I think we are likely to get some bills that would be inclusive of UAFA and some fight in conference committee. I am hoping the Progressive Caucus shows some bone and pushes for inclusion. This is all dependent on if Congress does take on immigration reform next year, and the Dem leadership doesn't want to put its members in vulnerable position for the elections.

Just curious? Since the opposition could not fillibuster Healthcare Reform. Is it possible that we can win this with 50 votes in the senate?

Correct me if I am wrong but it would take 40 in the Senate to oppose for a fillibuster. Are there 40 Senators that would oppose it that strongly?

It might make sense to try to push it through now. If a bluedog Democrat is in a vulnerable position they might not vote yes on the bill (but they most likely won't try to fillibuster it). 

I discussed this with someone the otherday...and this is what we came up with.

He said that he was worried that Healthcare Reform wasn't going to pass...and thought Immigration Reform would only pass if Healthcare Reform went through. He feels they need to go forward with Immigration Reform now and explained the fillibuster process (which is still confusing to me) but he feels that we have the numbers now...and does not think it would be blocked in the senate. He feels that the opposition put all their eggs in the block healthcare Reform basket and that that was their baby. He says that the opposition is crippled now and that "Joe Libermann" has lots of power and can be a huge influence on the Immigration Reform bill.

I think that they ought to move on it soon! We are pretty sure that now is the time.

And I am sure that Joe Libermann will pull some Republicans over. The last time we had around 46 votes??? I would think under the Obama Umbrella he would be able to pull a few more Dems and Liberman has enough power to pull Republicans over. We shall see but it makes sense to me that they go forward now because I don't think the oppostion has the strength to block it since healthcare reform passed.

Melanie, please get in touch with me through http://citizenorange.com/contactcitizenO.html.  I'm really trying to find people passionate enough about UAFA to push it, and I think we can do it along with DREAM.

Kyle, as you, (might?) know a lot of positive legislation has been passed in California, regarding farm labor immigrants. Do you think these laws have helped migrant farm workers, or hurt them?

Melanie, I signed the petition and tried to recruit 40 more people to sign it. Hopefully they will recruit their freinds also.

Illegal residents -? There is no such thing - you cannot be illegal and a resident.  Do you mean to say undocumented workers?  OR Newly documented workers thus new residents as a result of reform. Your question makes no sense and hence does not deserve an answer.   If it is rhetorical and meant as a statement - it still makes no sense Manny.

A $500 dollar fine is a starting point for negotiations. Gutierrez will start liberal and then after negotiations we will have a bill that compromizes. We start with a bill and slower tweak the laws once they are passed. I actullay think we are going to see them try to push it through in March. After Healthcare is signed it is perceived to be a huge accomplishment. Why would the Senate want to block Immigration Reform. There will be many that vote no on the bill but with negotations they should be able to come up with 50 votes without it being blocked. I doubt you will see a "filibuster".

By the way! A perfect tool to to analyis each district nationwide is "The Almanac of American Politics". You will see each Senator and House Representative and how they voted. You will see their ratings and these are broken down by facts on how they actually voted. This is the bible of American politics.

For example: Look at Indiana

Senior Senator: R-Richard Lugar..voted Yes on path to citizenship and Yes to making English an official language.

Junior Senator: D-Evan Bayh..voted No on path to citizenship and No to making English a official language.

*There is a good change that Evan Bayh might vote Yes on the Bill this time around under an Obama Presidency irregardless to the fact that this bill might come up before mid-term and his re-election?

Mary, whats the website on the Almanac of American Politics, i never heard of it before, thanks.

Hi Ryan, I was given the Almanac as a Christmas present from someone. It is great! You have to check it out.

Its the 2010 ALMANAC of AMERICAN POLITICS

Micheal Barone

with Richard E. Cohen

It was quoted as the "American Bible of Politics" George Will, syndicated colluminst

National Journal Group

I am not sure what the website is but it is printed by the United Book Press.

You can get so much information from this Almanac

It breaks each politician down by their districts. It tells you what these districts (their voters base) consist of. How each politician votes and how they are motivated by their base (considering re-election).

If we study this Bible (Almanac) we will know which seats are vulnerable and which politicians we can put the heat on.

