (along with their families) of naturalized citizens and the adult children (and their families) of legal permanent residents are given preference in future admission but are subject to numeric caps.

Opponents of the Isakson measure (36 Democrats, 18 Republicans and the independent James Jeffords of Vermont) joined in the lie that an open borders first approach would be an obstacle to the kind of comprehensive legislation that is needed.

It is interesting to note that only 4 of the 18 supporters of the Mexican invasion are up for re-election in 2006, Chafee (RI), DeWine (OH), Lugar (IN), Snow (ME). Trent Lott who is also up for re-election did not vote.

The notion that the Senate must force through a hastily drawn comprehensive plan is utter nonsense. The Senate bill is over 600 pages long and many of these people are willing to simply shove it down our throats. I can only imaginge that such monumental efforts are being done in the name of anything other than what is right for the American people. This wreaks with the odor of back room deals and political pandering.

A much more reasoned approach would concentrate on locking down the borders first. The discussion of what to do with the 12 million plus people who are here already is certainly a more complicated issue. That debate can continue unabated regardless of what action Congress takes to secure our borders. It is not like they are going to go away. Thus there is no reason to spew any garbage about the necessity of some grand comprehensive plan.

The complete list of Republican Senators who joined the other team on this vote is as follows : Brownback (R-KS), Coleman (MN), Collins (ME), Craig (ID), Graham (SC), Hagel (NE), Martinez (FL), Murkowski (AK), Shelby (AL), Specter (PA), Stevens (AK), Voinovich (OH), Warner (VA) Not voting: Cochran (R-MS), Gregg (R-NH), Lott (R-MS), McCain (R-AZ), Rockefeller (D-WV).

Keep this list in your pocket as you will surely need it in the future when they eventually come up for re-election. For now it may suffice to stop giving money to the Senate re-election campaign fund if you haven’t done so already. You are much better off sponsoring individuals who actually stand with the base on issues of importance.

It is time for Bill Frist to take a bigger leadership role on this issue since he is also on the block for 2006. He needs to apply as much pressure as possible on the Senators who apparently think that they are protected from the wrath of the electorate just because they are not up for a census this time around.

Others Blogging on this Issue: