Senate parliamentarian deals blow to Dems' immigration push
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
WASHINGTON (AP) — Democrats can't use their $3.5 trillion package bolstering social and climate programs for their plan to give millions of immigrants a chance to become citizens, the Senate's parliamentarian said late Sunday, a crushing blow to what was the party's clearest pathway in years to attaining that long-sought goal.
The decision by Elizabeth MacDonough, the Senate's nonpartisan interpreter of its often enigmatic rules, is a damaging and disheartening setback for President Joe Biden, congressional Democrats and their allies in the pro-immigration and progressive communities. It badly wounds Democrats' hopes of unilaterally enacting — over Republican opposition — changes letting several categories of immigrants gain permanent residence and possibly citizenship.
The parliamentarian opinion is crucial because it means the immigration provisions could not be included in an immense $3.5 trillion measure that's been shielded from GOP filibusters. Left vulnerable to those bill-killing delays, which require 60 Senate votes to defuse, the immigration language has virtually no chance in the 50-50 Senate.
In a three-page memo to senators obtained by The Associated Press, MacDonough noted that under Senate rules, provisions are not allowed in such bills if their budget effect is "merely incidental" to their overall policy impact.
Citing sweeping changes that Democrats would make in immigrants' lives, MacDonough, a one-time immigration attorney, said the language "is by any standard a broad, new immigration policy."
The rejected provisions would open multiyear doorways to legal permanent residence — and perhaps citizenship — for young immigrants brought illegally to the country as children, often called "Dreamers." Also included would be immigrants with Temporary Protected Status who've fled countries stricken by natural disasters or extreme violence; essential workers and farm workers.
Estimates vary because many people can be in more than one category, but the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says 8 million people would be helped by the Democratic effort, MacDonough said. Biden had originally proposed a broader drive that would have affected 11 million immigrants.
Democrats and their pro-immigration allies have said they will offer alternative approaches to MacDonough that would open a doorway to permanent status to at least some immigrants.
"We are deeply disappointed in this decision but the fight to provide lawful status for immigrants in budget reconciliation continues," Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said in a written statement. "Senate Democrats have prepared alternate proposals and will be holding additional meetings with the Senate parliamentarian in the coming days."
"What we know is true: a path to permanent residency and citizenship has a significant budgetary impact, great bipartisan support, and above all it is critical to America's recovery," said Kerri Talbot, deputy director of the Immigration Hub, a group of pro-immigration strategists. "We will continue to work with members of Congress to ensure that millions of undocumented immigrants can have lasting protections."
The parliamentarian's ruling was riling progressives at a time when Democratic leaders will need virtually every vote in Congress from their party to approve a 10-year, $3.5 trillion bill that embodies Biden's top domestic goals.
It also comes with Republicans already signaling that they will use immigration, linking it to some voters' fears of crime, as a top issue in next year's campaigns for control of the House and Senate. The issue has gained attention in a year when huge numbers of immigrants have been encountered trying to cross the Southwest border.
"Democratic leaders refused to resist their progressive base and stand up for the rule of law, even though our border has never been less secure," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. He said putting the provisions into filibuster-protected budget measure was "inappropriate and I'm glad it failed."
In fact, both parties have stretched the use of the special budget protections over the years. Democrats used them to enact President Barack Obama's 2010 health care law, and Republicans used them during their failed 2017 drive to repeal that statute.
"It would have led to an increased run on the border — beyond the chaos we already have there today," said the Senate Budget Committee's top Republican, South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham. "It would be a terrible idea to provide legal status before we secure the border and reform the immigration process which is currently being abused."
One alternative advocates have said they're exploring would be to update a "registry" date that allows some immigrants in the U.S. by that time to become permanent residents if they meet certain conditions. But it was unclear if they would pursue that option or how the parliamentarian would rule.
White House spokesperson Vedant Patel called the parliamentarian's decision disappointing but said Senate negotiators would offer new immigration alternatives.
MacDonough cited a CBO estimate that Democrats' proposals would increase federal deficits by $140 billion over the coming decade. That is largely because of federal benefits the immigrants would qualify for.
But that fiscal impact, wrote MacDonough, was overshadowed by improvements the Democratic effort would make for immigrants' lives.
"Many undocumented persons live and work in the shadows of our society out of fear of deportation," she said. Permanent legal status would grant them "freedom to work, freedom to travel, freedom to live openly in our society in any state in the nation, and to reunite with their families and it would make them eligible, in time, to apply for citizenship — things for which there is no federal fiscal equivalent."