By the way Ryan, I am glad that you will look at this book. I am curious? Is Luis Guiterez's speech a signal that the administration is going to move forward on the bill or is it him reacting to his position in politics and his district? I see that Nancy Polozi has backed off. What Washington game is being played? It does not make sense for them to hold off until mid-term unless they do not have the numbers to pass the bill but if we got 60 on healthcare reform....(I think we can get 50) on Immigration Reform.

Can we pass Immigration Reform with 50 senate votes?? without a "filibuster"? I heard it can pass on 50 votes? Is this correct?

No, Mary, Immigration can not be passed under Reconciliation, 60 votes are needed to bring iot to the floor, 60 votes are needed to pass it.

Side note, you are aware that the writers of the Almanac are Republican right?

 Reconciliation is a legislative process of the United States Senate intended to allow a contentious budget bill to be considered. This will allow the Senate to pass immigration overhaul with a simple majority of 51 votes rather than the 60 votes know as a "super majority" needed to overcome a Republican filibuster. Democrats hold 56 of the 100 seats in the Senate, and two independents typically vote with the party.

In addition, the Senate reconciliation bill gets only 20 hours of debate and amendments are limited. Because reconciliation limits debate and amendment, the process empowers the majority party.

Liquiod: I am sure that this saddens you but this bill can be passed under reconciliation in the senate. I have been hearing this from friends who have political science degrees. I am pretty sure that you are wrong on this.

As to all that are reading about these 5 predications.

This bill needs 50 votes to pass. Joe Biden can kick a vote in if we only have 50 to pull it over and we all know he will do it.

And by the way...Who cares if a Republican wrote the Almanac. It has voting records. What does the party affiliation of the writer of it have to do with anything? I eat lunch a few times a week with a Republican. Does that mean I should boycott her friendship and only have lunch with Democrats? What point were you trying to make there?

Sometimes Liquiod you are really peculiar.

Also that attempt to try to give me false info. about Reconciliation and the process of a "filibuster" is not going to work. I have to many friends that surround me that are politically savvy and I know how a "filibuster" works.

There will be many senators that vote "no" on the bill because they are going up for re-election. A clue that they really want to vote "Yes" to a path to citizenship is easy to analyse in the Almanac.

If a senator votes against making English the national language and votes no on a path to citizenship in a conservative district that does not have a significant minority base it is obvious that they have a deep seated desire to votes "Yes" on this bill across the board. They are only holding back because their main concern is re-election.

Are country has a huge minority base. The Immigration debate can energize the minority voters base. If the bill goes up in the Spring and conservatives block it from going through this will energize the minority base to come out in great numbers to vote in the senate race. If the bill passes it also energizes the minority base to vote to support the president. If we lose a few seats in November I can assure you that minoritys will be comming out in great, great numbers for Obama's re-election.

Honestly, Liquiod you really ought to pack it up and call it a day. I can't really see how you can possibly win this Immigration issue. It is going to be reformed in the next 6 months to 3 1/2 years. Fighting immediate progression only means that a more liberal bill will pass at a later date.

Really, Mary, dictating the Hispanic News article and claiming it as you having friends is hilarious. I give you the link to Mary's Comments, an article from April 2009: Reconciliation is the Only Way to Achieve Immigration Reform

As for reconciliation, it is limited to budget resolutions, thus in the CIR bill it would limit only those amendments which would have budgetary effects, limiting severely what could be passed. Why else do you think the Dems didn't use it in HCR?

Now, wipe the egg from your face. Your so easy to refute, maybe you shouldn't attempt to better me, your ignorance comes out to easily when you do. Keep trying though, and I like my eggs over easy, now go run and hide.

the link didn't work, so here is the address:

http://hispanic.cc/reconciliation_is_the_only_way_to_achieve_immigration_reform.htm

No my friends told me that this can be done. I believe them.

I saw the newspaper afterwords. You are not understanding the process of a filibuster.

If HCR was blocked with a "filibuster" Obama could have put a liberal bill through using "reconciliation".

The bill needs 60 votes to break a "filibuster"...if the senate does not want to block it.

It can pass on 50 plue Joe Biden.

This is what my inside friends tell me. This is not the paper.

Go study the "filibuster" process.

