Immigration bills to lose felony proviso

 

Pelosi's office: Republicans 'feeling the heat' after protests

 

 

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Republican leaders of the House and Senate have agreed to drop efforts to make entering the United States illegally a felony, hoping to jump-start legislation to overhaul the U.S. immigration system.

The provision has become a lightning rod for protesters in massive demonstrations against illegal immigration restrictions, like those Monday that drew hundreds of thousands of people in dozens of American cities large and small.

The felony measure is part of an immigration reform bill the GOP-controlled House of Representatives passed in December.

In a joint statement issued Tuesday evening, House Speaker Dennis Hastert and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist tried to blame House Democrats for the felony provision, noting that Democrats voted overwhelmingly against an amendment that would have reduced minimum sentences for illegal entry to 6 months.

"Instead, they voted to make felons out of all of those who remain in our country illegally," said Hastert, an Illinois Republican, and Frist, a Tennessee Republican.

The final bill passed the House 239-182, with only 36 Democrats supporting the measure. (Watch the politics of immigration -- 2:28)

Jennifer Crider, a spokeswoman for House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California, said Republicans "are feeling the heat" after demonstrations that brought out hundreds of thousands of protesters in 39 states on Monday.

Organizers said 500,000 attended a protest in Washington and 200,000 turned out in Phoenix, Arizona, though police provided no official crowd estimates. (Full story)

"No amount of spin can change the fact that Republicans wrote and passed the Sensenbrenner bill, which criminalizes an entire population," Crider said. "The bill is beyond repair."

Republican Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado, a leading advocate of cracking down on illegal immigration, said Monday that Democrats wanted to keep the felony provision as a "poison pill."

But Sen. Edward Kennedy on Tuesday dismissed such characterizations.

"Actions speak louder than words, and there's no running away from the fact that the Republican House passed a bill and Senator Frist offered one that criminalizes immigrants," the Massachusetts Democrat said.

"This debate shouldn't be about making criminals out of hard-working families ... but rather about strengthening our national security and enacting a law that reflects our best values and our humanity," he said in a written statement.

The House bill, pushed by Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, a Wisconsin Democrat, also calls for building 700 miles of security fence along the Mexican border and would make assisting illegal immigrants a felony, as well.

It does not include a temporary guest-worker provision, as President Bush has called for, or language that would offer a legalization process for people already in the United States illegally. Critics dismiss that idea as "amnesty," while supporters call it "earned citizenship."

Senate attempts to pass a bill stalled last week when a measure establishing a guest-worker program and a mechanism for legalization failed to overcome opposition from conservative Republicans.

As protests against the House bill mounted in late March, the White House and the Republican National Committee raised concerns that the anti-immigration sentiment coming from some corners of the GOP would turn off Latino voters that Bush and his political team have worked hard to court.

But Republican leaders must also contend with a growing chorus within their conservative base to crack down on illegal immigration. (Watch importance of Latino vote questioned -- 2:07)

Sensenbrenner sponsored the amendment that Frist and Hastert cited Tuesday, and he signaled last week that he would be willing to drop the felony language if the House and Senate have to come up with a compromise bill.

House GOP aides, meanwhile, said Tuesday that language aimed at punishing people who help illegal immigrants was aimed at smugglers who bring people across the border, not at charities who assist the migrants.

im pretty sure republicans tried to remove the felony part before but the dems wouldnt let them.

 

anyways our goverment needs to do something on this issue.

Damn illegal immigrants.

 

I say put a 30 foot high wall between us and Mexico.

With guards...

And guns... lots of guns...

i saw we just beef up security to the border with armed gaurds and build some walls. we have to do something.

Haha I heard this Mexican on tv the other day who was at one of those gay amnesty rally things that could barely speak English...they shoulda just done a sweep outta those 500,000 people there...i bet 400,000 would be illegal.

haha yeah. they could have deported alot of people at those rallies. they should have.

Killing and arresting innocent people.

 

What a just and fair way to handle it.

 

That is the most barbaric thing to say. I hope you aren't serious. Because that it sick.

 

I think it's a good thing to take away the felony language in the bill. It was the most ludacris part of it all.

im pretty sure republicans tried to remove the felony part before but the dems wouldnt let them.

 

anyways our goverment needs to do something on this issue.

 

 

there you go again..... talking out of your ass.. making it good v. evil.... they're all fucking crooked.... dems and reps. alike!!

 

Yeah... lets move the civil right movement back 80 odd years to a land of segragation and inhumanity... thats a step in the right direction... building walls and shooting people.... yeah, thats a novel idea.

 

:rolleyes:

Have you guys heard of May 1 yet? :idea2: I wonder if it's really going to make an impact :thinking:

there you go again..... talking out of your ass.. making it good v. evil.... they're all fucking crooked.... dems and reps. alike!!

 

Yeah... lets move the civil right movement back 80 odd years to a land of segragation and inhumanity... thats a step in the right direction... building walls and shooting people.... yeah, thats a novel idea.

 

:rolleyes:

 

 

im pretty sure if i heard correctly the dems were the ones who tried hard to keep that on the bill. dont shoot the messenger. i didnt even make it good vs evil. you did.

 

never said shoot people just guards. but something has to be done, for the safety of our nation. this isnt a immagration issues its a legal issue. were the ONLY country that allows this to happen, sneak into mexico or any other country illegaly and have fun trying to get a job. our borders are there for a reason. their has to be a legal process for immagrants. its not inhumane AT ALL, not immoral or evil. its not racist it has NOTHING to do with segregation. it has to do with our nation controlling its borders.

thats the biggest crock of shit I have read from you yet

Killing and arresting innocent people.

 

What a just and fair way to handle it.

 

That is the most barbaric thing to say. I hope you aren't serious. Because that it sick.

