Democrats grasping at straws on immigration
 

A second ruling by the Senate parliamentarian has Democrats grasping at straws over how to include some form of immigration relief in their sweeping reconciliation package, as activists pressure them to do more to change the upper chamber’s rules.

Senate parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough on Wednesday ruled against a Democratic proposal to offer permanent residency to millions of undocumented immigrants, the second time in a week she’s shot down a Democratic proposal that would have provided security for the population.

The decision was a stinging blow to Democrat that left them with few options, though some were moving toward a Plan C that would involve granting parole to groups of undocumented immigrants.

“The next one in line is this parole option, which is not as ambitious as the first two, but it also brings relief to a significant number of people that are here without any documentation and allows them the ability to work,” said Rep. Adriano Espaillat (D-N.Y.), who along with Reps. Jesús García (D-Ill.) and Lou Correa (D-Calif.) has vowed to vote “no” on any reconciliation bill without immigration provisions.

This option of would grant temporary immigration and work benefits to potentially millions of people, but not a direct path to citizenship.

While immigrant groups are likely to balk at what they consider a potential trap into “second-class” citizenship, the temporary nature of parole would directly address one of MacDonough's main concerns with the two permanent residency plans.

The first proposal that MacDonough struck down would have reportedly granted green cards to as many as 8 million immigrants, while the second would have covered around 6.7 million people, by most estimates.

In her Wednesday ruling, MacDonough made clear that she considers granting millions of green cards a significant policy change that's incompatible with the rules of reconciliation. Those rules prevent Republicans from filibustering the package.

Democrats could technically override MacDonough's decision with support from their entire Senate Caucus, but party leaders already need unanimous support for the full reconciliation package, and are unlikely to force a vote on immigration or Senate rules on their moderate members.

Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), who has long led Democrats' immigration reform pushes in the Senate, said Wednesday his caucus will continue to explore language on the matter that could fit in the bill.

“Disappointed by today’s decision by the Parliamentarian, but the push for immigration via reconciliation continues. There’s too much at stake,” tweeted Durbin.

Immigrant advocates were stunned by the speed in which MacDonough revealed her second ruling, but some called for patience in a process they knew would be a bumpy ride.

“The main thing is that like last time, obituaries are premature. The senators have a plan to work with the parliamentarian on other options and there are other options beyond that,” said Douglas Rivlin, communications director at America's Voice.

In MacDonough’s ruling she again called permanent residency “a life-long change in circumstances the value of which vastly outweighs its budgetary impact.”

Garcia said the goal was still finding “ways to protect people so that they can continue to work, they can continue to travel, to live in peace, and have a shot down the road when we're able to take this subject up.”

He also offered support for the reconciliation package despite his pledge to vote against it without an immigration measure.

“This is still a vehicle that offers possibilities — now I'm talking about reconciliation — to protect people in the immigrant community, and I think millions of people,” he said.

Some advocates expressed disappointment in the parliamentarian’s ruling, which again focused on the number of people who would gain residency through the move while offering little on why the proposal did not meet the financial requirements needed to use reconciliation.

Lawmakers had hoped to sidestep the issue by changing the registry date — a sort of statute of limitations for those who entered the U.S.

“That to me is a little shocking because the registry law is already in existence. It's just a matter of changing the date. It's not like creating a whole new program like the legalization packages would have and it would have a significant beneficial impact on the economy,” said Shev Dalal-Dheini with the American Immigration Lawyers Association, who called the ruling “disappointing.”

“Other options people were looking into are similar so I'm not sure we can get past her rulings. Which maybe the next plan is to not worry about her ruling, but I don't know what they're going to do with that,” she said, a nod to comments from progressive Democrats to view the rulings only as a recommendation.

Still, immigration advocates both within and outside Congress are wary that the issue could be swept under the rug, as the fight over other aspects of the reconciliation bill takes precedence.

And advocates are worried the reconciliation package could be a brief window for immigration relief, a window that might not open again for years.