He would have come up with another more liberal version of HCR and then used the "reconciliation" process.

You need to learn what the reconciliation process is by research, your friends seem to be more wrong than you.

No my friends told me that this can be done. I believe them

And yet you dictated word for word the Hispanic News article and claimed it as your friends.

I'll ask you again, Mary, why did the Dems not use reconciliation then on HCR? Maybe if you do your research you might learn something vs relying on your make believe friends, you do have the ability to think for yourself, do you not? or is it all you can do to follow blindly, since you have already claimed to vote Dem no matter who the Dem is or is running against.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconciliation_%28United_States_Congress%29

Now go and learn why IR will not be passed using reconciliation.

You are not understanding the process of a filibuster.

Are you sure its not you failing to understand the reconciliation process?

If HCR was blocked with a "filibuster" Obama could have put a liberal bill through using "reconciliation".

Obama?? could have? Really??!! Isn't it Congress that puts bills through, the President can only make his ideology known, it is Congress that takes it and turns it into a bill. Do you really understand how our government actually works, you cn't really be this inept.

Go study the "filibuster" process.

Really, Mary, telling me to go study is like telling the professor he doesn't know what he is talking about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster#Recent_U.S._Senate_history

The bill needs 60 votes to break a "filibuster"...if the senate does not want to block it.

You really are as inept as I thought, you know absolutely nothing, and your make believe friends are leading you down a path making you look even more inane. A filibuster can only be stopped by envoking cloture. Now go look that word up and research it.

Anyone who is involved in NJ politics knows my name. They are not imaginary friends Liquiod.

I googled it and this Hispanic News article gave you a description.

Go look up a "filibuster" and you will see that CIR only needs 50 plus Joe Biden to  pass.

I am an affiliated with the Democratic Party Liquiod. Not only do I vote for them. I campaign for them.

I told you the reason they did not use "reconciliation".

It sat on the floor too long and Joe Liberman had a powerful hand in this. Haven't you been watching the news? The senate almost "filibustered" the bill.

If it had been "filibustered" a new bill would be made and it would go through reconciliation.

CIR does not need reconciliation. The senate will not have a motive to block it. Block it meaning a "filibuster".

You need 60 votes to break a "filibuster". If 41 does not oppose it in negotiation's than 50 plus Joe Biden passes the bill.

You do not even need "reconciliation" for this.

My friends are on the inside. They know what they are talking about.

My make believe friends hold political positions. I use my real name liquiod. I am on the inside fool.

Like I said: Get to know what the "filibuster" process is.

You are no professor of politics.

I am surrounded by insiders, political science professionals that have been in this for a long, long time.

You obviously do not understand the "filibuster" and you are confusing "reconciliation" with it. This is a process the president can use if the Senate "filibustered" HCR.

(60 votes are needed to bring iot to the floor, 60 votes are needed to pass it.)

No, this is incorrect. 41 votes are needed to block it. This is called a "filibuster".

60 votes are needed to break a "filibuster".

50 votes are needed to pass it with Joe Biden = 51 as long as 41 do not try to block it.

Like I said: Get to know what the "filibuster" process is

I linked to the filibuster process above along with the reconciliation process above. From the link: Even if a filibuster attempt is unsuccessful, the process takes valuable floor time. In recent years the majority has preferred to avoid filibusters by moving to other business when a filibuster is threatened and attempts to achieve cloture have failed.

This is a process the president can use if the Senate "filibustered" HCR.

The President can not use Reconciliation if a Bill is Filibustered. Again, I gave you the link above as to what reconciliation is, you obviouslay did not read it. The President can do NOTHING if a bill is filibustered. The President has no control in the process, he is a figurehead. The only way the bill can advance after a filibuster is by envoking cloture and obtaining 60 votes to move ahead.

(A filibuster can only be stopped by envoking cloture. Now go look that word up and research it.)

What are you talking about? A filibuster can only happen with 41 senators voting against the HCR bill. It was obvious that the president didn't need "reconciliation" because he had a bi-partisan bill that was negotiated on the floor. Reconciliation was not needed.

What makes you think that your side has the numbers for a "filibuster". They didn't have the power to block HCR.

