Start A Petition

Immigration Reform: Will It Go the Way of Gun Control?

US Politics & Gov't  (tags: government, politics, immigration reform, usa, news, media, americans )

- 1889 days ago -
After tabling one polarizing issue, the Senate moves on to another

Select names from your address book   |   Help

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.


Past Member (0)
Friday April 19, 2013, 6:26 am
The devil is in the details. To me, this is not, nor has never been about, Immigration Reform, but rather about the Hispanic vote. I think that is a mistake as the current system is is such a shambles. And as someone whom has had to obtain work and residential papers for 3 countries, and have a foreign wife, I know something about it.

pam w (139)
Friday April 19, 2013, 6:53 am
Ignoring the immigration problems is just STUPID!

Many of these people, illegally or not, have been here for decades and deserve do those who were brought here as children and have never known another life.

WE NEED TO FIX THIS and mass deportations are NOT a humane answer.!

lee e (114)
Friday April 19, 2013, 9:31 am
Right you are Pam, the last I heard on this issue they were "fining" these immigrants and asking them to take "lower wages" - whereas they are working for the most part at nearly "share-croppers" wages to begin with, which of course is why they get work at all -- it's not going to be an equitable conclusion from the looks of things! John is right as well - they just want the vote!

Winnie A (179)
Friday April 19, 2013, 10:25 am
I hope not!

Gene J (290)
Friday April 19, 2013, 1:17 pm
"The bill would provide a path to citizenship for the estimated 11 million undocumented workers in the country. In exchange, it would tighten border security, a provision seen as crucial to attracting immigration hawks who've said border security must be a prerequisite to a broader immigration overhaul."

I don't care how divisive this is. If it is. Pam is right. Every one of those undocumented children born in this country are native born Americans, eligible to run for President, and to send them off to some place they've never been, perhaps with a spoken language they do not know is unconscionable. Not to say there aren't plenty of racists and bigots who would do exactly that. But the humane thing to do is provide their parents a path to citizenship and let them stay in this land that they love as much as we. Who ALL derive from immigrants at some point, legal or not. Criminals? Another strawman as they are no more likely to be involved in crime than any other American, but if they are, well, that's why we have a criminal justice system. The compassionate approach is to provide a path to citizenship while recognizing that children born on our soil are by law already citizens. These are hard working people and we should be laying out the welcom mat for them, not persecuting them so Sheriff Joe and his like can feel good about how tough they are. I am going to be so pleased, when, in a relatively few years, Arizona is more than half hispanic. Sheriff Joe and the rest of the bigots in that state will find themselves the minorities. They'll be treated much better than they deserve by the majority I am sure, because that majority understands the benefit and reward of compassion and understanding, something the majority in that state are not now familiar with.


John B (185)
Friday April 19, 2013, 7:34 pm
Thanks Cal for the link to the article Jon Terbush. Immigration reform be a complete overhaul and I'm waiting to read all the fine print before I think this bill might be the answer. Read and noted.

Jason S (50)
Friday April 19, 2013, 8:06 pm
Most likely, Good posting, thanks

cecily w (0)
Friday April 19, 2013, 8:47 pm
Thank you for the article. I am on the right of this issue :::hidiing under desk::: I am (obliquely) to the right on this issue because US population growth is already too high--don't worry, I won't go into the stats right now. But these people are already here. Among the reasons that they are here are (1) Misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment;
(2) Failure of the various levels of government to enforce laws already on the books, (3) Long-term "winking" at businesses and individuals who hire people who are here illegally for substandard wages.

It is unethical to separate parents who are here illegally from their US-born children who are citizens. It is also unethical to penalize children who were brought in illegally. But it will be a surprise if the Senate committee comes up with a plan that improves the situation.

Helen Porter (39)
Friday April 19, 2013, 9:18 pm
I wonder if you know that the Mexican people used to be here in what is now Arizona but the white man came and forced them out of their territory. That's what happened with the Cherokee people in Oklahoma. My great grandmother was on the Cherokee Trail of Tears where they made the people leave their beloved land and "get out".


They found gold on Cherokee land.

The Mexicans told me that's why they feel entitled to come here, They were here first then driven out.

paul m (93)
Saturday April 20, 2013, 5:58 am


. (0)
Saturday April 20, 2013, 8:40 am
I hope not. Immigration needs to be controlled so we don't get crazy people like those guys who did the bombing in Boston.

