Power and Politics - I am Not the Yellow Peril

The life and times of an Asian American activist who tells all the truth (and dishes news and analysis) but with a leftwards slant.

Tuesday, May 16, 2006

Immigration skirmish victory

So today the Senate reopened the immigration debate. It was a roll call vote on whether allowing illegal immigrants to stay in the United States should be contingent on first securing borders against new undocumented immigrants. The vote was 40-55 with 5 senators not voting. There were 7 Dems and 33 Republicans who voted Yes on Isakson's proposal and 36 Democrats and 18 Repubs who voted no.

Clarification (5/21): Justiceiro pointed out rightfully that this posting is not clear. The paragraph that follow is my attempt to clarify.
This vote was a procedural one by which voting yes meant requiring U.S. officials to certify that the nation's borders were secure and that new detention facilities for illegal immigrants were operating before guest worker and legalization programs would take effect. It doesn't mean thatyes votes were in favor of securing the borders and then passing legalization or a path to citizenship. Instead it was put up by Sen. Isakson as a stalling measure.

I excoriate the Dems who voted yes, and I'm not going to bother whipping the Republicans who voted for this thing. I don't expect better from them. I can understand why senators from conservative states like Nebraska, but what about Debbie Stabenow of Michigan? Ron Wyden from Oregon?

Every presidential cycle, people claim that Michigan and Oregon are swing states, and they are except that they're not really likely to vote for Bush or whatever heinous Repub drone they send out from the factory floor in '08.

I can take some educated guesses as to why each voted yes: for Stabenow it's the fact that Detroit (formerly Union City) is hemorraghing jobs and people are PISSED. For Wyden I guess it's the John Muir wing of the environmental movement.

If you want to cut it even closer, Stabenow is in a very closely contested race. She's not doing very well in the polls. So I can understand but not forgive her vote. But Wyden?

C'mon, Oregon was only considered a swing state in 2000 because Nader the Raider was in the race and he got % of the vote. In 2004 Oregon was a blowout for Kerry. HE's not facing any serious challengers. He's been in federal office since 1980, he's a living institution in Oregon politics, like a walking redwood or sequoia. NO ONE has even filed to run against him.

Unless he's got presidential or gubernatorial aspirations (and let's remember that the current Gov is Democrat Ted Kulongski who is undergoing some turbulent times...perhaps Wyden is Biden his time?) Sorry. Political geek joke there.

Anyways, the point is that Wyden sold out the immigrant community of Oregon.

Btw, call your Senators and thank the ones who voted no, leave "I'm highly disappointed" messages for the yeses.

Alabama
Sessions (R) Yes; Shelby (R) No.

Alaska
Murkowski (R) No; Stevens (R) No.

Arizona
Kyl (R) Yes; McCain (R) Not Voting.

Arkansas
Lincoln (D) No; Pryor (D) No.

California
Boxer (D) No; Feinstein (D) No.

Colorado
Allard (R) Yes; Salazar (D) No.

Connecticut
Dodd (D) No; Lieberman (D) No.

Delaware
Biden (D) No; Carper (D) No.

Florida
Martinez (R) No; Nelson (D) No.

Georgia
Chambliss (R) Yes; Isakson (R) Yes.

Hawaii
Akaka (D) No; Inouye (D) No.

Idaho
Craig (R) No; Crapo (R) Yes.

Illinois
Durbin (D) No; Obama (D) No.

Indiana
Bayh (D) No; Lugar (R) No.

Iowa
Grassley (R) Yes; Harkin (D) No.

Kansas
Brownback (R) No; Roberts (R) Yes.

Kentucky
Bunning (R) Yes; McConnell (R) Yes.

Louisiana
Landrieu (D) Yes; Vitter (R) Yes.

Maine
Collins (R) No; Snowe (R) No.

Maryland
Mikulski (D) No; Sarbanes (D) No.

Massachusetts Kennedy (D) No; Kerry (D) No.

Michigan
Levin (D) No; Stabenow (D) Yes.

Minnesota
Coleman (R) No; Dayton (D) No.

Mississippi
Cochran (R) Not Voting; Lott (R) Not Voting.

Missouri
Bond (R) Yes; Talent (R) Yes.

Montana
Baucus (D) No; Burns (R) Yes.

Nebraska
Hagel (R) No; Nelson (D) Yes.

Nevada
Ensign (R) Yes; Reid (D) No.

New Hampshire
Gregg (R) Not Voting; Sununu (R) Yes.

New Jersey
Lautenberg (D) No; Menendez (D) No.

New Mexico
Bingaman (D) No; Domenici (R) Yes.

New York
Clinton (D) No; Schumer (D) No.

North Carolina
Burr (R) Yes; Dole (R) Yes.

North Dakota
Conrad (D) Yes; Dorgan (D) Yes.

Ohio
DeWine (R) No; Voinovich (R) No.

Oklahoma
Coburn (R) Yes; Inhofe (R) Yes.

Oregon
Smith (R) Yes; Wyden (D) Yes.

Pennsylvania
Santorum (R) Yes; Specter (R) No.

Rhode Island
Chafee (R) No; Reed (D) No.

South Carolina
DeMint (R) Yes; Graham (R) No.

South Dakota
Johnson (D) No; Thune (R) Yes.

Tennessee
Alexander (R) Yes; Frist (R) Yes.

Texas
Cornyn (R) Yes; Hutchison (R) Yes.

Utah
Bennett (R) No; Hatch (R) Yes.

Vermont
Jeffords (I) No; Leahy (D) No.

Virginia
Allen (R) Yes; Warner (R) No.

Washington
Cantwell (D) No; Murray (D) No.

West Virginia
Byrd (D) Yes; Rockefeller (D) Not Voting.

Wisconsin
Feingold (D) No; Kohl (D) No.

Wyoming
Enzi (R) Yes; Thomas (R) Yes.

2 Comments:

  • At 12:20 AM, Blogger Justiceiro said…

    If you voted yes, does that mean that you support the securing of national borders, and also letting folks already here, stay here? If so, then I really don't see how you can beef with it.

    Border security isn't all about immigration- it's about security. You can be pro-immigration and still be for draconian border controls. I don't care so much if people jump the border easily so that they can pick up work here. But if they can jump the border so easily, so can anyone else, don't you think?

     
  • At 8:42 PM, Blogger powerpolitics said…

    This vote was a procedural one by which voting yes meant requiring U.S. officials to certify that the nation's borders were secure and that new detention facilities for illegal immigrants were operating before guest worker and legalization programs would take effect. It doesn't mean that you are for legalization or a path to citizenship. Instead it was put up by Sen. Isakson as a stalling measure.

    At any rate, the Senate has apparently decided that a good way of enforcing the border is by putting up a fence. Which I think just leads to better sales of ladders and shovels.

    Let's not forget that all of the terrorists of 9/11 entered the country legally either as tourists or students. And we could cut off visas to both groups, but it would hurt our economy and our abliity to perform research. America has succeeded because we have accepted the best and brightest from other countries and welcomed them here to help us excel at medicine, science, technology, etc.

    I'm sorry I wasn't clearer in the post. I will clarify it.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home