Like I said before: I think you ought to study the Almanac and if all your lightbulbs are working you will realize that oppostion on Immigration Reform is effected strictly on specific seats that are vulnerable for re-election. These senators will most likely vote against CIR to protect their seats but will not have special interests in holding the bill up on the floor. Most of them really don't even want to oppose this bill but their interests are their seats. You will most like not have 41 Senators opposing the bill with a "filibuster". I just don't see the numbers on your side for that.

5 predications for Immigration Reform?

Well, I think that Luis Gutteriez didn't do that whole big song and dance holding up that 700 page book just to get attention. He had to get Nancy Pelosi's approval.

I am pretty darn sure that the insider's gave him the OK to stand up and go ahead with that signal and I doubt they did it just to appease the minority's. I think its possible that they are going to try to pass it in the Spring.

I don't have a crystal ball but this is "food for thought".

(The President can not use Reconciliation if a Bill is Filibustered.)

You try to manipulate the argument everytime.

The President can introduce a different version of the HCR. He can also make each senator stay in that room until that bill is passed. Look at how Johnson handled "filibusters"...and that might scare the hell out of your friends in D.C.

Again you keep avoiding the Fact that your side did not have the "numbers" the power to "filibuster" HCR. They could not come up with 41 votes. What makes you think you have a smell with CIR. HCR was the big one and your side blew it.

Your side is seriously injured. Now is the perfect time to pass CIR.

And like I said you will do anything to avoid to point.

It will pass with 50 + Joe Biden.

I will make this a prediction.

A filibuster can only happen with 41 senators voting against the HCR bill

That Senator was Lieberman whom Reid bought off. It was also Nelson and a few others that Reid bought off.

It was obvious that the president didn't need "reconciliation" because he had a bi-partisan bill that was negotiated on the floor. Reconciliation was not needed.

The President didn't need anything other than the Senate passing the Bill out of the Senate. Reconciliation would have severely limited the bill.

What makes you think that your side has the numbers for a "filibuster". They didn't have the power to block HCR.

HCR is not a Law yet, it still has to pas the House and Senate again before going tothe President.

Well, I think that Luis Gutteriez didn't do that whole big song and dance holding up that 700 page book just to get attention. He had to get Nancy Pelosi's approval.

He didn't need Peosis approval, and according to most it was a song and dance he performed, but we will see if it goes anywhere.

The President can introduce a different version of the HCR. He can also make each senator stay in that room until that bill is passed. Look at how Johnson handled "filibusters"...and that might scare the hell out of your friends in D.C.

Johnson? You mean when he was a Congressman? The President has no such power as you have described, it is the Majority Leader that can do so.

Here is a link about Johnson and the filibuster:

The first attempt to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee in Senate history was led by Republican Senators against President Johnson's nominee to be Chief Justice, Associate Justice Abe Fortas, in 1968.  Fifty nine votes -- 2/3rds of those present -- were needed to proceed to a full vote on Fortas. The vote was 45-43. Cloture was not invoked. The next day, Fortas withdrew.

The Senate historian calls this "the first filibuster in Senate history on a Supreme Court nomination."

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Filibuster_Derails_Supreme_Court_Appointment.htm

Now for gods sake Mary, learn something instead of showing us all your shortcoming.

Nothing that you just wrote proved anything. That was all opinion and you got off track again.

We are talking about a straight vote and the FACT that "41 votes are needed to have a filibuster".

You brought up "reconcilation" as a means to confuse the subject and take us off track. That is you game. You are trying to confuse people.

Politicians bought off? Do you have proof of what had happened on the inside of politics? lol..and this is how the cookie crumbles.

Guiterez didn't need Pelosi's approval and "according to most" is just opinion" isn't it? Given Nancy Pelosi's record I highly doubt that Luis Guteriez did that dance all by himself without Nancy's signal to go ahead. That would be political suicide to play against Pelosi and this is my opinion

Johnson worked the floor in a "dictatorlike style". He ruthlessly got the job done. Everyone knows that "Johnson" knew how to throw his power around and I will get back to you on the Johnson conversation. I will discuss Johnson with my "imaginary friends" during and after the New Years Eve celebration in D.C. hehe. I don't mind debating this stuff with you liquiod because it does provoke further conversations on the issue's and leads to interesting debates on history and I enjoy this kind of debate. It is educational.