. (0)
Saturday April 20, 2013, 12:37 pm
I am not pleased with whitewashing citizenship to 11 million people. There has to be be a process, a standard put into place. There was an article recently about children born in this country, although their parents were illegals. These people went on to achieve Master degrees, and hold very well paying jobs.
Some may say, the system was abused in order for them to get a basically free education. Yet, their parents pushed them on to make something of themselves.
Let's be honest, these children were born in this country on purpose. This simply cannnot go on.
Border patrols, actual walls built along the Mexican border...I'm all for it.

Judith Hand (55)
Saturday April 20, 2013, 1:29 pm
Noted. After the quash of the gun control ammendment, my spirits are way low. A Floridian, I focused on Marco Rubio who, of course, voted nay. On this one, I read an article in TIME from February on Rubio. It's very telling regarding the immigration policy and the role he plays in this "gang". I don't believe that he's honouring his immigrant parents in his approach to it.

Thomas P (280)
Saturday April 20, 2013, 3:19 pm
Noted...thanks Cal. You know, if those that are so cold hearted that they would send back undocumented workers to their countries of origin (THIS country is their home), if the "party of family values" would have no problem dividing and separating families, then perhaps those who feel that way should look at this from a purely economic standpoint, since they have neither enough sympathy or empathy to view it any other way. Sending back undocumented workers to their country of origin would cripple an already tenuous economy, in particular the restaurant and accommodations industries. It would also necessarily drive up prices for consumers. Allan Y...(and I'm not including you among the cold hearted that I mentioned above)...I agree with you that there must be a process in place for undocumented workers to become citizens, but I'm one that thinks it should be expedited, not made more deliberate. Moreover, you refer to those whose children were born here and went on to achieve Master degrees. Do you know what those children are called? First of all, they are citizens, just like you and me, with the same rights (assuming you were born in the US, as I was, and as those in your example were). And second of all, and perhaps more importantly to some...they become taxpayers, not tax liabilities. Not only do they become taxpayers, but they pay taxes at higher marginal rates as they generally earn more having Masters degrees. And don't we all benefit from having more taxpayers in this country?

Birgit W (160)
Saturday April 20, 2013, 5:32 pm
Do we ever think about the suffering of those people? They need all our compassion!

Colleen L (3)
Saturday April 20, 2013, 8:30 pm
To answer the question, "yes". This is another issue that needs to be addressed. But when it comes to our policial leaders, they just go around and around in circles and never find an answer or cure. Thanks Cal

Gloria p (304)
Sunday April 21, 2013, 5:45 am
After the Boston Marathon bombing it's important to stop immigration reform. The oldest brother was questioned about extremist behavior and he still got to stay here and put healthy people in wheelchairs for the rest of their lives.

Lois Jordan (63)
Sunday April 21, 2013, 11:37 am
Noted. Thanks, Cal.
I just really hate people thinking that an enormous "wall" must be built to go hand-in-hand with new immigration laws. Being born and living in AZ all my life, the news is that we are at the lowest rate of illegal border crossing we've been for decades. In fact, there are now so many Border Patrol and "other" agents, that many small border towns are complaining that these agents are overrunning their towns and leaving more garbage.

Ray M (0)
Sunday April 21, 2013, 5:17 pm
No doubt with all the despicable republicons running the country. Pathetic bunch.

jo M. (3)
Sunday April 21, 2013, 10:25 pm
And in 20 more years when 11 million more cheats have sneaked across the border, how will you deal with them? 2 amnesties were two too many, you need a good way to make sure this never happens again if you wish to open a path, a path that has always been there anyway, for citizenship for the cheaters. Fine them, put them at the back of the line, no relatives except spouses and children eligible, no criminal background, no one who came after a certain date, must have a job or be in school or volunteer for military, absolutely no government assistance,or covered under new health care laws. Until then, deport like crazy. No need to separate families, they can all go back together, the children can come back when they are of age if they are citizens of the US.

Deborah W (6)
Monday April 22, 2013, 6:32 am
My personal opinion is that unless we bite the bullet and deal with ALL issues, children born here are legal citizens and blameless, parents on the other hand made their personal choice, knowing the consequences involved, and still decided to come illegally. They now own it, are still illegal, and should be dealt with as such.

Raul M. (0)
Monday April 22, 2013, 9:45 am
Whose rights do the senate fight for?...

