American Renaissance

Home       Previous Story       Next Story       View Comments       Post a Comment

Senate Rejects Amnesty Measure

Stephen Dinan, Washington Times, Apr. 20

The Senate yesterday turned back a proposed amnesty for up to 1 million illegal immigrant agricultural workers and their families, though it gained support of more than half the chamber.

{snip}

The votes came as part of the debate on the emergency supplemental appropriations bill to fund operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The immigration provisions have held up action for the past week.

A third amendment to raise the cap on temporary seasonal nonfarm workers passed. The Senate then voted to limit debate on the spending bill, an indication that the bill likely will pass later this week.

The amnesty and guest-worker votes indicate that it may be difficult for Congress to pass any broader immigration reform this year.

The defeat of the “Ag-jobs” legislation sponsored by Sen. Larry E. Craig, Idaho Republican, was considered a significant vote by both supporters and opponents. Ag-jobs would have created a three-step path to citizenship for agricultural workers who were in the country illegally at the beginning of the year and had worked 100 days out of 12 months in the agriculture sector.

{snip}

Immigration rights groups lobbied heavily for Mr. Craig’s amendment, while groups favoring limits begged their grass-roots supporters to communicate their opposition to senators.

In the end, the opponents claimed victory.

“The sense I got from [Capitol] Hill was that a number of senators had second thoughts because of strong constituent opposition to this,” said Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, which supports stricter limits on immigration.

{snip}

Original article

(Posted on April 20, 2005)

Top      Home      Previous story       Next Story       Post a Comment      Search

Comments


Top      Home      Previous story       Next Story      Search

Post a Comment

Commenting guidelines: We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. Statements of fact and well-considered opinion are welcome, but we will not post comments that include obscenities or insults, whether of groups or individuals. We reserve the right to hold our critics to lower standards.




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)