You need 51 votes to move it into the house and this is what the conversation is about. Let's stay on track. Your buddy's at FAIR even have that fact posited, yet you tried to get off the subject and move it to a conversation about "reconciliation".

I am talking about the most difficult part of the process of CIR....and everyone on the inside knows that the senate floor is the problem child with this bill. I am showing you that your side might not have the numbers to block it...and many of your Senators that vote no on the bill might not want to actually block the bill.

This gives me a little more confidence wihen predicting with my crystal ball.

It would be FAIR to lean towards the ideal that your side might not have the numbers to block CIR and this leads me to a prediction that it might pass with (50 to 53) votes???

Just a gues-sta-mation with my Crystal ball.

 Now for gods sake Mary, learn something instead of showing us all your shortcoming.

By the way Liquiod! It is getting late in the day and New Years Eve is comming...but to make your long story short you have a habit of cherry picking information that you want people to hear and you forget to leave out the other reality's.

Did you forget the Lyndon Johnson of 64' and 65'!

Landslide Lyndon!

You showed me an example of Lyndon when he was no longer populiar. He was on his way out. He was not liked because of the Vietnam war at that point and he no longer had the numbers on his side. It make perfect sense that this man with withdraw and by then Johnson didn't really have it in him anymore.

Watch the LBJ PBS special (DVD) and get the real picturte of LBJ.

You are leaving a whole lot of information out from your comments on this blog.

And that expose's your shortcoming. hehe

For a bill to pass the senate it only needs a majority. But for the bill to go to a vote it has to pass the filibuster hurdle, which is 60 votes. If 60 senators vote to invoke cloture then debate is shut off and the full body can vote on the measure, and a simple majority is all that is required for it to pass.

Here it is in black and white. As I showed in the other thread: your 51 votes is the last vote prior to it going to either the House for vote or to the Pres to be signed into law. It is the end of the process and has nothing to do with filibustering or reconciliation at that point.

You showed me an example of Lyndon when he was no longer populiar.

What I gave you was the first filibuster text in the Senate. What you seem to be referring to is Johnson and the civil rights act.

You got it Liquiod! It took 1 powerful Dude to pass the Civil Rights act.

End of Story!

By the way! Happy New Year!

(the filibuster hurdle)

Oh and remember John Kerry's words.

I voted before it before I voted against it.

He confused the public with that one but the senate can agree not to put it into the "filibuster hurdle".

This is my prediction.

They will vote for it before they vote against it.

Giving the issue a straight vote (51 needed to pass it).

It took 1 powerful Dude to pass the Civil Rights act.

The problem is that he did not pass the civil rights act, he used his bulley pulpit to advocate for it, just like Obama has done with HCR by way of speeches and meetings with the defying congress persons. Congress did then what they are doing now with HCR, bribing and paying off congress persons to allow the vote through, but then that is politics. Johnson just got lucky with the final vote that none of the congress persons were influenced by anything greater than what they were already bribed with. If you want a good article about how LBJ did it read this article:

http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2004/summer/civil-rights-act-2.html

It needs 60 votes to make it to the floor, and another 60 votes for cloture, before it can make it to a simple majority vote and that's provided that there is a unanimous consent agreement that provides the 2/3 or 3/5 rule and explicitly state the number of votes required. Also if any bill falls under the Budget Act, Special Orders, Treaties, Suspending the Rules, or Cloture, 60 votes are required for passage. Since HCR has many portions falling under the Budget Act, coincidentally so does CIR, they are going to reqiure 60 votes for passage in the Senate.

As for your prediction of simple majority on CIR or that it will be brought up any time soon especially after Pelosi has already stated she will not place any new bills on to the floor until after the Senate first resolves them, so I wouldn't place my eggs in one basket.

two corrections:

It needs 60 votes to make it to the floor, and another 60 votes for cloture, before it can make it to a simple majority vote and that's provided that there is no unanimous consent agreement that provides the 2/3 or 3/5 rule that explicitly states the number of votes required.

Since HCR has many portions (amendments and parts of the bill) falling under the Budget Act, coincidentally so does CIR, they are going to reqiure 60 votes for passing (cloture to shut off debate) in the Senate.

