Democrats cannot grant legal status to millions of immigrants as part of budget bill, Senate parliamentarian rules

[Chomsky]

Actually, Dems just got support from the GOP on the 1.2 trillion bill! And, a whole lot of even that bill wasn't physical infrastructure. Yet, they did get "Republican participation".

Alright, that's fair. It's been a rare example, but it's legit.

That's exactly what the 1.2 trillion bill would represent - more incremental change. But, Dems may indeed squander their opportunity at even getting that to the finish line - based on their insistence in marrying it to this big (IMO, disastrous) bill.

Agreed.

 

[gbg3]

These massive packages are the only way to hide the truth about how much additional debt they will generate. The CBO accounting trick seems to be to call them “10 year plans” whereby 10 years of additional revenue (the ‘pay for’ part) allows for 2 to 4 years of increased ‘entitlement’ (aka human infrastructure?) spending. Of course, they know that once an ‘entitlement’ gets created it would be political suicide to make it expire (or “sunset”) as the bill pretends that it will.

Exactly right about the so called "10 year plans"!!!!

 

[highroller]

I wish the Republicans would stop using undocumented immigrants as a bludgeon to scare white folks and do something about the problem.

We have a net migration of zero in this country. They can only use them as a racial issue.

 

[jonny5]

I was speaking intra-party, in comparison to the other party.



Yes. But 'marginalizing the majority' seems a worse alternative.



Ideally.

But the final arbitrator is the Constitution. It's there for a reason.

Quite honestly, after the GOP's handling of the last several SCOTUS replacements, I can't really see what motivation the Dems would have to compromise wit the GOP?

The constitution doesnt say anything about congressional requirement, but it does uses 3/4 as the standard for legal changes. And after "the GOP's handling of the last several SCOTUS replacements" thats exactly why you should support not doing the same thing. Thats what slim majorities get you, and your just continuing what you see as wrong, but now since its in support of you its ok. Marginalizing the minority OR the majority is the same worse alternative.

And thats the real reason the constitution is there. To prevent such tyranny.

Madison:

If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure.

There are but two methods of providing against this evil: the one by creating a will in the community independent of the majority that is, of the society itself; the other, by comprehending in the society so many separate descriptions of citizens as will render an unjust combination of a majority of the whole very improbable, if not impracticable. The first method prevails in all governments possessing an hereditary or self-appointed authority. This, at best, is but a precarious security; because a power independent of the society may as well espouse the unjust views of the major, as the rightful interests of the minor party, and may possibly be turned against both parties. The second method will be exemplified in the federal republic of the United States. Whilst all authority in it will be derived from and dependent on the society, the society itself will be broken into so many parts, interests, and classes of citizens, that the rights of individuals, or of the minority, will be in little danger from interested combinations of the majority.

The Avalon Project : Federalist No 51

avalon.law.yale.edu

 

[dcsports]

Actually, Dems just got support from the GOP on the 1.2 trillion bill! And, a whole lot of even that bill wasn't physical infrastructure. Yet, they did get "Republican participation".



That's exactly what the 1.2 trillion bill would represent - more incremental change. But, Dems may indeed squander their opportunity at even getting that to the finish line - based on their insistence in marrying it to this big (IMO, disastrous) bill.

That's true - ish. $1.2 trillion is still a MASSIVE bill. Republicans did compromise greatly, agreeing to half trillion ish in spending that has nothing to do with the stated purpose.

What I would have rather seen is more targeted efforts. For example - "We want $700 in infrastructure spending!" "We do too!" "Done!" It should
have been approved over a year ago.

 

[RAMOSS]

Democrats cannot grant legal status to millions of immigrants as part of budget bill, Senate parliamentarian rules

Chuck Schumer said Democrats have prepared "alternate proposals" to address immigration in their $3.5 trillion budget bill.

www.cnbc.com

--

Looks like the $3.5B 'Grand Deal' has suffered another blow. And now, Joe Manchin just announced he wants to 'delay' the bill until 'next year'.

I very much like that the Dem Party seems to have a large & diverse tent. But the difficulty becomes in getting a slim majority on the same page in producing legislation. However, it feels very much like 'democracy-in-action' - and I like that!

Here's to hoping they can pull it off.

(I have my concerns)

I hope that the democrats pick up at least 1 seat, to get rid of the influence Manchin has.

 

[Chomsky]

The constitution doesnt say anything about congressional requirement,

Because there is none. The filibuster is not a Constitutional requirement.

but it does uses 3/4 as the standard for legal changes.

??

You're taking Constitutional Amendment?

How did you toss this in the conversation?

