Home > Political Insider > Archives > 2007 > June > 10 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USIsakson and Chambliss: Still in the hunt, just not in the picture
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
On Friday, Ted Kennedy and other senators who had given birth to the bipartisan deal on immigration reform held a press conference in Washington, to serve notice that they would persevere on the issue.
But two Republican senators, who had been in photographers’ frames with Kennedy when the deal was unveiled in mid-May, were missing this time.
They were Georgia’s own Johnny Isakson and Saxby Chambliss.
The duo weren’t about to make the same mistake twice. We’re told that both senators have caught nearly as much flak for their appearance at the original photo op as they did for their substantive roles in the bipartisan negotiations.
Isakson and Chambliss have been operating in tandem throughout the debate. They haven’t withdrawn their support from the effort — which would hard to do immediately, given that President Bush wants a crack at reviving the bill this week.
But since the bill flunked a test vote last Thursday, they have emphasized two points: a) The current version of the bill isn’t “good enough for Georgia,’ and b) Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had been irresponsible for cutting off debate.
Isakson and Chambliss want two votes in particular. One is an amendment that would remove the executive branch’s ability to block or delay any spending on a border fence mandated by Congress.
To satisfy critics who doubt the will of the federal government on this matter, the amendment would put funding for border security in the same class as entitlement spending — like Medicaid or Medicare.
Both senators also wanted a vote that would require illegal immigrants to return home before receiving “Z” visas that would give them legal status in the United States.
Of the two senators, with his name on the ballot next year, Chambliss is most vulnerable on the immigration issue.
And as long as the bill is in limbo, so is he. Talk radio, cable TV and Internet blogs have vowed to keep up the pressure.
Last week, a web-based organization called grassfire.org included Chambliss and Isakson in a national round of attack TV ads, entitled “Where’s the Fence?” The Georgia version, which appeared in metro Atlanta only, included photos of the two senators, both with buttons reading “Got Amnesty?”
On Friday, Stephen Elliott, president of grassfire.org, promised more TV ads in Georgia. “We’re going to continue to target the senators who have not openly opposed the bill,” he said.
MOST POPULAR STORIES
Comments
Commenting is now closed for this entry.
By Marge
June 10, 2007 11:59 PM | Link to this
Yes, we are very angry with our Senators for their role in the “grand compromise”. How could they possibly agree to any bill that gives legalization to unknown millions of illegal aliens? Projections for the first 12 million (Heritage Foundation) aliens say it will cost the American taxpayers over 2.5 trillion dollars..that is TRILLION with a “T”. Border security should not be coupled with legalization or any other “bribe” or “trigger”. Its a matter of national security and should have been done the day after 9/11. The only hope for our Senators future would be for them to denounce this bill and distance themselves from President Bush who has the lowest approval rating of any modern day President and if viewed as having contempt for American citizens while supporting the Third World invasion. So, yes, we do not want the status quo. We want the borders secured and the current enforcement laws enhanced to slowing reverse this invasion. Just making all illegal aliens suddenly legal is not quite what most citizens view as revising our immigration laws to “restore the rule of law”. Shame on this President and our Senators for their “grand sell-out” of decent American citizens.
By Tom Jones
June 11, 2007 9:34 AM | Link to this
“How could they possibly agree to any bill that gives legalization to unknown millions of illegal aliens?”
They haven’t agreed to it. What they said was they were supportive of a framework to address this issue.
I agree with Marge though. Imagine, United States Senators listening to their consituents and working to be part of the solution to the biggest domestic issue in our nation, instead of being part of the problem. The nerve of them. How dare they.
And Marge, that was sarcasm.
By Zathras
June 11, 2007 9:59 AM | Link to this
If you don’t like this immigration bill, you’re really going to hate the one Congress passes in two years, when we have a Democratic President and larger Democratic majorities in Congress.
That’s the deal. Republicans are at the table now; they can insert provisions to this bill that address the concerns of those who are most hostile to illegal immigration. People need to understand, though, that for reasons having nothing to do with this issue the Republican position is stronger now than it is likely to be for some years to come.