The 60 vote rule (3/5) for cloture (to end debate) can only be changed on the first day of a new congress with a 67 vote (2/3), otherwise it stays. With the 2/3 vote on that first day, they can actually designate any numer they wish as long as it is atleast 1/2+1 (51) or a simple majority.

I do not think that the anti-forces will try to "filibuster" continue the debate on the floor.

I think that CIR will go to a straight vote and that many will vote against it but they will vote for cloture and then it will pass. Conservative dems and moderate Republicans may vote no on the bill but will vote yes for cloture.

You are assuming that Senators are %100 percent against CIR. There are various degrees of opposition. Not everyone is going to try to hold up the bill on the floor. It isn't a Yes or NO in black in white as you think it is.

Luis Guteriez did not do that song and dance without a signal from Washington. Nancy Pelosi is giving the Senate a signal on what the house perimeters are on what the bill should look like. Guteriez didn't do this without  a go ahead permission from the White House. Pelosi stated that she will not put any new bills onto the floor until the Senate resolves them but if that 700 page book on CIR isn't a "hint" of what it should look like???

Just an opinion but if I am going to place my eggs anywhere this is the basket I am going to put them at the moment.

By the way I am pretty darn sure that Guiterez didn't write that book yesterday considering it was almost 700 pages long.

Pelosi runs the house like LBJ ran the senate. She is the boss. Guiterez gets her signal to present CIR and the White House gives Pelosi the signal to a degree.

There is know way that Guiterez did this without Pelosi's approval and I doubt that Pelosi gave him the signal without approval from the white house.

Does this idea make any "common sense" to you?

I think that CIR will go to a straight vote and that many will vote against it but they will vote for cloture and then it will pass.

CIR can not go straight to a straight vote, it first has to have the vote to put it on the floor, and then amendments are allowed and then 60 votes are needed for cloture.

You are assuming that Senators are %100 percent against CIR.

No, I'm simply explaining the process.

There is know way that Guiterez did this without Pelosi's approval

All Guiterez did was introduce a bill and its language, it has not even made it out of the House committee. So, no, Guiterez did not need Pelosi's OK. Is that "common sense" enough for you? Learn the procedures of Congress.

(CIR can not go straight to a straight vote, it first has to have the vote to put it on the floor, and then amendments are allowed and then 60 votes are needed for cloture)

You are incorrect about the process. I know you are. You are confused and I do not want to argue with you about it anymore. I will stick to what my friends on the inside have told me. They are the professors of Politics. The understand the process. You do not.

"All Guiterez did was introduce a bill and its language".

That is a pretty loud "all" that he did. He does not need Pelosi's OK but anyone that understands politics would know that he is not going to stand up and put on a show without Pelosi's signal. That is "Common Sense".

So what if it hasn't made it out of the house committee yet. Like I said: It shows the Senate what the "expectations" the house has with this bill. It is the starting point and a "hint" of what the rough draft should look like. It shows you that Washington has it on the plate to work on it after HCR passes.

I think that you really need to learn the procedures of Congress because this last comments shows that you are not thinking "Common Sense" politics.

You are incorrect about the process. I know you are.

Then you know very little. Go to the Senate website and look up the process of a Bill becoming a Law and what votes are needed, If you aren't to enthralled with your own persona. Your problem is you are to unwilling to actually learn from anybody other then your dictated verabtim article you call "friend".

He does not need Pelosi's OK but anyone that understands politics would know that he is not going to stand up and put on a show without Pelosi's signal.

It actually was a show from the Progressive House Cuacus, but mostly from Guiterez as he went around the nation spaeking about CIR last year, he as atempting to push the agenda which Pelosi isn't going to bring up until the Senate brings up some form of CIR.

I think that you really need to learn the procedures of Congress because this last comments shows that you are not thinking "Common Sense" politics.

There is nothing "common sense" about politics.

Oh, and don't forget the headline to your dictated verbatim article from the Hispanic News:

Reconciliation is the Only Way to Achieve Immigration Reform

Reconciliation is a legislative process of the United States Senate intended to allow a contentious budget bill to be considered. This will allow the Senate to pass immigration overhaul with a simple majority of 51 votes rather than the 60 votes know as a "super majority" needed to overcome a Republican filibuster. Democrats hold 56 of the 100 seats in the Senate, and two independents typically vote with the party.