That, she wrote, "is tremendous and enduring policy change that dwarfs its budgetary impact."
Democrats and a handful of GOP allies have made halting progress during the past two decades toward legislation that would help millions of immigrants gain permanent legal status in the U.S. Ultimately, they've been thwarted each time by broad Republican opposition.
The House has approved separate bills this year achieving much of that, but the measures have gone nowhere in the Senate because of Republican filibusters.
The overall $3.5 trillion bill would boost spending for social safety net, environment and other programs and largely finance the initiatives with tax increases on the rich and corporations. Moderate Democrats want to water down some of the provisions, including shrinking its price tag, but progressives oppose trimming it.
Party leaders are still working on finding a compromise on the sweeping legislation that would satisfy virtually every Democrat in Congress. They can't lose any Democratic votes in the 50-50 Senate and can lose no more than three in the House.
MacDonough was appointed to her post in 2012 when Democrats controlled the chamber and is respected as an even-handed arbiter of Senate rules.
Earlier this year, one of her rulings forced Democrats to remove a minimum wage increase from a COVID-19 relief bill, killing another of progressives' top priorities.
___
AP Congressional Correspondent Lisa Mascaro and AP writer Alexandra Jaffe contributed to this report.
Tags
Who is online
389 visitors
Well, looks like the Democrats will have to come up with another scheme.
You know they will, the Democrats are going find way to get 8-11M votes.
I'm not sure it will matter. It seems ridiculous that in all this time, we still haven't fixed immigration, one way or the other. That tells me that neither side actually want to solve the problem and both sides want to use the issue to to their advantage. If they solve the problem, they can't do that anymore. So, it seems intentional at this point they've yet again failed to do something. They never will solve it.
You mean there is no such thing as human infrastructure? Didn't think so!
Now if they want to give amnesty to millions & millions of people, they'll have to get a legitimate vote on amnesty.
Good!
But it's isolating all those future Democrat voters!
Dreamers do need action on what they have been promised by the last two administrations, but Congress has been less than worthless on immigration concerns for decades. So I can see why the Dems were trying to shoehorn something in a spending package, but it's not the way to do it. On this I agree with the Parliamentarian. Of course now the Democrats can fundraise on the issue saying they tried, but Republicans aren't doing anything while Republicans can fundraise on the issue saying the Democrats are too Progressive. Too much of this shit is about getting reelected... Worthless pieces of shit the lot of 'em.
Yep...gotta go with you on this one. They spend more time trying to get re-elected than they do on their JOBS. Has to be a way to fix this whole broken system. We as the ones that pay their salaries should be able to fire them if they do not work. Nothing of any importance has come out of Congress in years. It is sickening & if I were as inept at my job as all Congressmen are at theirs my ass would have been fired years ago.
Politics is a corrupting force. It both attracts the corrupt and corrupts the virtuous. Our FF knew this and broke up the levers of power into the 3 branches, but... here we are.
With a divided nation and it is reflected in a divided Congress. I'd say it's working.
Even in Mexico where the sentiment of the government is let them go to America, rather than march on Mexico City. In America they can work and send money home to their families in Mexico. The people the Mexican government can't care for!
Spoken like a true populist.
I didn't know immigrants could vote!
Dreamers are being promised a path to full citizenship, so they will be able to vote... IF it ever happens.
People who entered this country illegally should never be granted citizenship. We can allow them work visa's but never a right to vote.
There's that Christian compassion we've gotten to know so well. We can let them build, clean and landscape our houses, but they can't live here! /s
There is absolutely nothing wrong in supporting immigration laws. People should come here legally.
Ask the Christians.
We can let them build, clean and landscape our houses, but they can't live here!
Ya that's what the coastal elite like them for. Even average Californians suddenly have domestic help. They can live and work here. They simply can't have the benefits that legal immigrants earned. So they won't be allowed to vote for democrats. Sorry.
Funny how selective some can be. Usually, progressive leftists are screeching about how Christianity should never be a part of government policy. But now it should be???
LMAO. Gotta love the inconsistency.
You should find one of the site's progressive leftists and let them know. Maybe one of them will stop and address your comment.
Open forum, they are more than welcome to read and comment.
Trump, and other Republicans, promised them a path to legal citizenship too. Rubio introduced a co-sponsored bill, but was forced to vote against it by party leadership. Perhaps if Republicans did the right thing they'd get those votes?
