As I mentioned earlier, the defense authorization bill faces peril on its motion to proceed. That would render moot the vote on the DREAM Act, which would allow undocumented students brought to America by their parents a path to citizenship if they complete college or military service. Harry Reid has promised a vote on the DREAM Act as an amendment to the defense bill, but if work cannot begin on that bill, presumably the DREAM Act loses its opportunity.
That said, if the motion to proceed does succeed, several Democrats will have a choice to make. Eight of them voted against cloture on the DREAM Act in 2007, and they are undecided today.
Democrats helped block the bill three years ago when it fell eight votes short on a procedural motion. While some Republicans supported that motion, eight Democrats voted no, including the late Sen. Robert Byrd (W.Va.) and Sens. Max Baucus (Mont.), Mary Landrieu (La.), Mark Pryor (Ark.), Kent Conrad (N.D.), Claire McCaskill (Mo.), Jon Tester (Mont.) and Byron Dorgan (N.D.).
Five of those senators — Conrad, Dorgan, McCaskill, Pryor and Landrieu — told The Hill they haven’t made up their minds about this week’s vote.
Meanwhile, Bob Bennett and some other Republicans are hiding behind procedure to explain their expected no votes. Bennett, Orrin Hatch and other Republicans have supported the DREAM Act in the past, but now oppose its inclusion in the defense authorization bill. This is kind of ridiculous, considering that Bennet, Hatch and 10 other Republicans supported the inclusion of the DREAM Act in the defense bill back in 2007. The only difference is the name of the President who would sign such a bill.
Bennett went so far as to say, “If Harry Reid brings it to the floor as a standalone bill, I will vote for it.” If the defense bill collapses, Reid may want to make Bennett as good as his word.




16 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
Sad . With poll numbers for the democrats looking dismal and progressives no longer willing to unilaterally support democratic candidates continued support of the ticket , apparently Latino voters are not to be catered too either .
Who exactly are the Democrats interested in courting for votes ?
Toturers and spies ?
Again, the DREAM amendment is just an extension of Bush policy of collecting cannon fodder for more corporate wars waged by the military and their private contractors. It is an insult to immigrants. Why do you keep pitching it as something positive? It’s positively cynical in its construction.
what could possibly be Dorgan’s issue here – he’s retiring. a guy who has devoted significant time and energy in his career to helping Native American youth suddenly has a problem with these kids, wth ?
.
Scarecrow has a fresh cross-post available: NYT: Facing Mid-terms Blowout, White House Wonders If It Needs a Political Strategy
When you stop ignoring that the substantial amount of people qualifying for the DREAM Act will use it to gain a path to citizenship after completing college, I’ll stop ignoring you.
Wait a second. So you’re saying that after all the positive media and fanfare that several conservative Democrats were able to milk out of the announcement including the DREAM Act as an amendment to a defense bill, suddenly it’s facing obscure parliamentary trouble outside the view of the major news cycle, so as to make it difficult or impossible for most people to even realize it’s a stillborn initiative?
Christ, if I didn’t know better I’d have said that including the DREAM Act in the first place was just a cynical political play where the Democratic Party leadership saw an opportunity to grandstand for a constituency that’s rapidly abandoning them, but without actually having to do anything to help them.
I’m shocked, that seems just thoroughly despicable and wholly out of character for the Democrats.
I think they need to change the Act’s name to: Dream ON, ya dirty messicans. That might be more like truth in advertising, imo.
Indeed.
People say I’m waaaaay to cynical for my own good, but it’s not rank cynicism when all I’m doing is observing the unanimous and consistent results of the experiment.
Anybody who gets up any hope that any major legislative initiative based on liberal ideals will actually be passed, in force, by this Democratic Party seems to suffer a condition even worse than Stage-III Naderism. They’re suffering with Stage-IV Charlie Brownism; best described as pathological optimism with terminal naivety.
Times have changed and America needs to stop paying for foreigners who don’t respect our laws (identity theft, tax evasion, welfare fraud…) and think of their own children. This has nothing to do with the Christian value of welcoming strangers. I went to a McDonald’s last weekend down the street from the courthouse, and no one there, workers or customers, spoke English. I felt like the stranger. In Biblical times, when natural resources could no longer sustain the people in an area, by necessity, brothers separated. We cannot support the entire world. Please call your elected representatives and plead with them to stop this amnesty, because our President is going to try to push this through this week.
Five of those senators — Conrad, Dorgan, McCaskill, Pryor and Landrieu — told The Hill they haven’t made up their minds about this week’s vote.
Why am I not surprised….these are all Blue Dogs. The White House should make them toe the line and vote FOR the bill. Otherwise, they might as well resign from the Democratic Party and go to the Rethuglican Party where they belong and can be with like-minded unsympathetic, xenophobic individuals.
My immediate thought – 4 of those five are not Democrats, not to me.
I give McCaskill points sometimes; the others should just change parties already.
Wish we were more like UK, where parties can kick out politicians who make clear that they don’t support party positions.
Actually, glogrrl, it’s those who support amnesty who are the DISGRACE to the Democratic Party. The party’s historic mission has been to protect the rights and welfare of the AMERICAN working man and woman, NOT illegal aliens. Illegal immigration diminishes the ability of workers to unionize and to negotiate for better wages and conditions with employers. Globalists like Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid don’t even pretend that their concern these days is for the welfare of Americans. It’s transparent their main concern is their own re-election chances.
So I assume you have no problems with the employers who hire undocumented immigrants going to jail?
After all, someone has to be hiring them if the undocumenteds are coming here and taking the jobs, right?
exactly
Unfortunately, employers never seem to be a part of the discussion.