View Single Post
#1
08-20-2021, 08:36 PM
Moderator
Joined in Mar 2006
6,465 posts
Swim19
Quote:
Several tests — collectively known as the “Byrd rule” after the late Sen. Robert Byrd — determine whether a measure is eligible for reconciliation.

First, the policy must produce a change in “outlays or revenues;” in other words, it must have an impact on the federal budget. Irrefutably, enabling immigrants to earn permanent residence has a clear and significant budgetary impact, primarily by allowing a new class of people to become eligible for public benefits and services. For example, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that passing the Dream and Promise Act — which would enable Dreamers and Temporary Protected Status recipients to earn permanent residence — would cost $42.5 billion over 10 years.
Quote:
The second Byrd rule test assesses whether the budget costs of a policy are “merely incidental” to the “nonbudgetary components.” Enabling a class of people to earn permanent residence easily survives this test: A central consequence of a person obtaining permanent residence is their eligibility to participate in the full spectrum of public social services.

Opponents of these provisions cannot argue in good faith that the budget impacts are “merely incidental” given that one of their central rationales for opposing legalization is that granting undocumented immigrants legal status would burden U.S. taxpayers by making them eligible for federal benefits. Indeed, their argument directly strengthens the case for reconciliation.
https://www.rollcall.com/2021/08/20/...econciliation/
__________________
Initial Approval: 11/13/12
1st Renewal: 10-7-14
2nd Renewal: 10/12/16
3rd Renewal: 5/16/2018
Post your reply or quote more messages.