Senate Goddess says no again - Page 3

It’s not the plan’s failure we are angry about smart one (because the plan was trash). It’s the fact that Senate Dems are letting her serve as the gatekeeper and pretending like there is nothing they can do. That’s the fucking problem.

Sure, Manchin and Sinema were other obstacles, but don’t pretend to make the parliamentarian the obstacle because she isn’t.

Asked if there was a "Plan D," Durbin told reporters: "Not at this point."

Plan D (D for democrats) was using parliamentarian as an excuse not to pass anything or try genuinely.

Its most likely has to do with the scope and potential impact of granting some kind of legal status to 7MM people.

Based on the language she used, it seems like any change in immigration status outweighs the budgetary impact. I think the only option she may approve would be providing a longer work permit to an already established group ( TPS & DACA ...) That should solely have a budgetary impact since those groups already exist... of course, this is just speculation....

Bro stop trying to logic this, the Senate Goddess does not make decisions based on logic. She has contradicted herself multiple times already.

These people dont want us ...period. They don't want 700k dreamers who are already in the database ....and these lawmakers are showing us they are "trying" to grant status to 7mil. Lets be honest. Are they funded by unitedwedream?

https://about.bgov.com/news/immigrat...-alternatives/

Immigration Loss Leaves Democrats Eyeing Risky Alternatives (1)
Senate parliamentarian rebuffed deportation protection plan
Lawmakers consider edits or long-shot bid to ignore opinion
December 17, 2021 12:28 PM
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Share on LinkedIn
(Updates throughout with additional lawmaker comments.)

Democrats are desperate for a path forward on immigration in their social spending and tax bill after suffering a potentially fatal procedural blow.

Their remaining options are politically and logistically risky: watering down their latest proposal or attempting to sidestep a Senate rules official. But the stakes are high for finding a solution.

“It’ll have a hard time passing the Senate if there’s not something on immigration,” Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) said. Senate Democrats plan to discuss their options during a meeting Friday afternoon.

Senate parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough issued an opinion Thursday saying a proposal to offer work permits and deportation protections through a status known as parole for some undocumented immigrants conflicts with the chamber’s rules.

Legislation passed under the reconciliation process Democrats are using to pursue their agenda bill (H.R. 5376) must be primarily budget-related. Thursday’s opinion marks the third time the parliamentarian has rejected Democrats’ immigration proposals.

“The proposed parole policy is not much different in its effect than the previous proposals we have considered,” the opinion said. It doesn’t address separate provisions that would alleviate green card backlogs in the legal immigration system; those remain untested and in limbo.

Yep, it did previously get us rid of John McCain.

"But McCain voted no on Obamacare repeal"
Yeah and do you think that he'd vote no if he didn't get accosted by the grim reaper in the bathroom?

I think it's over and we 've been royally fucked. I will keep hoping until this thing is dead and buried and hopefully I am wrong. It doesn't seem likely though.

It's a gut punch. I am devastated.

I don't wish ill on the parliamentarian. She's doing the job she's been assigned to do and that job is to give legal advice on whether a piece of legislation comports with the parameters of the process they chose. Why wish ill of a person doing their job? And if we are honest, it's not that she's saying something that's way out there. Reconciliation was invented in order to make the passing of bills involving the budget. This is a wider matter.

Democrats chose reconciliation, because they didn't have 60 votes. They didn't have 60 votes even though there are more than 10 Republicans in the senate who would support immigration reform, but they don't because their party base doesn't want them to and if they do, they will suffer dearly. They bear share of the blame and so do their voters.

Democrats can pass legislation with 51 votes, but at least two of them will not vote to abolish the filibuster, probably because they don't want to take tough votes that will hunt them politically and because they can play up the idea they were bipartisan. It's a bad idea that stops all sorts of useful legislation, it's undemocratic as the US system already has too many veto points and if anything it stops bipartisan compromise. It sucks but that's the situation we 're in.

The decision to overrule the parliamentarian ultimately also requires 51 votes. The dynamic is similar to abolishing the filibuster. It's very hard to do.

Firing the parliamentarian is a fantasy. It doesn't take away her already made decisions and it doesn't do away with the office of the parliamentarian. The people working at the office aren't partisan hacks, they are career bureaucrats. Republicans did fire the parliamentarian in 2001 in a hissy fit, but that didn't change the decision that prompted the firing.

If I were a dreamer, I would still hold some hope. As Padilla said there's enormous pressure to do something on immigration and if they go down a more narrow path and legalizing dreamers is one of the least controversial things they can do.

At this point might as well root for Manchin to dig in and doom BBB. It ain’t worth a cent without immigration provision.