How Georgia’s senators voted on the immigration bill…

…The U.S. Senate is in the middle of voting for a cloture motion for the comprehensive immigration reform bill which was a compromise put together by Sens. Isakson and Chambliss. This cloture motion essentially is a motion for the Senate to proceed towards consideration of the immigration reform bill. To my knowledge, no substantial action or changes has been made to the bill, this motion simply allows for the Senate to consider the legislation.

Here’s how Chambliss & Isakson voted along with the final result of the vote:

Saxby Chambliss voted aye.

Johnny Isakson voted aye.

On the motion to invoke cloture and to proceed to the consideration of the immigration bill, the final vote was 69 yays, 23 nays and the motion passed.

Harry Reid has just said that the Senate will not take up the immigration bill until after the Senate returns from it’s Memorial Day recess.

53 comments

  1. Jeff Emanuel says:

    Andre, what was “put together by Sens. Isakson and Chambliss”? You don’t mean the bill itself, do you — because neither had a hand in authoring it.

  2. GeorgiaValues says:

    I think our Senators are doing the right thing; sitting down at the table to negotiate and work to move this debate and final legislation in the right direction.

    The easy thing to do would be to hold a press conference to decry this legislation, call it amnesty (as all those who haven’t read the as yet unwritten bill are doing), and sacrifice good policy for easy political rhetoric on a difficult and complicated subject. The hard thing to do is to sit down with a bunch of liberal democrats, who hold the majority, and try to uphold Georgia values, American values, Conservative values…and work to move this bill in the right direction.

    We are witnessing a few bold politicians, willing to sacrifice political opportunity, for laborious negotiation, research, and the chance to shape legislation on the most important domestic issue that this country is facing.

  3. joe says:

    Georgia Values,

    That is a total crock. We would have had an amnesty bill last year if it weren’t for HOUSE Republicans. Our Senators and our President have wanted amnesty for years. Now that the Democratic party is in control of the house, they have an opportunity.

    To even think that “We are witnessing a few bold politicians, willing to sacrifice political opportunity, for laborious negotiation, research, and the chance to shape legislation on the most important domestic issue that this country is facing. ” is to completely ignor what they tried to do last year.

    They are not and have not been on our (American Citizens) side. Screw them.

  4. Jeff Emanuel says:

    RJL, you are, unfortunately, mistaken. First, the bill which Ramesh refers to in the post you linked is not the bill which was introduced for debate today. Second, Sen. Isakson authored an enforcement-first amendment last year which he has repeatedly introduced, and which I, like Ramesh, believe would be an asset to any immigration bill.

    The legislation in question, though, was not crafted by Mr. Isakson or Mr. Chambliss; it is an agreement that was reached by Sens. Kyl, McCain, Cornyn (in part), and Specter from the GOP side of the aisle, and by Sen. Kennedy and others from the Democrat side. Unfortunately, you appear to have your bills — and Mr. Isakson’s amendment — mixed up.

  5. Bill Simon says:

    AND, to the concept that The National Review cannot POSSIBLY be incorrect, quit smoking dope!

    The Right-Wing Media has become as stupid and inaccurate in their reporting and their assumptions as the Left-Wing Media.

    Shakespeare said “First, kill all the lawyers.”

    Fine, do that. Then, kill all the news people. We can get along just fine without being lied to any longer.

  6. debbie0040 says:

    The bill has picked up opposition from both liberals and conservatives. I think it will fail to pass, thank goodness.

    In addition, my parents received information from AARP opposing the bill. It stated that illegals would be able to draw form the Social Security System if the bill passes, even though they have not paid in.

    Path to national suicide by Patrick Buchanan

    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/staticarticles/article55810.html

    Fred Thompson predicts immigration reform bill will fail

    http://www.jacksonsun.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070521/NEWS01/705210314/1002

    Opposition to U.S. immigration bill intensifies

    http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN2136726020070521?feedType=RSS&rpc=22

  7. Bill Simon says:

    Debbie,

    I guess that means Johnny Isakson is lying if you wish to follow what AARP’s stated “interpretation” of the proposed legislation is.

    BUT, I’d rather stick with someone who doesn’t have a habit of lying (unlike the fear-mongering AARP). This is what Isakson’s Senate office had to say about that claim on the Social Security issue:

    “Will Z visa workers be allowed to collect Social Security benefits?