Jason R (67)
Monday April 22, 2013, 1:23 pm
Recent Senate Votes
Firearms Legislation – Concealed-Carry Reciprocity Amendment - Vote Rejected (57-43)

This proposal from Minority Whip John Cornyn of Texas would allow someone with a permit to carry a concealed weapon the right to carry it in any state which has a concealed-carry law. The amendment states that permit holders from other states must abide by the laws of states in which they are located, though it would prohibit states from placing restrictions on individuals with out-of-state permits, treating such individuals as if they carried an “unrestricted” permit. The remainder of the failed amendments included proposals to reinstate and expand a ban on so-called assault weapons; to ban ammunition magazines holding more than ten rounds; and to prevent veterans from being deemed “mental defectives” – thus losing their ability to own firearms – without a court decision. Two amendments did pass muster. The first, offered by Wyoming Republican John Barrasso, would penalize states and localities for publicizing gun ownership data. The second, from HELP committee leaders Tom Harkin, D-Iowa and Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., would overhaul the nation’s mental health system. (Roll Calls 100-105)

Sen. Ron Wyden voted NO
Sen. Jeff Merkley voted NO

Firearms Legislation – Background Checks Amendment - Vote Rejected (54-46)

The Senate voted on a flurry of amendments to the first major legislative response to last December’s massacre in Newtown, CT. In a sign of the difficulty facing proponents of stronger gun laws, most of the amendments were defeated, beginning with a proposal by pro-gun senators Joe Manchin, D-W.Va. and Pat Toomey, R-Pa. to strengthen background checks. The Toomey-Manchin amendment would have expanded the current system to include all sales at gun shows and on the Internet. Though initially hailed as a critical breakthrough, the amendment’s prospects died a slow death in the days leading up to the actual vote, as fence-sitting senators from both parties declared their opposition one by one. Ultimately five Democrats opposed the amendment – Max Baucus of Montana, Mark Begich of Alaska, Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, and Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. (Reid voted “no” for procedural reasons which would allow him to call up the amendment for a vote at a later date.) Baucus, Begich and Pryor all face difficult re-elections next year in states that favored Mitt Romney in the 2012 presidential contest. Four Republicans supported the amendment – Susan Collins of Maine, Mark Kirk of Illinois, John McCain of Arizona, and co-sponsor Toomey.

Sen. Ron Wyden voted YES
Sen. Jeff Merkley voted YES

Firearms Legislation – Republican Substitute Amendment - Vote Rejected (52-48)

The second failed amendment was a Republican substitute offered by Judiciary committee ranking member Chuck Grassley of Iowa. Most Republicans have decried Democratic proposals for reducing gun violence as threatening to Americans’ Second Amendment rights and have emphasized in their own proposals a “law and order” approach. This is reflected in the Republican alternative, which would make it a federal crime to purchase guns on behalf of those legally barred from owning them; expand the scope of mental illnesses barring some individuals from owning firearms; and create a special task force focused on attempted firearms purchases by felons and fugitives. Nine Democrats supported the Republican proposal, while two Republicans opposed it.

Sen. Ron Wyden voted NO
Sen. Jeff Merkley voted NO

Firearms Legislation – Straw Purchases Amendment - Vote Rejected (58-42)

Judiciary Chairman Pat Leahy, D-Vt. co-sponsored an amendment that would make it a federal crime to buy guns on behalf of someone legally barred from possessing them, a practice called straw purchasing. The amendment fell just two votes short of adoption. (In a concession to the reality of a likely Republican filibuster, Majority Leader Reid agreed to raise the threshold for adoption of all amendments to 60 votes instead of the usual 51.)

Sen. Ron Wyden voted YES
Sen. Jeff Merkley voted YES

Jason R (67)
Monday April 22, 2013, 1:25 pm
Progressives rock. Republicans suck!

Ethan H. (0)
Monday April 22, 2013, 8:52 pm
I was seperated from the love of my life because of the messed up immigration laws in this country. Her parents brought her here illegally as a child, and she ended up having to leave last summer because of it. And because I'm trans, even if we had rushed our planned marriage, she wouldn't have been able to stay. Immigration reform is necessary.
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story

Loading Noted By...Please Wait


butterfly credits on the news network

  • credits for vetting a newly submitted story
  • credits for vetting any other story
  • credits for leaving a comment
learn more

Most Active Today in US Politics & Gov't

Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of or its affiliates.

New to Care2? Start Here.