Graham amendment keys immigration bill vote
WASHINGTON – Sen. Lindsey Graham gained a major victory today as 64 senators voted to resume consideration of the immigration bill he has helped craft.
Sen. Jim DeMint, South Carolina’s other senator and a leading opponent of the measure, was among the 35 senators who voted against moving it back to the Senate floor.
DeMint vowed Monday to do everything in his power to stop the legislation, which he says grants amnesty to the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States.
Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said prospects for the measure’s eventual passage in the Senate are boosted by a complex amendment Graham is offering. It has a number of provisions aimed at beefing up border enforcement and worker verification.
---James Rosen



This bill is joke. if we cant inforce the laws we have now how in the world are we going to do everything that this bill calls for. Graham has got to go!!!!
Posted by: ben | 26 June 2007 at 03:32 PM
Graham has to GO!!! He has sold out America! Say NO to AMNESTY by voting this next election for anyone other then Graham!
Posted by: todd bailey | 26 June 2007 at 03:52 PM
Graham has tried desperately to broker a compromise on immigration. It is high time that someone finally has the courage to face tough issues - rather than just gawk from the sidelines. He has not only my support and vote - but also my respect.
As you know, amnesty is the forgiveness of an offense without penalty. The proposed immigration bill offers no such thing.
Posted by: Jane | 26 June 2007 at 04:01 PM
the man is a joke. the only person he has alliance with is Kennedy and money from lobbist and big companies. No respect for the people who voted him in. He is a disgrace.
Posted by: rick | 26 June 2007 at 04:05 PM
the man is a joke. the only person he has alliance with is Kennedy and money from lobbist and big companies. No respect for the people who voted him in. He is a disgrace.
Posted by: rick | 26 June 2007 at 04:07 PM
Under your logic, what do moneyed big companies and lobbyists have to gain from immigration reform?
We have to tackle the immigration issue - sooner rather than later. It takes true courage to compromise with your opponents to pass difficult legislation.
Posted by: Jane | 26 June 2007 at 04:17 PM
In response to Todd Bailey: How can you say that this immigration bill offers no amnesty? These 12 million "migrant workers," "migrant citizens," or what ever new progressive title they are given, are in fact ILLEGAL ALIENS. These people did not follow the laws that are already established to enter this country as millions of others from around the world (including my mother) have had to do. These people have illegally crossed the border, illegally taken on jobs here, falsified their identities and yet according to your definition of amnesty, they have not committed any type of offense? If we allow these people to stay (instead of deporting as we have millions of other illegals), and give them an easier path ultimately to citizenship, we have done nothing but "forgiven" them of just one of their offenses -- breaking into our country.
Posted by: Ben Hutto | 26 June 2007 at 04:18 PM
That was Jane who was sticking up for the people who have no respect for our laws not Todd. Remember when we voted Beasley out, look out Graham. We can find another Republican who will stand up for conservative principles and stand against Amnesty.
Posted by: ben | 26 June 2007 at 04:37 PM
Sorry, Ben, that comment was from me. With all due respect, here's a clarification on how this proposal is NOT amnesty:
Illegal workers must acknowledge that they broke the law, pay a $1,000 fine, and undergo criminal background checks to obtain a Z visa granting temporary legal status (not even nearly the same visa your mother obtained).
Additionally, to apply for a green card at a date years into the future, Z visa workers must wait in line behind those who applied lawfully (like your mother), pay an additional $4,000 fine, complete accelerated English requirements, leave the U.S. and file their application in their home country, and demonstrate merit based on the skills and attributes they will bring to the United States.
I understand your argument, but what are our alternatives? To track all 12 million illegal aliens is impossible.
Posted by: Jane | 26 June 2007 at 04:40 PM
Jane you said it all right there. You acknowledged that they are illegal, therefore committing an offense. We all know that these people are not going to be held to these fines, etc. In fact, you stated it at the very end..."to track 12 million illegals is impossible." Well, how are we going to assure all of the bureacracy contained in this bill is fulfilled on these 12 million illegals? I vote for sealing the border absolutely first, then one group at a time under the current laws (with less bureaucracy) round them up and send them back. Then, they can file the appropriate paperwork through the current channels to enter this country. I'll even support a guest worker program, after the borders are sealed and illegals removed, to expedite those who are not interested in becoming at least permanent residents.