    Z visa workers will pay into the Social Security system, as will their employers. Z visa workers may collect ONLY the share they individually put into the system and ONLY when they leave the United States. Z visa workers are barred from collecting the share of Social Security that employers put into the system on their behalf.

    Won’t illegal immigrants simply come out of the shadows and on to the welfare rolls? No.

    Z visa workers are not entitled to welfare, Food Stamps, SSI, non-emergency Medicaid, or other programs and privileges enjoyed by U.S. citizens and some Legal Permanent Residents.

    In order to apply for and maintain Z visa status, workers must remain employed. If they are no longer working, they must leave the United States immediately.

  8. Bill Simon says:

    RightonPeachtree,

    You quoted this: “Added GOP Sen. Johnny Isakson of Georgia: ‘All of the meetings I’ve been in are very intense…'”

    The key phrase is “All of the meetings I’ve been in.

    How many meetings was Johnny at? The article doesn’t say.

    I know for a fact that Johnny was NOT at every meeting because he admitted that in several other sources I’ve read…and, he may have actually said it on the floor of the convention last Saturday.

    So, your “conclusion” that “Johnny appears to have been heavily involved in the negotiations” is flat-out wrong and is NOT based on any facts.

    If there were 50 meetings, and Johnny went to 4 of them, and of those 4 he was in, all were “intense,” does that mean he was “heavily involved in negotiations” if he did not attend the other 46?

    Do you make your living as an attorney, RightonPeachtree?

  9. RJL says:

    Emanual, Simon et al. — Whether or not you think it is a good thing, it is simply preposterous to say that Sen. Isakson was not involved or helped “put together” the immigration comprise bill. It’s just too easy to read or research it.

    For there to have been a “compromise,” there had to be differing views and objectives. Isakson had several key provisions he wanted, and he has been involved in this issue for months and months as well as the final negotiations.

    A casual read of just this one article will show several provisions of the Isakson bill that have appeared in one for or another in the compromise version:

    http://www.timesfreepress.com/absolutenm/templates/politicalnews.aspx?articleid=9729&zoneid=67

    You may view that as bad or good, but the fact is that it happened.

  10. debbie0040 says:

    Bill, I just reported what AARP was sending out. They have a habit of mis-representing things to scare the seniors.

    I would take Isakson’s word any day of the week over AARP. I have never found Isakson to be anything other than honest.

  11. Bill,

    You said:
    “I know for a fact that Johnny was NOT at every meeting because he admitted that in several other sources I’ve read…and, he may have actually said it on the floor of the convention last Saturday.

    So, your “conclusion” that “Johnny appears to have been heavily involved in the negotiations” is flat-out wrong and is NOT based on any facts.”

    I never said Isakson was at every meeting and you know it. I only quoted verbatim what was in the article. That’s it.

    And I didn’t say he was “heavily” involved in the negotiations. “Heavily” is your word. From what I quoted, he himself said that he was at multiple meetings. Also, his trigger provisions were a key part of the bill that was praised by those involved. He was involved. Period.

    I’m not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV. My concerns lie only with the American people (ALL of them), conservative values (which have been all but abandoned by the GOP of late), and the future of this country.

  12. Demonbeck says:

    righton,

    I would appreciate it if you would discontinue posting in English and start posting in Spanish like most Americans.

    If you wanna continue posting in English, then you can just go back to China.

  13. Demonbeck says:

    I do have a question. Do the numbers of illegals in America outnumber the number of people voting in the last election?

  14. debbie0040 says:

    Why are we encouraging immigrants with low skill sets and education to come to this country. These are people that will end up on our welfare system. Look at the rulings regarding this matter form the Supreme Court. Do you really think we can keep them form obtaining welfare?

    Why are we not encouraging the higher skill sets and education levels?

    If illegal immigration is clamped down on, wages will go up. I understand that the price of goods may go up but that it little price to pay to stop the illegal invasion.

    http://www.heritage.org/Press/Misc/immigration.cfm

  15. Federalist says:

    demonbeck, you are such a racist. Most of America? where did that come from. 87% of this country is still white, and all you are concerned about is “losing” it to “those people.” I am not worried about undocumented workers taking my job, my job requires a high level of education and experience. If you are so worried about “these people” taking jobs, maybe you should run with the people that want to improve our education system. Wages will not necessarily go up, the “illegal immigrant” population, for the most part, gets paid well above minimum wage, but lower than what “legal workers” will work for. In addition, who wants to shovel dirt or mow lawns? I for one do not want to pay more than $100/week to have my lawn taken care of, nor do I want to pay more for produce at the super market.

