Talk:Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007

Guest Worker Section out of date
The Y section visas were reduced from 400K to 200K when one of Dorgon (D-SD?) amendment passed. Jon 13:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks to the person who updated it, especally since I confused two amendments. Jon 16:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Out of date again
From CNN "$4.4 billion sweetener revives immigration bill" http://rss.cnn.com/~r/rss/cnn_topstories/~3/124945749/index.html As to why I can't add this directly, from this computer I can only see titles of news articles, the PHB's web filter filters out the actual news sites. Jon 16:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Did such an amendment to the bill pass? And has this wiki article been changed to reflect whatever amendments had passed by the time it was pulled from the floor on the 28th? Jon 18:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

June 26th vote
Previously the article was reading a Closure vote passed. That vote was actually a motion to proceed, and I've fixed it. Unforunately there isn't yet an article on motion to proceed, but for explaination here, both a motion to proceed and closure require a 3/5ths majority (60 senators when all vote), but a motion to proceed begins (or resumes) debate, while closure ends it (after a max of 1 hour per senator, currently 100). When motions to proceed fail, the measure can't even be (offically) debated on the senate floor. (In reality many bills are unoffically debated in the senate floor in the form of "morning hour" speaches which are not confined to the mornings but instead can take place throughout the day.) Last I heard after a series of amendments the next closure vote will take place Thursday or Friday, but subject to change. Jon 14:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Obvious bias removed
I'm truncating the line "no equivalent popular passion existed on the supporting side despite the majority of Americans supporting a comprehensive approach to immigration reform" because it's not supported by the source given. The source [8] http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/628wcxju.asp clearly indicates that 52% of the voters were for simple deportation, directly contradicting the proposition that "the majority of Americans support a comprehensive approach to immigration reform."

I could easily, while actually having a credible source, modify the sentence to read "no equivalent popular passion existed on the supporting side because 85% of Americans believe illegal immigration is a serious problem."

http://www.npg.org/immpoll.html

But I'll settle for merely removing the bias, not replacing it with my own. Wikitopian (talk) 17:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Too much
I do not see the justification for the word “responsible” in the beginning paragraph. Had the US public thought that, the bill would have passed - so either remove the word or revise the wording. In fact, the subject of this bill is indeed “illegal immigrants” and not “undocumented workers” - I doubt everyone this pertains to work. The first paragraph contains the “b.s.” factor too heavily. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.22.126.72 (talk) 03:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Redirect
Previously, the search phrase "immigration bill" redirected to this article. I changed that redirect to send people to the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act (S. 744; 113th Congress), which is the current immigration bill under discussion in the United States. I'm happy to discuss a disambiguation page if anyone feels that would be more appropriate. HistoricMN44 (talk) 19:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007
Cyberbot II has detected links on Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007 which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:


 * http://www.examiner.com/blogs/tapscotts_copy_desk/2007/6/12/DeMint-Eight-Senate-Colleagues-Challenge-Bush-to-do-Immigration-Bills-Border-Protection-Now
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:54, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070705193655/http://public.cq.com/docs/cqt/news110-000002527366.html to http://public.cq.com/docs/cqt/news110-000002527366.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.com.com/Work%2Bbill%2Bwould%2Bcreate%2Bnew%2BID%2Bdatabase/2100-1028_3-6185466.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:43, 11 August 2017 (UTC)