Now, you do see that one word up there right? You know the word, RECONCILIATION. Now if that doesn't show you as knowing nothing, then your truly a dim bulb.

First of all Liquiod I know by now that you google all my information a while back so you know that I am surrounded by people that or insiders in politics and hold seats and I think you are quite jealous over it.

If you have no common sense on how our political system works than maybe you ought to make a few freinds that are savvy on the system and learn how it works.

This is not the headline from the Hispanic news.

This process is comming from people that hold political science degrees.

I have explained to you the process and that is from professionals. Stop twisting words around.

I am sure that you google my name and you want me to write down all the names of my so called "imagined friends" but I am not because I know that you already have googled it all and you are jealous.

The truth is liquiod is that you have no friends and not much upstairs either.

Anyone, who actually makes a statement that LBJ didn't pass Civil Rights is not someone that anyone could possibly consider credible.

Anyone that thinks that Guiterez stood up and did that dance without a signal from Pelosi does not know a thing about politics.

You are a dim, dim bulb and a jealous one at that.

Here Mary, http://thomas.loc.gov/home/lawsmade.bysec/senate.action.html read the link and understand the process. There is no feasible way a vote of simple majority straight line will work for CIR. You know, Senate Rules and all.

I will tell you what. Why don't you call up one of my friends and debate it with them. They claim it can go through on a straight vote. They claim that senators can vote against it but at the same time not block it and it can go through on a straight vote. They have studied this stuff for years and years. So I don't believe you understand it. You have showed me that you do not understand politics.

I will read your link and then talk to a friend about it tomorrow but he is getting annoyed because he claims that you know nothing about politics and the process based on what you say.

He says you think you know what the process is but that it is so confusing that you are misinterpretting the information you have.

Liquiod, there are rules in black and white but I am talking about what happens on the inside of politics.

Do you think the day that Hillary Clinton had the secret meeting with Obama (after the primary election was over) they didn't figure out that she would be Secretary of State??

There is the book of rules and then there is "the inside of politics". I am honestly going to discontinue my conversation with you if you do not use common sense.

Just give your friend the link I provided and have them show you how they come up with a simple majority straight vote without any amendments being proposed for CIR. Than all you have to do is copy and paste the parts they tell you. OR, better yet, have them join the blog and discussion.

So I don't believe you understand it. You have showed me that you do not understand politics.

That's the funniest thing I have ever heard you say. To bad you haven't shown that I don't understand politics, quite the opposite I'm afraid.

As far as a simple vote I will discuss it more with my friend but how I described the procedure to you is exactly how he says it works and still claims it can go through with a simple vote and he actually thinks it will.

He claims that 40 people would have to hold it up and oppose it.

Again: Do you remember when John Kerry said: "I voted for it before I voted against it".

Do you understand what John Kerry was talking about?

I think that you do not understand the meaning of this quote.

Do you think the day that Hillary Clinton had the secret meeting with Obama (after the primary election was over) they didn't figure out that she would be Secretary of State??

She was voted in by a vote of 16-1 in committee and a floor vote of 94-2 by the Senate.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28750248/

Oh, and here's the link to their "secret meeting" in 2008.

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/235966.html

What about Richardson? If he didn't have his problem popping up, don't you think Obama would have went with him?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27713965/

What I am saying is that they obviously decided that VP was not going to be where Hillary wanted to be yet they fooled the press.

Bill Richardson? Maybe not. Joe Biden pulled strength on the East Coast. He pulled stronger numbers out of a certain section of PA as well as DC. Hillary would have also pulled strong numbers out of PA for Obama.

Fooled the press? Your kidding right? The press was all over the "secret meetings" and as for Hilary not being the VP, that was addressed prior to the primaries were even over, Obama specifically said he would not have Hilary as VP, that was in Aug '08.

Richardson was listed for Secretary of State by Obama, not VP. Read the link.

(Than all you have to do is copy and paste the parts they tell you. OR, better yet, have them join the blog and discussion.)