And after "the GOP's handling of the last several SCOTUS replacements" thats exactly why you should support not doing the same thing. Thats what slim majorities get you, and your just continuing what you see as wrong, but now since its in support of you its ok. Marginalizing the minority OR the majority is the same worse alternative.

Alright, I get the 'ethical' argument. I often try to defer to it.

But how is this an 'ethics' concern? It's Constitutional governance, and an ethical argument might even be made the legislation is required at any cost. In fact, many believe exactly this in terms of things like voting rights.

When you try to play the ethics card, you open yourself up to a Pandora's Box of counter argument that can go virtually anywhere.

And thats the real reason the constitution is there. To prevent such tyranny.

Madison:

The Avalon Project : Federalist No 51

avalon.law.yale.edu

Yes, and Madison did not implement a filibuster - while it would be within his Constitutional to remove it. Unless you're disagreeing with his Constitution, that is?

 

[Chomsky]

I hope that the democrats pick up at least 1 seat, to get rid of the influence Manchin has.

Make it two - Sinema!

 

[ttwtt78640]

Exactly right about the so called "10 year plans"!!!!

Yep, but that creative accounting magically allows for $600B (or more) of additional annual spending to be “fully paid for” with $300B (or less) of additional annual revenue. Many have noted that Biden’s (advertised) $3.5T BBB plan will end up (actually) costing between $5.5T to $8T over those ten years. That, of course, is in addition to the $1T+ in normal annual “budget” deficit spending. Who knew that “free” stuff could be so expensive?

 

[gbg3]

That's true - ish. $1.2 trillion is still a MASSIVE bill. Republicans did compromise greatly, agreeing to half trillion ish in spending that has nothing to do with the stated purpose.

What I would have rather seen is more targeted efforts. For example - "We want $700 in infrastructure spending!" "We do too!" "Done!" It should
have been approved over a year ago.

Agreed - a massive bill that sure isn't all or even mostly about physical infrastructure. That was huge GOP cooperation, more than I would have agreed to if I had a say. I agree with your second paragraph!

 

[Objective Voice]

If they're ever going to advance their agenda, they need to become just as single-mindedly ruthless as the GOP and just as dismissive of rules and precedent. Can they fire the parliamentarian until they get an opinion they like? Ignore the parliamentarian...or rather, override. Isn't Leahy a Democrat?


Which leaves them with reduced moral standing. But honestly...

Sometimes it's as if they prefer to be indignant about having been pantsed rather than making themselves unpantsable. I suppose there's the Manchin/Sinema problem.

I think that's a large part of the Democrat Party's problem...that and ethics. The party wants so much to be seen as the party that plays above board; the party that in a post-Trump era has moral and ethical standards. It wants to be seen as the party that doesn't skirt the rules. It's why they haven't scrapped or modified the filibuster yet.

I'd like to think that Senators Schumer and Durbin have been in the U.S. Senate long enough that they've learned a thing or two, but the problem with having a "big tent" is you have to cater to so many view points. It's different with Republicans who the vast majority are conservatives and see things in more focused in black, white and green.

 

[Roadvirus]

Democrats cannot grant legal status to millions of immigrants as part of budget bill, Senate parliamentarian rules

Chuck Schumer said Democrats have prepared "alternate proposals" to address immigration in their $3.5 trillion budget bill.

www.cnbc.com

--

Looks like the $3.5B 'Grand Deal' has suffered another blow. And now, Joe Manchin just announced he wants to 'delay' the bill until 'next year'.

I very much like that the Dem Party seems to have a large & diverse tent. But the difficulty becomes in getting a slim majority on the same page in producing legislation. However, it feels very much like 'democracy-in-action' - and I like that!

Here's to hoping they can pull it off.

(I have my concerns)

"A" for effort, Dems.

Your stupid attempt to ram through AMNESTY for illegals was pathetic and downright abusive of your power via the reconciliation process. That's going to come back to bite your butts in the Midterms.

 

[Chomsky]

"A" for effort, Dems.

Your stupid attempt to ram through AMNESTY for illegals was pathetic and downright abusive of your power via the reconciliation process. That's going to come back to bite your butts in the Midterms.

I'd like to see a DACA solution, but I must admit this seemed a funky way to do it.

 

[Chomsky]

I think that's a large part of the Democrat Party's problem...that and ethics. The party wants so much to be seen as the party that plays above board; the party that in a post-Trump era has moral and ethical standards. It wants to be seen as the party that doesn't skirt the rules. It's why they haven't scrapped or modified the filibuster yet.

I'd like to think that Senators Schumer and Durbin have been in the U.S. Senate long enough that they've learned a thing or two, but the problem with having a "big tent" is you have to cater to so many view points. It's different with Republicans who the vast majority are conservatives and see things in more focused in black, white and green.

Great post, tying-in a lot of points.