“It looks really bleak. It looks like it will require many years before it can gel again,” said García.

A final reconciliation bill without some form of immigration reform would confirm fears that immigrant priorities are taken for granted when the iron gets hot, but many Democrats could still feel compelled to support it.

“I know that it's a difficult position to be in, and to have to choose between all of the great things in the build back better plan, all the social programs, all of the equity initiatives, all of the investment that that act would bring to our communities,” said García.

“But at the same time that has to be weighed against the fact that the Congress is turning its back on the immigrant community,” he added.

Democrats could also get hit at the polls, say some advocates.


https://thehill.com/latino/574810-de...on-immigration


Daca for everyone I guess and this is were immigration or path to residency dies for us

Re: Democrats grasping at straws on immigration
 

This is such a stupid fucking idea all because they won’t fire her bitch ass. What a bunch of pussies.

Re: Democrats grasping at straws on immigration
 

This bullshit is why you should never be an optimist or "cautiously optimistic" in our situation. Nothing ever fucking happens. Nothing. All the morale boosting is all artificial and based on hype and desperation.

Say it with me:
Same shit. Different toilet.

Re: Democrats grasping at straws on immigration
 

so plan C, expand daca

Re: Democrats grasping at straws on immigration
 

But can’t they give Daca residents permanent status because we technically have a status

Re: Democrats grasping at straws on immigration
 

Exactly. This is why I question their (Democrats) motives. They are straight going from all or nothing to some second class citizenry status for all.

In her ruling, Parliamentarian clearly drew a distinction between those with some form of temp status (DACA, TPS, DED) and those with no status at all.

Her objection was pointed mainly towards those with no status whatsoever. But she left the door slightly ajar for possible permanent legal status for those who already have a lot of privileges (work authorization, driver license, deportation protection, etc.). This may not be as big of a "social change". See the two excerpts:

"While a portion of that 8 million has one form or another of temporary legal status under statute or Presidential order, the vast majority (nearly 7 million by CBO’s estimate) are unlawfully present and generally ineligible for adjustment of status under current law (as are some of the temporary status holders)."

The parliamentarian clearly differentiates a subset of eligible immigrants with temporary legal status (such as DACA and TPS recipients) from those who are "unlawfully present". Her stress is on the latter group of "nearly 7 million" people and the fact that the proposal would create a new class of immigrants eligible for adjustment of status.

"Broadly speaking, as most of the beneficiaries of this policy change are not in status, there will be other [than social safety net programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, etc.], life-changing federal, state and societal benefits to having LPR status... LPR status would give these persons freedom to work, freedom to travel, freedom to live openly in our society... and to reunite with their families and... to apply for citizenship – things for which there is no federal fiscal equivalent."

The parliamentarian details the benefits of having permanent residency as effecting MORE THAN just the financials of the recipient (in the form of opportunities) and budgetary (in terms of outlays for the governments in the form of safety net programs). "The value of having the security of LPR status [green cards]..." is immense with no "... fiscal equivalence."

Lastly, again the Parliamentarian cleaves out people with some form of temporary legal status (like DACA and TPS recipients) from this objection by stating that "MOST of the beneficiaries of this policy change are not in status". To state the corollary, SOME of the beneficiaries of this policy change ARE in status and as a result MAY already have many of the benefits outlined.

-- Democrats have failed us

Re: Democrats grasping at straws on immigration
 

Sure thing. Just draft up a bill and get all non-R senators and 10 R senators to vote for it. Legislation is needed.

Re: Democrats grasping at straws on immigration
 

I am honestly hoping plan C fails as well so these fuckers are pressured to be bold. They cannot possibly squander this opportunity like this. Fucking morons.

Re: Democrats grasping at straws on immigration
 

These fukers can stick their extended daca up their anus. They need to pass path to legalization to current dacas

Re: Democrats grasping at straws on immigration
 

if they are somehow able to get extended daca on that bill (which is still doubtful) that's probably the best that can be done considering the court case in the courts right now... getting that would be better than nothing.