Obama's amendment was at once common sense and progressive. It dealt with the new 'points' system under the current immigration 'compromise' bill before the Senate. This points system would weaken the consideration given to family members of legal residents and effectively lower the priority of keeping families together.
Obama's legislation, Amendment S.1444, would be a sunset provision on the points system--effectively forcing Congress to revisist the issue in five years to assess the effect it had on families.
Obama said on behalf of his amendment:
"I come to the floor tonight to speak about the new ‘points’ system created in this bill – a proposal that will radically change the way that we judge who is worthy of lawful entry into American society.
"For decades, American citizens and legal permanent residents have been able to sponsor their family members for entry into our country. For decades, American businesses have been able to sponsor valued employees.
"The bill before us changes a policy that, while imperfect, has worked well and will replace it with a new, untested, unexamined system to provide visas to immigrants who look good on paper, but who may not have any familial or economic ties to our country.
"I have serious concerns about this new experiment in social engineering, not only because of the lack of evidence that it will work, but because the bill says that the new points system cannot be changed for fourteen years.
For that reason, I come to the floor today, joined by Senators Menendez and Feingold, to offer amendment 1202 to sunset the points system after five years. I am pleased that immigration experts, religious organizations, and immigrant advocacy organizations have all endorsed our amendment.
Beyond pushing workers from Latin America to the back of an endless line, with no hope of ever reaching the front, the new points system leaves unspecified the crucial question of how migrants with sufficient points will be prioritized.
"Government bureaucrats would thus be left with unprecedented discretion to determine which immigrants have acceptable education, employment history, and work experience to merit admission into the country.
"Taken together, the questionable design of this points program and the fundamental shift away from family preferences in the allocation of visas raise enough red flags that we should not simply rubber stamp this proposal and allow it to go forward.
"Let me be clear: Senators Menendez, Feingold, and I are not proposing to strike the program from the bill. But this system should be revisited after a reasonable amount of time to determine whether it’s working, how it can be improved, and whether we should return to the current family and employer based system that has worked so well.
"We live in a global economy, and I do believe that America will be strengthened if we welcome more immigrants who have mastered science and engineering.
"But, we cannot weaken the very essence of what America is by turning our backs on immigrants who want to reunite with their family members, or immigrants who have a willingness to work hard but who may not have the right graduate degrees.
"This is not who we are as a country.
"Should those without graduate degrees who spoke Italian or Polish or German, instead of English, have been turned back at Ellis Island?
"Should the immigrants from Asia who arrived at Angel Island to build our railroads have been told that they could only come for two years because they had no hope of passing a points test?
"How many of our ancestors would have been allowed to enter the U.S. under this new system?
Sadly, the bill lost 55-42 with a few Democrats siding with every single Republican.
But what got most of the attention was the blow-up between Graham and Obama.
Per the website of she who shall not be named, here is the video:
Transcript:
Graham: When you're out there on the campaign trail, you're trying to bring us all together. You're trying to make America better. 'Why can't we work together?' This is why we can't work together. Because, some people, when it comes to the tough decisions, back away because when you talk about bipartisanship, some Americans, on the left and the right, consider it heresy.
Obama: It simply says that we should examine after five years whether the program is working. The notion that somehow guts the bill or destroys the bill is simply disingenuous and it's engaging in the kind of histrionics that is entirely inappropriate for this debate.
As the AP reports:
The amendment infuriated Graham, a South Carolina Republican with close ties to another presidential hopeful, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. Pacing the Senate floor and waving Obama's amendment, Graham loudly accused Obama of undermining a delicate agreement whose advocates have shown political courage.
You mean Obama doesn't want to 'just get along' with people like Graham?
Histrionics indeed. But Lindsey didn't take his time out very well.
Almost immediately, the two men continued the argument in a hall just outside the chamber. "They were going at it," said Sen. Mel Martinez, R-Fla. "We could hear them inside."
In separate interviews later, Graham said, "I wanted to go outside" to impress upon Obama the danger he was causing for a bill he supposedly supported. "I said, 'I'm very disappointed in you,'" he said, adding: "I like the fellow."
Obama said Graham was overstating the potential impact of "a mild amendment."
"It's a matter of too much coffee and people being on the floor too long," he said.
Now, that's a hint of the flavor. But, the video is quite entertaining and worth checking out.
And how did Republican bloggers view this partisan fight?
From Michelle Malkin's site:
McCain crony Lindsey Graham throws a tantrum over Obama’s amendment
Try not to laugh out loud when Graham pumps his arms like a six-year-old demanding to be taken to Chuck E. Cheese.
The hardcore Republican Ankle Biting Pundits (formerly crushKerry.com)
Nothing is as funny as a self-righteous politician acting like a sissy when they don’t get their way. Michelle Malkin pointed me to this video of RINO Lindsey Graham acting like my 3 year-old when he doesn’t get his way. No wait, my 3 year-old doesn’t even act this way.
The target of his ire? People on the "far-left" and "far-right" who don’t act like sycophants when people as smart as him dare criticize a "grand compromise" that threatens "bipartisanship". Of course the issue is the immigration bill.
Captain's Quarters:
While he has a good point in the difficulties of solving problems that have a high degree of both partisanship and emotion, Graham has acted to throw gasoline on the fire of at least the latter by lashing out irrationally at those who simply think this bill is too flawed, regardless of the efforts made by reasonable people to compromise.
Graham mistakes process for results. The bill's opponents don't have any requirement to validate Graham's risks on behalf of bad legislation, no matter how well-intentioned those efforts were. It's hard to credit him much with even good faith, though, as long as he engages in name-calling and red-faced tirades when challenged on the merits of the legislation. He's become a petulant child rather than a cool-headed legislator, and quite frankly, it destroys the credibility of the bill as well as Graham.
UPDATE: OK, you have to see the video at Hot Air. It's priceless. Graham looks like a petulant child as well as sounding like one.
Ouch, ouch, ouch, ouch.
Note by the way to Congressional Democrats: Let this be a reminder that reaching a compromise is not a worthy goal if the result is bad legislation that alienates your base. Getting something done that needs to be done is laudable. But, screw your base and they won't respect you when you take on the other side.
CoughIraqcough.
Comments are closed on this story.