Your big-tent vs singularity-of-purpose comparison, is a good one. Though I'd add it's not Conservatism itself solidifying the GOP, but rather it is fealty to Trump. We'll have to see it that gets them to, and through, the midterms. I definitely think the party will be fully Trumpian going into the mid-term election. Whether it prevails, I can't say.

 

[Chomsky]

So what to do with DACA? Deport them or a pathway to citizenship

Anything less than citizenship would be a travesty!

 

[jonny5]

Because there is none. The filibuster is not a Constitutional requirement.

Im not going to do split quotes. You said the constitution is the guide. And the only guide regarding "democracy in action" is to reject tyranny of the majority. This is why the senate has/had the filibuster, to prevent tyranny of the majority, to be more deliberative and consensus seeking. The House does not and so you see both parties roll over each other when they have a slim majority. You think its great when Dems do it and bad when GOP does it.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I'd like to see a DACA solution, but I must admit this seemed a funky way to do it.

DACA (as defined by Obama) was limited to those who illegally entered as minors between 6/15/2007 and 6/15/2012 and could prove that they continuously resided in the US. It was never intended to become blanket amnesty for any and all illegal immigrants who claim to have been minors upon their arrival.

Obviously, you can’t allow illegal immigrant minors to stay while deporting their illegal adult family members - which is why DACA was (initially) coupled with DAPA.

 

[Luce]

Well, yeah.

 

[Luce]

Why do you like democracy in action with a slim majority? Doesnt this marginalize the minority?

Wouldnt it make more sense for them to work on things everyone generally agrees with?

You lost. It's a little late for this bipartisan crap, which has until now been noticeably lacking.

 

[Chomsky]

Im not going to do split quotes. You said the constitution is the guide. And the only guide regarding "democracy in action" is to reject tyranny of the majority.

The Constitution already speaks on this - there no filibuster!

You realize it wasn't in the Constitution, and still isn't, right?

This is why the senate has/had the filibuster, to prevent tyranny of the majority, to be more deliberative and consensus seeking. The House does not and so you see both parties roll over each other when they have a slim majority.

There's some truth in this.

The House is where the Peoples' ideas spawn, with the Senate putting on the brakes.

You think its great when Dems do it and bad when GOP does it.

No idea here, because I never thought of it in other terms than the here & now.

But obviously, 'What's good for the goose is good for the gander!'. The Republicans should also be free to not be "non-talking' filibustered.

BTW, my suggest would be to move back to the traditional 'talking' filibuster - and see how it goes.

 

[Chomsky]

DACA (as defined by Obama) was limited to those who illegally entered as minors between 6/15/2007 and 6/15/2012 and could prove that they continuously resided in the US. It was never intended to become blanket amnesty for any and all illegal immigrants who claim to have been minors upon their arrival.

Obviously, you can’t allow illegal immigrant minors to stay while deporting their illegal adult family members - which is why DACA was (initially) coupled with DAPA.

Agreed.

I'm proposing DACA amnesty. I'm wary of DAPA amnesty, but might go with temporary residence during their kids' minor status.

 

[jonny5]

The Constitution already speaks on this - there no filibuster!

You realize it wasn't in the Constitution, and still isn't, right?

Im not doing split quotes. You said democrats ramming through things on a slim majority is democracy in action and a great thing, and I pointed out that consensus is better, to which you said let the constitution be the guide. The only mention of lawmaking margins in the constitution, (and the words of the people who wrote it), agree with me. If the constitution is the guide, then tyranny of majority is bad, because the constitution wouldnt exist without unanimity.

 

[AliHajiSheik]

Then you missed the part about how immigration reform has passed through budget reconciliation in the past. The parliamentarian seems to be acting arbitrarily, which begs the question, how can law be made if the rules change all the time? It doesn't make sense.

And BTW - These people are already added.

Increasing the number of green cards is not immigration reform, it is dishonest for your group to say that it is.

 

[Chomsky]

Im not doing split quotes. You said democrats ramming through things on a slim majority is democracy in action and a great thing, and I pointed out that consensus is better, to which you said let the constitution be the guide. The only mention of lawmaking margins in the constitution, (and the words of the people who wrote it), agree with me. If the constitution is the guide, then tyranny of majority is bad, because the constitution wouldnt exist without unanimity.

No, I said the actions within the 'Democratic Party itself', is 'democracy in action'. I was speaking of the Dem 'big tent' thing.

Maybe that's where are conflict lies?

Take a look at my post again, and also I tried to clarify that in a later post.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Agreed.

I'm proposing DACA amnesty. I'm wary of DAPA amnesty, but might go with temporary residence during their kids' minor status.

I’m wary of anything that can’t get 60 votes in the US Senate.