I sympathize with some of the sentiments of those most hostile to illegal immigration, though I’ve been sorry to see so much animus directed at the immigrants themselves. But politics is politics; you have to know the difference between believing you’re right and believing most Americans agree with you.
Republicans can do an immigration deal now, or they can watch one being done in two years.
By Tom Jones
June 11, 2007 10:04 AM | Link to this
Zathras hit the nail right on the head.
By Dave
June 11, 2007 10:13 AM | Link to this
I agree with Marge….. If someone is in the United States illegally they are criminals and in any nation that respects law & order criminals should be punished. If amnesty is how we punish criminals why not open the doors to our prisons and grant US citizens amnesty.
Existing law should be enforced and any employer who has illegal alien on payroll should be fined a minimum of $10,000 per day they were on payroll.
I will not support anyone who votes for a bill that will give amnesty to any illegal alien.
By Tom Jones
June 11, 2007 12:35 PM | Link to this
“If someone is in the United States illegally they are criminals and in any nation that respects law & order criminals should be punished.”
And the penalty under the existing laws everyone wants enforced for entering the United States ilelgally is a falony which carries a fine as a punishment, not deportation.
“If amnesty is how we punish criminals why not open the doors to our prisons and grant US citizens amnesty.”
How is this bill amnesty? Amnesty is defined as a general pardon granted by a government, especially for political offenses. Under this bill they have to PLEAD GUILTY TO A CRIME and be punished accordingly. That is NOT amnesty. Now, if you don’t like the sentence or the punishment, then that is a different argument. But to sit there and say it is amnesty is disingenuous and false under the legal definition of the term.
By Steve
June 17, 2007 5:19 PM | Link to this
I’m with you, Dave. Obfuscation is the name of the game for those who support this kind of legislation. The real trick in this is figuring out what’s in it for each supporter of this faulty legislative maneuver. Senators are able to say to their constituents that they do not support it because of their legal expertise while actually supporting it and voting for it to pass. It’s in their hands, but not?
As for Tom Jones’ approach, the old “take it or leave it” mentality because it’s the best one can hope for at the present time … After all, worse is likely in the future when (and if) the Legislative and Executive Branch are dominated by Democrats. To me this represents “stinkin’ thinkin’” as Zig Ziglar would say! Such a defeatist attitude undermines the intelligence and the Will of the American People … our bona fide citizens!
To give one and all an indication of just how insidious this problem has become, I heard that in the city of San Antonio, Texas alone over 300 illegals were discovered and are currently being investigated and many are already being prosecuted. How were they discovered? They refused to perform jury duty saying they are not U.S. citizens! Yet they are registered to vote and have voted in local and national elections!
Mr. Tom Jones, I ask you … do you honestly believe the American people are so stupid that we cannot figure out the difference between legal and illegal? What part of illegal are you having difficulty understanding? Since when is a person who is illegally present in our country an “undocumented citizen?” What might cause you to believe that appealing to the people to subscribe to this “take it now or you’ll get something worse in the future” defeatist mentality is the only viable option for us under the Constitution?
By Keith Marceau
June 21, 2007 5:19 PM | Link to this
As a veteran of both Iraq and Afghanistan I believe the Bush-McCain amnesty bill is an atrocity to the American people. What kind of statement does that show not only our citizens, but the world that we reward criminals. I understand that we may need migrant workers to fill certain jobs in the united states. This however needs a comprehensive work visa program where unfortunately for some will not include migrant workers who have trespassed on our soil and sucked up american tax payer dollars illegally. I truly can not understand some of these politicians. We are a nation at war, but instead of increasing national security, they are trying to weaken it. I am neither Democrat nor republican. To be honest, I am Veterans Party, but more so a conservative. I will go with whatever party has the publics concerns most at heart no matter the party. Too many decisions are made on Capital hill with their interest within the Party instead of the people. I will be voting for the candidate that is firmest on illegal Immigration and not running an anti War Campaign. Lets not do what we did to the Vietnam Vets and make all those deaths be for nothing. Stay the fight until victory! Sincerely a United States Veteran and citizen.
By Bill
June 21, 2007 7:28 PM | Link to this
We don’t need a fence. We need napalm.