  16. RJL says:

    “Give me your tired, your poor,

    Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

    The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

    Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

    I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

    (this poem does not consititute an offer to immigrate; not valid in all jurisdictions; subject to validation of skill sets, education and certain scores on ESOP; no warranty of fitness is made or implied; more restrictions apply; consult your physician; not affliated with the Columbia Broadcasting System; see website for more details)

    With apologies to Emma Lazarus.

    Bravo, Demon at 2:19; great line, bad audience.

  17. Demonbeck says:

    Federalist, I can assure you that the post to which you took such great offense was meant to be tongue-in-cheek.

    I guess I should have typed it in italics.

  18. Jeff Emanuel says:

    Federalist, grow.up. Go somewhere else to childishly call people racists.

    Spacey, can you explain to me — please! — why so few liberals have a sense of humor, yet it is conservatives who are labeled “stodgy” and serious?

  19. Doug Deal says:

    Jeff,

    They have a sense of humor. Unfortunately, it is only in regard to calling President Bush names like “Chimpy McHilterNixon”.

    And don’t forget that many of their programs are a complete joke.

  20. Doug Deal says:

    I think Jeff was referring to run of the mill leftists, not those getting paid to be “funny”.

    But, how can you laugh when some obscure microrganism is dying at the hands of some evil corporation somewhere?

  21. Know Nothing says:

    Maybe you guys are thinking about this whole English situation the wrong way. Back in the day, Latin was the language of the educated even when local languages like Italian, French, and Spanish were gaining popularity.

    Well it seems like nowadays English is the language of the educated around the world, so who cares if people don’t know English, it’ll simply evolve into a true caste system and us English speaking brahmins won’t have to worry about anyone else.

  22. Jace Walden says:

    Jeff, Doug, Demon, Federalist…

    I’m not sure if this fits into your conversation, but I’d love to discuss this with you all.

    Red Eye, the nightly (2:00 AM) show on FoxNews is supposed to be the conservative alternative to the Daily Show and the Colbert Report.

    Red Eye is not funny. It may be the worst late night show I have ever seen. I would rather contract Aids than sit through another episode of Red Eye…however, the show is appropriately named…because isn’t “Red Eye” something you get if you don’t wipe your rear end? It’s supposed to be painful…just like the show.

    Anyway, if Red Eye is the conservative alternative to the Daily Show and the Colbert Report (which are both hilarious) then, isn’t it logical to assume that conservatives aren’t funny and liberals are?

    Discuss.

  23. Federalist says:

    Damn strait Know Nothing. they will be left behind. There is nothing wrong with this, the world needs ditch diggers and street sweepers. Furthermore, I think somebody else in this room should grow up. Every immigration bill that limited entrance into the U.S. has been rooted in racism. The calls to do this now are no different. There has been a racial, or ethnic, distinction that has been made my these cons. Jeff Emanuel just wants to seem above this, but he still makes a distinction between “us and them.” He has rights, and they don’t…all because of accident of birth.

  24. Doug Deal says:

    Jace,

    Try reading my last comment again. You will be quizzed on your reading comprehension skills.

    BTW, redeye actually refers to the condition of not getting enough sleep, used in such terms as “Red Eye Flight”. But, I know how you liberals love scatological comments.

  25. Jace Walden says:

    Doug, where in the hell did you get that I’m a “liberal” from? All I said was that Stewart and Colbert are hilarious…that is a true statement. And that “Red Eye” is not funny….also a true statement.

  26. debbie0040 says:

    http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/stories/2007/05/23/0523edbarr.html

    GOP hotheads wrong about immigration bill

    Thank God Barr is no longer a Congressman. Bob Barr is such a huge disappointment.

    But what do you expect from someone that is so full of himself that he moves into a Congressional District so he can run against a popular GOP Congressman like Linder? Linder taught Barr humilty in that race….

    There are provisions in the immigration bill that conservatives have lobbied for, but at what price? Those provisions were put in to distract the conservatives from the many other bad provisions of the bill. It did not work. We paid attention!

  27. Doug Deal says:

    It’s in the way you attacked “Red Eye”. I do not know who he is and don’t care who he is, but I instantly equate tasteless references to the side that usually uses them.

