Unless 21 votes can be found, or a parliamentary maneuver can be found to get it up for debate and passage, the bill that is considered a key priority by Gov. Rick Perry and GOP conservatives would be dead
Note: Below is a small sample of the heated comments being posted on Mike Ward's story. Join in if you wish (click on the Statesman link), or click on the "comments" here, at the bottom of the story.
HB 12 sponsor Burt Solomons/texastribune.org
Reprinted from the StatesmanBy Mike Ward | Tuesday, May 24, 2011, 11:11 PM
House Bill 12, the controversial sanctuary cities bill that was hailed as must-pass legislation by GOP conservatives, has just failed to get enough votes to be debated in the Texas Senate. The vote was 19-12. The Senate’s 12 Democrats voted against it. Twenty-one votes were needed.
Comments:
By OldBlowhard May 25, 2011 10:17 AM
My mother is an illegal alien and we don’t need to pursue the illegal Sanctuary Cities legislation.By GOP Are Nazi Taliban May 25, 2011 10:11 AM
Thank-you Democrats. This bill would have turned Texas law enforcement into precisely the same things the Gestapo did to the Jews in Nazi Germany. Thank-you, thank-you for defeating Christian Taliban fascists like Dr. J. They are sick in the head, and mentally ill, but they just don’t know it.By Dr J May 25, 2011 9:58 AM
The DEMOCRATS are against upholding the laws of the land, THEY HATE AMERICA, IT IS PLAIN TO SEE. DEMOCRATS think law breaking MEXICAN citizens have the right to invade our country and take resources away from US CITIZENS/TAXPAYERS with out any regard to THE UNITED STATES LAWS. THE DEMOCRATS ARE FOR LAWLESS ILLEGAL ALIENS. THEY WELCOME MURDERERS AND THIEVES TO ROB AND PLUNDER OUR COUNTRY AND TREASURY. WHY, BECAUSE THEY ARE UNREGISTERED DEMOCRAT VOTERS. Vote everyone one out who opposes the LAW OF THE LAND. IMPEACH O’BLARNEY the SOCIALIST who stated he will not enforce the laws of the UNITED STATES which he SWORE he would do. He can go back on his pledge since his alliance it to Alla.By SuckOneChristianTaliban May 25, 2011 9:53 AM
Hey segregationist Christian Taliban! SUCK ONE!!! ROFLMAO BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
4 comments:
This law simply shows who and what the Texas Republican Party really stands for: a desperate neoconservative example of white supremacy legislative insensitivity and bullying – masquerading as economic necessity and family values conservatism.
It is essential now that Texans distinquish between 1) conservatives with sane and intelligent small government economic solutions that are not focused on hate-based bullying and 2) right wing nuts who pander to the extreme mean spirited Anglo power structure that clearly believes they have a mandate from conservative Texans to implement their false blame and lies.
Don't confuse the two groups of conservatives.
And those of you who use the "law of the land" argument to justify this type of racist legislative nonsense needs to look at who is really causing the growing impotence of middle class America.
Brothers and sisters, it is partly the illegal immigrants who have kept inflation at bay in the construction and hospitality sectors for decades. You have benefitted directly. From a life cost standpoint, illegal immmigrants have saved you more money than they cost you.
Don't be fooled by the anti-immigrant political pandering lies of these Anglo Republicans in the Texas Legislature. It is the people they really represent - big business special interests and corporate America - that is the cause of your economic failures. Simply put, they are taking all your money and giving you nothing back.
Besides, the way things are going, it is you white Texans that are going to be sitting in County hospital emergency rooms expecting tax dollars to pay for your health care, especially if you keep buying the lies and fake economic excuses of these neoCON Republicans.
Every country, throughout history, when the economy goes bad, tries to blame the immigrant labor population that helped build their economy up over the years. It is a lie, folks. They play on your anger and helplessness to get your vote. Don't be duped again.
After talking with a friend about this issue of illegal immigration, let me add a few more practical and non-partisan thoughts on which most of us can concur.
First, the elephant in the room here is if US employers refused to hire illegals and paid American citizens even $5.00 more an hour, we probably wouldn't even need such a mean-spirited law.
Second, the sanctuary city mandate would put an even heavier strain on local law enforcement. As a mandate, it is not fair to make local law enforcement - which is already overworked - to take on this burden. Let the state politicians hire additional law enforcement to do the work if they end up passing some version of this law.
3) Americans, especially those in and around the border towns who are justifiably afraid of members of the violent drug cartels hiding in the midst of illegals in the sanctuary cities, need to be very careful not to lump all Mexicans together. Such aggregation is not good for our democratic values or our nation's sense of justice and fairness.
Another answer to the possibility of violent cartels coming into the US is to simply legalize and tax drug purchases, since tax-funded social services that deal with the social problem of drug addiction is clearly not in the federal or state budget cards. Legalization would allow law enforcement to focus their budgets on violent and (heaven forbid) white collar crimes.
In summary, reasonable citizens, especially in the southwest states, need to step up and tell the pandering politicians (whose own kin probably hire illegals) to focus on the employers who try to save a buck at the expense of our nation's economic well being, and now, because of the cartels, our personal security.
Rocky said... "This law simply shows who and what the Texas Republican Party really stands for: a desperate neoconservative example of white supremacy legislative insensitivity and bullying – masquerading as economic necessity and family values conservatism."
Is this your idea of a passionate post? I see a great deal of demagoguery here that I'm sure you will claim is, just being "passionate" about the issue.
Like it or not, our politicians reflect the will of a majority of the people who take the time and trouble to vote. I find it very insulting that you to infer that those of us who wish to stop illegal immigration are racists. You paint with too broad of a brush, Rocky. Most people object to illegal immigration simply because it is ILLEGAL. Many of us see it as a threat to national security and our economy. Besides, it is the one Constitutional requirement that our federal government refuses to effectively enforce and even challenges States (in court) when they try to do the job for them. Their responsibility to protect our borders trumps just about everything else. Neither the Obama administration nor the former Bush or Clinton regimes have done anything to stem the tide. The longer it goes on the harder it will be to stop since more people will bend with to the wind of guilt based phony compassion.
I think racism, while it certainly exists is a very small part of the overall debate. The Republicans are not all that serious about ending the flow because their contributors generally enjoy high profits from the cheap labor and the Democrats want "them" here as future liberal voters. Many selfish "non-racist" upper and middle class citizens don't want it to stop because they don't want to pay more for landscaping, nannies, food, homes; basically everything the need and desire. They, along with the willing participants of both political parties have created the myth that we are racists, in order to defeat legislation like the one you question, in order to keep those benefits and votes rolling in.
If you haven't been keeping up with current events, the number of "OTM" immigrants is on the rise with individuals from all over the Middle East; India, Pakistan, Sudan and other countries where there are Islamists that wish to destroy us. Sooner or later we are going to realize that searching 6 year olds at the airport is not going to prevent an attack; it's the border we need to concentrate on. I am simply not willing to take the chance of another "911" for cheaper prices or feel-good compassion.
You are correct, Richard. It was too broad a brush, hence my second comment.
I do get upset, however, at the contant economic scapegoating of illegals. Yes, they have become part of the current problem, but they weren't really a problem before the recession hit.
Take away my misguided indignation, and that is the bottom line here.
Btw, you make some very valid points.
Post a Comment