Jane, what these people wanted was to be in this country one way or another. They chose the easiest and illegal route. Establishing Z-visas, etc. is giving them exactly what they want.
It would be like allowing a murderer (who wanted the person they killed dead) the equivalent of a traffic ticket, probation, and ultimately being cleared of all charges over time.
Posted by: Ben Hutto | 26 June 2007 at 04:52 PM
And Ben, I apologize for the previous confusion regarding the usage of amnesty in my first posting.
As I mentioned before, amnesty is the forgiveness of an offense without penalty. As you can see from my last post, the illegal aliens must meet several qualifications to make amends for illegally entering our country.
Posted by: Jane | 26 June 2007 at 04:52 PM
Well, Ben - what is it that you suggest? There is never going to be a perfect solution. I am supporting Graham, however, because he is at least attempting to tackle this issue. What should they do?
Posted by: Jane | 26 June 2007 at 04:54 PM
Jane, who will teach the English classes? I for one don’t want my taxes going to pay for English lessons. I respectfully disagree with you and the alternative is to enforce laws already in place. If we are able to enforce all the provisions of this gigantic new bill we can certainly figure out a way to find all the illegal’s.
Posted by: ben | 26 June 2007 at 04:55 PM
I understand that you would like to round them all up and send them back. How? With what manpower? What resources should we utilize to send TWELVE MILLION people to their respective homes? Who is going to pay for that? It's much cheaper to pay for English classes than it is to pay for a manhunt of this magnitude.
Posted by: Jane | 26 June 2007 at 04:57 PM
By the way Jane, I'm not trying to bash you. I like so many others, do not believe the fine details (fines, deportations, border security, etc.) that are supposed to be fulfilled in this bill. 1986's legislation is still very fresh in the life span of politics in this country. That legislation and the 1996 law calling for more border security protocols were both tossed aside by special interest in Washington. The same will hold true for this one...except of course (as in 1986) the legalization of the illegals.
Posted by: Ben Hutto | 26 June 2007 at 04:58 PM
Jane, on your last comment...the same question can be asked about who is going to pay and enforce all of the administrative work for these 12 million illegals with this new bill.
Posted by: Ben Hutto | 26 June 2007 at 04:59 PM
Ben, I will have to continue our sparring later (and don't worry; I will!) I have to go to a meeting. Thanks for the good-spirited debate.
Posted by: Jane | 26 June 2007 at 05:03 PM
Jane same to you. Until next time. This is what makes America so great.
Posted by: Ben Hutto | 26 June 2007 at 05:04 PM
DeMint deserves our support for standing up against the traitor Lindsey Gram-amnesty.
Posted by: Palmetto Patriot | 26 June 2007 at 05:47 PM
I hope the people of SC will find a conserative to LG in the 2008 primary.
At one time he fooled me, but backing a bill with Ted K...unforgivable.
Posted by: roger | 26 June 2007 at 06:02 PM
I VOTED FOR MR.GRAHAM THE FIRST TIME. BUT IN 2008 I WILL VOTE FOR A YELLOW DOG OR ANYONE ELSE; BUT NOT HIM.
DON'T HIRE THEM OR RENT TO THEM.
ENFORCE OUR CURRANT LAWS. THE I-9 FORM REQUIRES A FINE OF $ 10,000.00 PER PERSON WHO IS NOT A LEGAL RESIDENT.
Posted by: hancock | 26 June 2007 at 06:26 PM
Please get the wannabe lawyers off this site.