 

I think it's a good thing to take away the felony language in the bill. It was the most ludacris part of it all.

 

 

its sick to inforce our laws on our nation with people trying to ILLEGALLY enter...yeah..let me guess your gonna tell me a sick bastard for calling the cops if some tries to walk into my house?

 

nothing barbaric about it.

you guys are right. its barbaric. we should just open up all our airports and borders nad let anyone walk in. lets not screen them or care who they are or what they are planning on doing. that would barbaric. hell lets just lose the metal dectectors in our airports thats evil. lets let everyone and anyone just walk into america. thats what i call smart thinking.

we all know what a great 'screening' jonb they did with the guys who were here 'legally' and flew jet planes into the WTC... yeah great job there. :rolleyes:

 

fact of the matter is... foriegners aren't the only 'terrorist' our there.. you're sterotyping all terrorist threats to foriegners.... which isn't the case. We have home grown terrorists, American, US Natives, CITIZENS.. who hate this country just as much as the next man.. who would die for their cause as well as those guys did on 9/11...

 

bottom line.. this won't solve anything on keep our country 'safe'..... we'll never feel that way again...... safe is a thing of the past- when are people going to realize that? We just have to go on living on the wings of caution and thats that.

 

safe my ass.. :rolleyes:

im not steroetyping, im saying it is igorant and extremely stupid to have our back door WIDE OPEN. because it runs the risk of terrorsit just walking in. yes there may be terrorist already in the US but why let more in? i mean if we use your logic if theres a few terrorist here why not let them all in?? thats just stupid. i mean they attacked us once, then why not let them do it again?? the truth is america is not a all you can eat bufee(sp?) we love immagrants and want them here, LEGALLY. this will help to keep our nation safe. not all the time but it will help. living on the wings of caution would mean closing our backdoor not opening wide open and telling anyone to walk in.

 

let me put this in better terms. if you house was broken into once, using your logic you say keep it unlocked because its happened once it might happen again. we cannot rely on that type of thinking. BETTER SAFE THEN SORRY.

you guys are right. its barbaric. we should just open up all our airports and borders nad let anyone walk in. lets not screen them or care who they are or what they are planning on doing. that would barbaric. hell lets just lose the metal dectectors in our airports thats evil. lets let everyone and anyone just walk into america. thats what i call smart thinking.

 

Well, your government has been looking into selling your ports to Arab Companies.

 

It is a stated goal of the Bilderberg Group, the Trilateral Commission and the CFR to promote what they call 'interdependence' and to lobby governments to sell off key infrastructure such as roads, lakes, ports, and highways to international corporations so that corporations can grow to be bigger in size than government.

 

But this lastest attempt to sell has been blocked so far.....

Well, your government has been looking into selling your ports to Arab Companies.

 

It is a stated goal of the Bilderberg Group, the Trilateral Commission and the CFR to promote what they call 'interdependence' and to lobby governments to sell off key infrastructure such as roads, lakes, ports, and highways to international corporations so that corporations can grow to be bigger in size than government.

 

But this lastest attempt to sell has been blocked so far.....

 

 

sooooo?? a arab nation that has been our good friend and ally recently. lets not get all racist now.

im not steroetyping, im saying it is igorant and extremely stupid to have our back door WIDE OPEN. because it runs the risk of terrorsit just walking in. yes there may be terrorist already in the US but why let more in? i mean if we use your logic if theres a few terrorist here why not let them all in?? thats just stupid. i mean they attacked us once, then why not let them do it again?? the truth is america is not a all you can eat bufee(sp?) we love immagrants and want them here, LEGALLY. this will help to keep our nation safe. not all the time but it will help. living on the wings of caution would mean closing our backdoor not opening wide open and telling anyone to walk in.

 

let me put this in better terms. if you house was broken into once, using your logic you say keep it unlocked because its happened once it might happen again. we cannot rely on that type of thinking. BETTER SAFE THEN SORRY.

 

 

you've managed to yet again... avoid the point.

 

You are too stereotyping.. saying that all terrorist come from the outside..... uhh Timothy McVeigh was a natrual born citizen.. a man of the military!!! And he is also responsible for one of the biggest US terrorist attacks until 9/11......

 

this is my point..... we will never be safe.

lets not get all racist now.

 

Hey, Never imply such a thing.

 

 

Really low opertunist comment there.

sooooo?? a arab nation that has been our good friend and ally recently. lets not get all racist now.

 

 

 

I don't think its a racist comment... its been proven that this company supported and funded terrorist groups... was it not?

you've managed to yet again... avoid the point.

 

You are too stereotyping.. saying that all terrorist come from the outside..... uhh Timothy McVeigh was a natrual born citizen.. a man of the military!!! And he is also responsible for one of the biggest US terrorist attacks until 9/11......

 

this is my point..... we will never be safe.

 

ive made it quite clear, there are many terrorist in the US. but why let more in? we will never be safer, but we can be safer by protection our borders.

 

 

we will be attacked again but we can stop alot of attacks. we simply cannot say oh we'll be attacked again whats the point of trying to stop them? becuase if we dont it will happan alot of the time. instead of every once and awhile.

I don't think its a racist comment... its been proven that this company supported and funded terrorist groups... was it not?

 

in recent years they ahve helped us alot. UAE has alot of naval ports in their country all have been well gaurded and kept. they are our allies. they are a good example of modern racism, becuase they are arab our nation didnt want them in our ports. even though they pose no more threats then the british company who is doing the job they want to do.

No, no...

 

it's that fact that they were trying to team-up up the UAE with Halliburton

Halliburton is as corrupt as they come and run almost exclusively by the Globalists.

They made large amounts of profit from no-bid contracts in the Iraq war.