Georgia senators should vote ‘no’ on final cloture
by D.A. King
Columnist
June 19, 2013 09:24 PM | 1227 views | 6 6 comments | 54 54 recommendations | email to a friend | print
U.S. Sen. Harry Reid, the Democrat Senate Majority Leader, is apparently getting uncomfortable about the amnesty bill’s polling results. As this is written Wednesday morning, it looked like Reid would call for a final floor vote sometime very soon. He said he might keep the Senate working all weekend.

Why? Speed and timing are important to all hustles.

In simple terms, the deal is this: The Democrats will pretend they would actually plan do something to secure American borders and some of the Republicans will ignore 1986 and pretend that legalizing immigration crime will somehow prevent more illegal activity. And that they will win the White House in 2016 as a result. And that we can solve our unemployment crisis by importing millions of additional foreign workers.

The more the pro-enforcement Americans learn about what National Review correctly calls “Rubio’s Folly,” the more pressure they are putting on their senators to put the entire 1,000 pages into a shredder. The “Vote no!” calls and emails are now flooding into Senate offices.

To deter possible senatorial trickery, it is important to understand how the Senate voting procedure works. Before the body begins debate on any bill, it must vote to pass a “motion to proceed.” That has been done and required 60 votes. Then, to end debate, a motion called “final cloture” must also collect at least 60 votes. Only then can a final floor vote occur in which a simple majority can pass the bill (for the Obama-voter readers: there are 100 Senate seats, making 51 a majority).

Why is this notable? Because in this system, senators who want to help a bill pass, but don’t want their fingerprints on it, can vote “yes” on final cloture, thereby allowing 51 of their colleagues to vote “yes” on the actual legislation. While they then vote “no.”

“Yes” on final cloture and “no” on the actual legislation is how Georgia’s Senator Johnny Isakson voted on the unrelated gun bill earlier this year.

National Review also quantifies the replacement worker figures in the bill with this comparison: “the 2007 Bush-Kennedy proposal was rejected in part because it would have added 125,000 new guest workers. The Gang of Eight bill would add 1.6 million in the first year, and about 600,000 a year after that: That’s the population of Philadelphia in year one and the population of Boston each year after” the conservative editors warned this week.

That is in addition to the 33 million permanent immigrants the Obama-directed legislation would help add to the U.S. population in the next 10 years.

You read that correctly — “Obama-directed.” A senior White House official recently told the New Yorker magazine that “no decisions are being made without talking to us about it ... this does not fly if we’re not O.K. with it.”

Example of something that “does not fly?” for Obama? Try this: On Tuesday, the Senate considered two amendments that would have required the federal government to enforce security laws already in place before granting the illegal aliens another amnesty.

One, from Sen. John Thune (R- S.D.), required the federal government to complete 350 miles of reinforced, double-layered fencing along the southwest border with Mexico before illegal aliens could be legalized. The amendment would have also required another 350 miles of fencing to be constructed before they could obtain green cards. The fencing requirement was already mandated in the Secure Fence Act of 2006. The amendment failed 39-to-54.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), who claims to support a border fence, voted “no” along with the Gang of Eight Republicans.

Another amendment, from Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), would have required the federal government to complete the biometric entry/exit system at all ports of entry — including land crossings — before amnesty. Congress already mandated such a system in 1996. And five times since. Including in 2002, following the horror of 9/11. At least six of the 9/11 terrorists overstayed their visas.

The amendment failed 36-to-58.

“I-wanna-be-president” Marco Rubio said just last week that the tracking system was the “lynchpin to the whole bill.” In May, he told several news outlets he supported such a monitoring system. On Tuesday, however, along with John McCain, Lindsey Graham and the Obama Democrats, Rubio voted against the visa tracking amendment.

Got that?

Please direct all “does anybody remember 1986 or 9/11 or the American worker?” questions to both of Georgia’s Republican Senators.

They should vote “no” on allowing a final floor vote.

D.A. King is president of the Cobb-based Dustin Inman Society and a nationally recognized authority on immigration. He is not a member of any political party.
Comments
(6)
Comments-icon Post a Comment
Kevin Foley
|
June 20, 2013
Sorry, D.A., this is a win-win for Democrats. If the GOP kills the reform bill the ballot benefits accrue to our team. If it passes, ditto.

Former boxer Reid is playing rope-a-dope with senate Republicans.
Real Reality
|
June 21, 2013
You, and most of the Repubs, are being hoodwinked by the Dem party line. Dems are full of friendly advice for the Repubs, like the Illegals will only vote Republican if Repubs vote for amnesty.

DON'T TAKE ADVICE FROM YOUR ENEMIES!!!

Latinos don't vote as a monolithic bloc. They are more conservative than Repub have been led to believe. Repubs must be guided by an inherent need to better the U.S.A. The amnesty bill, S.744, is, by it's very nature, a boost to Mexico--not the U.S.A.

GA. Senators are poised to do grievous harm to all of us if they foolishly follow the Democrat Party line. I'll never vote for Isakson again if he betrays this country. Forget Chambliss--I'm glad to see him go.
Wide Awake
|
June 20, 2013
According to Chuck Schumer, who is a snake in the grass, the Immigration Bill will reduce the deficit, increase the economy, put more "Americans" back to work, and more miracles from this snake oil of a bill. He also stated that most of these illegal aliens would wind up being middle income contributors to society. I would beg to disagree with this statement. They will become more of a drain on society than is already the case. This bill is a nightmare and will further ruin this country.
Fact Checker
|
June 20, 2013
Wide Awake is the kind of person King and the right wing media depends on, ignorant and biased:

Right-Wing Media Misuse CBO Report To Attack Economic Benefits Of Immigration Reform

Right-wing media outlets cherry-picked data from a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report on the Senate's immigration reform proposal to incorrectly claim that the bill would hurt American workers. In fact, the CBO report found that the Senate immigration reform bill would have temporary and small negative effects but over the long term would greatly benefit both American workers and the economy, which is reinforced by past studies.

SW Gal
|
June 20, 2013
Senators, we know your tricks and your allegiance to campaign contributors like the Chamber of Commerce. Adding MILLIONS of undocumented workers to America's job lines, reduces wages for EVERYONE and puts lawbreakers at the head of the line for jobs. Where does that leave our unemployed? The majority of these newly amnestied folks will be dependent on entitlements, again paid for by the taxpayers. It does not make good economic sense to bring more dependents into our country. Oh, and let's just say it, something some of our more courageous lawmakers stated, they birth more babies than the average American... more future cheap laborers? The majority of these folks do not assimilate into the American culture, they keep their own cultures. VOTE NO on cloture, on the bill, on anything related to this dangerous amnesty. We will remember your votes.
Robert Johnson
|
June 19, 2013
D.A. King should teach classes! GREAT one!
*We welcome your comments on the stories and issues of the day and seek to provide a forum for the community to voice opinions. All comments are subject to moderator approval before being made visible on the website but are not edited. The use of profanity, obscene and vulgar language, hate speech, and racial slurs is strictly prohibited. Advertisements, promotions, and spam will also be rejected. Please read our terms of service for full guides