Maybe Republicans just support immigration laws actually being enforced, and don't wish to continue to encourage yet MORE illegal aliens coming here?
Am I committed to agree to everything they advocate? What has Stephen Miller said about it?
Rubio introduced a co-sponsored bill, but was forced to vote against it by party leadership.
That bill may have cost him the 2016 nomination.
Perhaps if Republicans did the right thing they'd get those votes?
As of right now, they don't have to do a thing. Many are counting the minutes to the 2022 midterm elections.
"Maybe" doesn't address any of my posts. Both parties made promises and none of them are doing anything other than fund raising.
Unless you're a member of Congress and we don't know it, I don't care.
That could very well be since Trump Populism currently runs the party, but then again recent elections and the CA recall have many on the right thinking maybe the strength of Populism is waning.
You know what they say about counting chickens... The mounting COVID deaths are changing everything.
Look, it isn't like we OWE any immigrant anything.
They should come legally or be deported.
And speaking of broken promises, do you think Democrats will EVER make good on the promises they made to get Reagan to sign off on amnesty?
Have you noticed how amnesty seems to be something that begets yet more of it?
fuck that child molesting war criminal. he's fucking dead, and doing more good for the country now than he did while he was POTUS.
The California recall election can't tell us that, but democrats do seem ready to run against Trump in every election. I say that The Virginia election will tell the story and it won't be about what you call "Populism." It will only be about who the next Republican Presidential candidate should be. The Nationalist policies of Trump are here to stay.
The mounting COVID deaths are changing everything.
They count against Biden this time......."ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee"
Which has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH MY FUCKING POST.
How fucking shocking, of course.
Are we "America, the shinning beacon on the hill" or "America, we never live up to our promises"?
Is anyone holding them to account? Certainly not their voters. Especially this tit-for-tat partisan bullshit that's been going on since Reagan passed.
I've noticed it's a good excuse used to do nothing.
There's more evidence than just that, but I'm not here to convince you.
The Nationalist policies of Trump are not new. Historically these ideals rise and fall.
Is they why red state governors poll numbers are tanking? I'm sure Republican messaging is going to try to do this AND you may be correct - they may make it stick. I'm not going to hold my breath and call it either way.
We offer hope to anyone coming here legally.
There is no need for America to be all things for all people.
No, Democrats don't seem to care about people coming here illegally. Or staying here illegally.
Nothing would be not enforcing immigration laws. Nothing would be policies encouraging illegal aliens to come here.
But not to someone that got taken here when they were an infant, grew up here, was schooled here and now works and pays taxes? They can kiss your ass, huh?
Judging by actions neither do Republicans. Ohhhh they want a big shiny wall that costs more than our current military budget to construct and maintain, but doesn't really do anything. That's perfectly fine. And now the Dems, or I should say Biden Admin is using the same rules made by the Reps, or Trump Admin, to ship home thousands of undocumented Hattians without due process. But, but, but... policies. yeah.... all you left/right partisans are tiring - it's all piss and no action.
If you are going to insist on putting words in my mouth, please choose different ones. Those sound to much like your own.
i always find it humorous when people start screeching about due process when discussing ILLEGAL ALIENS. Seems very silly to me.
Some folks act as if someone has a legal right to come here any old way they choose.
An interesting position to take... So you want foreigners to follow the laws you don't think your own government should?
Also I'm not advocating for illegal immigration, I'm advocating for fixing a broken system and at least attempting to live up to the ideals the country has said it aspires to.
And I am all for legal immigration, enforcement of immigration laws, and not granting amnesty to illegal aliens.
Where in the fuck do you get this crap from???????????
News flash:
Reagan doesn't have ONE FUCKING THING TO DO WITH THE BIDEN/HARRIS FUCK UP.
Why can't Democrats change the law honestly? Convince the country that open borders are a good thing and pass a law.
It seems like they have a tough time selling their policies anyplace other than a college campus.
I honestly believe that party politics has overtaken Congress so much that neither party is being fully honest here. Add in the past 'experiences' and it's easy to see why each party won't trust the other party to make good on a promise for tomorrow based on a vote today (and yes, I'll take that hamburger today please)...
I think the only way to really fix this will be for both parties to spend time to come up with a very large grand fix to immigration. Small incremental steps won't cut it anymore as those small steps usually involve one party having to rely on the promise of future actions down the road.
And can anybody truly explain what is so wrong with moving to a merit-based immigration system?
That seem apparent.
Like Canada?