Parliamentarian asking for another round of discussion and debate - Page 2

She's playing hard to get

the issue isn't the size of people covered I don't think... if you included less people, it would have less of a budgetary impact so you'd be kneecaping that argument.

wonder what this all means... did she go back and forth like this with the minimum wage? Not sure what she's expecting another round of arguments is going to do since I assume everything has already been covered in the meeting and the memos... I hope this isn't a kabuki theater like i'm thinking.

She didn't. I believe that was decided in a period of 72hrs.

hmm, wonder what she's expecting another debate to change then... I guess the minimum wage wasn't something you could go back and forth on, some articles have been talking about immigration is something that could be somewhat negotiated or offered alternatives. Hopefully she's trying to be sweet talked into an alternative?

Not to mention this won't be the first time an immigration issue passes thru reconciliation, why was it OK to cut visas back then via reconciliation? She better have a good explanation, furthermore the house just passed this provision and the house parliamentarian didn't say a word about it.

Regarding the passing of the whole infrastructure bill and the fifty votes; this is the only thing the democrats have going for them they've put all the eggs in one basket, they will campaign on this next year, if nothing passes they are toasted next year.

Yes I think so. Manchin came out in support for it - added he supported the gang of 8 Bill back in the day

A negotiation tactic. I highly doubt, in all seriousness, that Senate Democrats in particular are going to greenlight legalization for anyone who came to US by Jan 1 2021 and was under 18. Manchin / Sinema, in their bid to trim the overall budget number, will lead Dems to narrow down the immigration provision among other things.

Clearly, Dems have indicated that this isn't going anywhere without Parliamentarian's blessings. Whether legalization as a concept is allowed in a budget bill is the main question.

As much as we would like to use the 2005 case as a precedence, there were some key differences. Keeping in mind that the objection is not self-enforcing, the immigration provision was NEVER challenged by anyone to begin with. Parliamentarian was never brought into the picture. So, we really have no clue how the Parliamentarian would have acted on it.

This time around, Republicans are going to challenge the provision and that's when the Parliamentarian will come in. Durbin is trying to stay ahead of the game and get Parliamentarian's feedback now while the bill is being drafted, versus being disappointed later when we are closer to the finish line.

I've heard this argument in the past but I find it very weak at best, so are we saying that any decision that a parliamentarian has made in the past can only be used as a precedent only if it has been challenged? lol

No, I was highlighting the fact that the parliamentarian actually NEVER made a decision on the immigration question back in 2005.