If you voted against the previous question last time and if you voted against the rule last time. and if you voted against the bill. you would be casting three "no" votes that in my opinion are justified today. There is no logical reason of substance to distinguish your "no" votes on the motion with regard to the previous question or the motion with regard to the rule the last time. from the same two opportunities you will have today to vote "yes" or "no." The rule today is more restrictive. It folds into the bill itself upon the adoption of the rule a number of things that ought to have been debated that were made in order under the previous rule: the Bryant amendment to restore language that would allow debate on a Social Security validation system. the Richardson amendment on the reduction of penalties for firsttime offenders who hire illegal aliens and excepting small business from sanctions. the Lungren amendment on twotiered legalization. the Richardson amendment on the mandate that State education agencies include English. the Dymally amendment on naturalization for certain Filipino war vets. A number of things are not going to be able to be debated that ought to be debated under this rule. So the rule is indeed more restrictive. not only in time but in terms of substance. the content of what we would have had the opportunity to debate.
Keywords matched
naturalization illegal aliens