I will have to write what they say. They won't blog. They say it is a waste of time and they don't think it is a good idea I blog that much...but I enjoy debates.

I guess I like politics. lol

(that was addressed prior to the primaries were even over, Obama specifically said he would not have Hilary as VP, that was in Aug '08.)

He also told the liberals that he wouldn't go to war either liquiod.

I remember they toyed with the press up until the last minutes. Many insiders assumbed it would be Joe Biden. It made perfect sense. If Hillary wanted it she could of had it. It was obvious to most that she wanted Secretary of State.

If you noticed throughout campaigns Hillary does not love the campaign spotlight. On the other hand her husband Bill loves the spotlight. Hillary likes to be a changemaker. She really doesn't enjoy the election part of it.

He was listed for Secretary of State but they know when they stepped out of that secret meeting.

You are right that Bill Richardson was on the list for Secretary of State. I remember that but they had to put Hillary there. Either one would have been great in that position but Hillary had that huge following and he had to put her there. If he hadn't he wouldn't of had her and Bill follow through and support him as strongly in the election.

He also told the liberals that he wouldn't go to war either liquiod.

Obama never said he wouldn't go to war. You need to get your phrases correct.

lol...you are so argumentative. Oh well, you are what you are?

He said he would withdraw the troops within....(was it 6 months?). Somthing like that. I forget but he did tick off the super liberals.

Don't you remember he really knocked Hillary down in the Primary over the fact that she voting Yes on the war.

But anyone who was savvy on politics knew he couldn't keep that promise.

Oh and was it in the major election Mccain said something like: We will be in war for 100 years?? (something like that) and boy did that remark do him in.

People who were savvy in politics knew what he was saying but the general public freaked over that one...and then to tell you the truth that morning I was walking in times square in New York and I looked up and saw that John Mccain chose Governer Sarah Palin from Alaska...I thought "WHAT?"....that did shock the heck out of me.

Here's a couple questions for you Jaime:

Under Identification #1 & 2, Do other countries also have ID cards such as the MC card Mexicans have or is this something that only pertains to Mexicans? Since no other consular offers this type of card to its Entry Violators and/or Visa Violators. 12 months is a long time, why not something shorter like 6 months with proof of having lived here for a minimum of 5 years.

Under Denial of Benefits #4.

What is ID fraud?, since if they knowingly purchase documents in order to work here they are not held accountable do to not knowing if its someone else's number or not. ID fraud should be defined thoroughly.

Under Border Security #4.

Why minimal sentences and then deportation, why not maximum sentences then deportation with being place on no-entry list? You also need to add document fraud to the list since you have it above.

Under Annual Limit on Immigration #1 & 2.

3M is a little high per year, why not 1M, whats wrong with the 2M as it is now? ID'd Aliens again, this limits to only those from Mexico, what of all the other nationalities? There Consulars do not offer cards of the sort.

Under Visas #2 & 4.

Are the WT and WF visas non-immigrant or immigrant visas? Will the Guest Worker family members be allowed to work? What guarantees do we citizens have that they simply won't overstay there visa and attempt to push another amnesty or change to the laws once again?

Under General Provisions #1.

Those reports already exist and show that illegal immigrants are a drain to the US economy both macro and micro economically. Whats going to change?

Its a well thought out idea, that I imagine many could get behind provided mine and others questions are thoroughly answered and placed into perspective.

I noticed you responded to my questions on your blog, Jaime. One problem, your blog doesn't allow comments to be left, you do have a comments response portion but for whatever reason I have attempted to leave more then one comment, your site or your comments section isn't allowing comments to be left even if signed in. I have a couple more questions in regards to your answers given my questions above.

1) I agree about other countries should be responsible for their own citizens, we should also send the medical bills and all other associated costs to each countries consular for reimbursement. I just don't think those countries want to accept the fact that they should be responsible for their citizens here.

2) Our courts have already laid the groundwork for knowingly purchasing fraudulent ID, it is acceptable as long as they claim they had no idea it was another persons valid number.

5) Is the WT visa going to be like the H2A visa or the H2B visa? Is it a temp visa for only those here now in violation of our laws? Since you say the visa can be obtained from their home country offices, does that mean they have to leave the country in order to apply for it?

6) You failed to answer the economics of the question.