Posted by: hancock | 26 June 2007 at 07:02 PM
Well folks I just got my papers from the state elections committee, and I have until July 17th to get 10,000 signatures. I will be running as an Independant, but I do align myself with Ronald Reagan Here is my proposal which is far better than sell out Lindsay Grahamnesty. I for one will enforce the legaslation that was passed last year. I would make sure that the border fence be built before any "comprehensive" approach were taken. Furthermore, this bill is nothing more than amnesty. As one other poster stated, if they can't track the "12 million" that are here now how in the world will they make sure they pay the fine? Furthermore, how will they be able to verify that the person has been here before 2006? That want to create more laws, but yet they can not enforce the current laws that are on the books. To answer Ben's question, all we need to do is when they are arrested, send them to a detention center, give them a deportation hearing within 72 hours, and deport them back to the country of origin. If we close the border, no new ones will get in, and we can focus all our attention on the ones that are here. Graham's "settling", and thinking this is the best we can do goes to show his attitude towards the American spirit. We can do much better than this. American citizenship can not be bought for $5000. American citizenship is earned. It is not given.
Posted by: Rick Schleis | 26 June 2007 at 09:24 PM
If you would like to know more about me and my positions, just ask. I know some people think I may be crazy, but this is the only way I know of to actually try and run seeing as how the traitor we have in their now is running unopposed at this point. He is up for re-election in 2008.
Posted by: Rick Schleis | 26 June 2007 at 09:36 PM
Rick Schleis, how do you feel about our 10th Amendment rights and our ultimate sovereignty? I've loved to support someone else against Gram-amnesty. But they have to support our sovereignty.
Posted by: Palmetto Patriot | 27 June 2007 at 04:17 AM
Rick, you need to inform us more about yourself. Set up a website. I would be more than willing to help you, of course you must be serious (beating Lindsey is easy...beating his special interest buddies is difficult), and you have to be of good character.
Posted by: Ben Hutto | 27 June 2007 at 10:16 AM
I second Ben's sentiments.
Posted by: Palmetto Patriot | 27 June 2007 at 10:34 AM
Rick, you should run against him in the primary first, before you decide to run as an independent..
Dont spend alot of energy getting signatrures if you don't need them..
Also support the succession movement in SC and I personaly have thousands of dollars to donate.
Posted by: dustin | 27 June 2007 at 02:49 PM
Well folks just a little bit about myself:
I served in the U.S. Army and I am currently a truck driver with a degree in business. I whole heartedly support the 10th amendment. As a matter of fact I personally believe we should kick the U.N. out of New York. I believe it is the duty of our Congress to recognize that the powers not SPECIFICALLY desiginated in the Constitution are reserved for the people and the States. I believe in less government. Furthermore, I support the 2nd amendment. I feel that states rights' continue to be chipped away at. I feel that our federal government has become too big and overstepped its' bounds. I support the Fair Tax or a flat tax. I do like Senator DeMint's 8.5% tax proposal. I am in the process of trying to develop a website so that I can introduce myself to those that have questions about me. I was not born with a silver spoon in my mouth. I am just a common man trying to stand up for what it is I believe. I know that it is an uphill battle, but I am willing to fight the good fight. Nothing worthwhile in life ever comes easy, and I hope to have a website within the next 2-3 weeks. I do not plan to be a life long politician like some of the crownies we have up there now. I would serve two terms at most, and I would introduce legislation to put a term limit on all federal officals. If the President has term limits I believe everyone should have term limits.
Posted by: Rick Schleis | 27 June 2007 at 10:24 PM
Rick,
As soon as you have your website up, I will contact you with my email and number (be sure you have a contact link). I too am a non-silver spoon man who simply believes in standing up for what is right, and ousting the out-of-touch extremists on both sides in Washington.
These people have bought and lied their way into office, and slowly but surely I believe the true majority of Americans (those who are interested in real dialogue and working together) are finally awakening.
Again Rick, I will be happy to help you in your campaign as much as I possibly can (with a new baby boy on the way, it may be tough at times).
Posted by: Ben Hutto | 28 June 2007 at 10:08 AM
I'd be glag to help publicize your campaign as well, Rick. As Ben says, let us know.
Posted by: Palmetto Patriot | 28 June 2007 at 01:31 PM