  28. jsm says:

    Fed, there may be racism in the hearts of some who wish to control immigration, but most understand that we can’t afford to take in the refugees of the world. There are too many of them, and we can’t afford to feed and clothe them all, much less provide their healthcare. If we don’t manage our intake of immigrants, they will loot our Nation and turn us into a third world country like the ones most of them come from. Our parents, grandparents, etc., worked too hard to build a prosperous country for us to give it away to people who won’t honor our laws and our sovereignty and don’t have an ounce of respect for the Stars and Stripes. Compassion is a good thing, but it doesn’t stop you from chasing the thief out of your house.

    You had better get your head screwed on straight and face the enemy. Illegal immigrants will take everything you have if you let them.

  29. Federalist says:

    If you are worried, and you should not be, that the U.S. is going to be over run with uneducated immigrants…I am going to have to ask you to screw your head on straight. Here you go with the “us and them” pov, “they” are not an “enemy” of the U.S. Remember who built this country in the first place, my parents contributed and they did not come here “legally.” They came here on a boat, without notice, and were welcomed to the States because there were all sorts of industrial and agricultural jobs that needed filled. If there was no market for the jobs that migrant workers are taking, than immigration would not be as big of a deal. You argument is hollow rhetoric, leave that garbage to the people in D.C. we can speak honestly behind our pseudonyms without fear of embarassment. You are right, we can not afford to take in all of the world’s refugees, but the migrant population coming to the U.S. is not a refugee population. (except for those that are excaping political oppression, but most just want a job). I honestly think that the only way we can control the flow of migrant workers is to economically stabilize South and Central America. It would take a lot of work, but it would stop this “invasion” as GOPers call it. One more thing, we can not afford to lose the immigrant population, even those that are here and undocumented right now.

  30. jsm says:

    “One more thing, we can not afford to lose the immigrant population, even those that are here and undocumented right now.”

    Bull-freakin-crap. I’m sick of hearing this line. We did fine before the illegals came, and we can do just fine without them. I’m facing facts, Fed–not just throwing out cliches like “the world needs ditch diggers and street sweepers.” What kind of thoughtful argument is that? Your socialist ideas haven’t worked anywhere else in the world, and they won’t work here.

  31. Jace Walden says:

    Doug,

    First of all, “Red Eye” is a show. Not a person. You may want to actually watch the show before you refer to my references to it as “tasteless”. Believe me, the show was much more “tasteless” than my criticism of it.

    Second of all, you have no doubt made tasteless references in your day, so you criticizing me for it makes you a hypocrite. In short, get a friggin’ clue.

  32. Doug Deal says:

    Jace,

    Still you miss the point, you know the one about me refering to the audience not paid actors and comedians. Whether John Stewart is funny or not is not the issue. It is whether rank and file Joe Leftist can laugh at anything other than a Bush as a chimp joke.

    In any event, it was wrong of me to criticize your use of potty humor, and I am sincerely sorry. Who am I to criticize your love of poop jokes and your expression thereof in an open forum?

  33. patriot says:

    jsm,

    Absolutely! We CAN do just fine without them. Maybe more teenagers would have to start mowing lawns, (like I did – maintaining ours and 2 neighbors starting when I was 13), washing cars -(both of our family cars), and working part-time in the local grocery produce dept.- breaking down 50 lb. bags of onions, potatoes, etc into 5’s and 10’s)

    Sen Menendez is droning on about the “stooped knee and bent back of the bathroom cleaning, fruit picking, chicken plucking (ILLEGAL) immigrant… What about the American worker, who if paid a decent wage, WOULD do this work, and I believe most understanding, Loyal, Patriotic AMERICANS would pay the $5-$10 additional weekly that might result from paying a decent wage.

    Those who object from the Left want OPEN BORDERS, with a free flow of people, commerce, resources within the proposed “NORTH AMERICAN UNION”.

    A purely economic objection…

    We have seen corporations relocate production, jobs, and prosperity to other countries, for lower wages so we can “COMPETE IN THE GLOBAL ECONOMY.” Now they want to BRING THE WORLD HERE, dilute wages, our orderly society (with liberty protected by laws), and lower the standard of living for most of the middle class, and EXPAND the lower class, who will be ” disproportionate consumers of education, medical, police, penal and welfare resources.”

  34. Jace Walden says:

    Doug,

    Exactly, now let’s move on. You and I may not agree on the potty humor…but I read most of what you post, and let me tell you, we agree on almost everything else. So let’s get to work.

Comments are closed.