The Dream Act was blocked on a 52-44 vote today, falling eight votes short of the 60 needed to bring the bill to the Senate floor.
While today's vote was technically on a "motion to proceed" — a parliamentary measure about bringing the bill to the floor — both sides knew this vote was the make-or-break vote on the bill.
Several oddities stand out in the vote.
* Sen. John McCain ducked the vote, even though he was in the chamber minutes beforehand for another vote on a judicial nominee. Obviously it's a tough issue for McCain, who is running for president but has suffered by being identified with amnesty. But his ducking of this vote comes just days after he said assured conservatives he had seen the light on the issue. Today he missed a chance to prove that.
* Sen. Sam Brownback, after flipping on immigration during his presidential run, has now flopped back to where he was before, voting in favor of the Dream Act. This comes just weeks after he told the audience at one of the presidential debates that he no longer supports special paths to citizenship for illegal aliens.
* Sen. Trent Lott, the No. 2 Republican in the Senate, surprised his colleagues by voting in favor of the bill. Hours later, some of his colleagues were surprised to hear of his vote, saying they had been led to believe he would vote against it. His vote puts him at odds with Sen. Mitch McConnell, the Republicans' leader who told his troops to oppose the bill because Democrats were trying to shut out Republicans' amendments.
* After opposing President Bush's broad bill earlier this year, Sen. Jim Webb supported the Dream Act, breaking with two other freshman Democrats from red states — Sens. Jon Tester and Claire McKaskill — who voted against it.
* Among the Democratic presidential candidates, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Joseph R. Biden Jr. and Barack Obama voted for the bill. Christopher Dodd missed the vote.
— Stephen Dinan, national political reporter, The Washington Times
Comments (7)
I am glad that it was defeated! It was totally unfair to Persons trying to come here legally,would have paid schooling costs for Illegals to the detriment of American Kids and worst of all would cause an influx of their kin to flood over here in droves! I believe our reps and senators have LOST their way up there and need to get back to NO Earmarks, Laws against the other side depriving them of amendments and setting 60 votes on some legislation. I believe they have lost their damn minds!
They are paying them Too much money , They certaiinly do Not deserve it
Posted by William Howell | October 24, 2007 8:22 PM
I will be glad when the USA joins with the rest of the Western World and eliminates the problem of so called "anchor babies" by changing the law NOT to grant citizenship to children born in the USA to illegal immigrants.
Posted by Chuck P | October 24, 2007 8:58 PM
This was a good vote today. Illegal immigration needs to be stopped. If you want to be in the country come the legal way.
Posted by Ruby Steiner | October 24, 2007 9:15 PM
Just as Hillary declared she would have universal health one step at a time, the dream act was step one in an amnesty plan by Durbin. Any vote that gives illegals more support and better options than our citizens, the congress should have brains enough to vote it down. We need pride and principles for our people. It is not wrong to push for Americans first.
Posted by steve caldwell | October 24, 2007 9:51 PM
I am so sick of foreign policy. How about taking care of the American tax payers for once. Our foreign interest has destroyed the liberties of the American people time and time again. We should be spending money to better the American dreams and ambitions but it seems the Bush administration has only made decisions that have made the oil industry, Haliburton and the Bush's richer while striking terror in the hearts of the American people. We have thousands of people still homeless from Hurricanes Rita and Katrina and the Bush administration doesn't seem to care about that, or the lack of health care etc. When are the rest of the American people going to wake up and make a stand against this fascist regime and restore the hope we once had to be a truly great and honest country with values like honor and integrity. Please, for the sake of our children and generations to come , Wake UP America and take back our country and quit putting these filthy rich fascist in office.
Posted by Kerry C | October 24, 2007 10:00 PM
I have but one question about the DREAM Act, and the question is this:
If illegal children become legal citizens because of the DREAM Act, then can they in turn, at age 18, sponsor their parents immigration application?
The answer is not rocket science, but I opine it will never be answered in a manner I understand it. (in a simple yes/no fashion.) And, by the way, this last comment is not as funny as you think, politicians.
Now, I opine that if the answer to my question is yes, then the DREAM Act does nothing to address illegal aliens. We can all see that their illegal parents would rarely be refused their green-card application, on condition that their children are citizens and also because of humanitarian grounds
But, I opine that
If the answer is no, then, still the Act under discussuion does not address illegal alien isssue, as the Act will merely be given amnesty to illegal aliens and not prevent or discourag the activity. Moreover the idea of amnesty politically prostitues the definition of the word. Amnesty from what? They are in America.
Now
If they get amnesty because they have broken the laws of America, then necessarily we also must free the millions of incarcerated people who have also broken the laws of America. But this is absurd. Therefore we should not give anyone amnesty because they are breaking the laws of America, no matter what law they have broken. So the DREAM Act should not pass in principle, I opine.
Those who would benefit the most from the DREAM Act would be the businesses that require an abundance of cheap, part-time, seasonal (disposable) workers, I opine.
I opine also that the term "illegal alien" is a descriptive term defining a verifiable state of affairs. It is not an emotive term. Those who put emotion into descriptive terms to psychologically influence the state of affairs they describe, may one day adjust the descriptive terms of the special theory of relativity, and in doing so, "lead" us backwards into a time when the earth was believed to be flat.
Posted by Yangpu6 | October 25, 2007 1:47 AM
Bush should be impeached for his NAU.
Posted by William Bracken | October 26, 2007 4:32 PM