Biden's Immigration Reform

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The reason the filibuster still exists is because they don't have the votes to get rid of it. You can complain, and I agree it should be gone, but that's the reality. And if the votes aren't there to kill the filibuster they surely aren't there to pass a Dem immigration bill.

The answer is better Dems. I hope that happens, but until it does this is the reality.

That's more or less what's being said here. Dems are worthless and have no interest in passing any legislation.

Originally Posted by Lathum

Man. These maga dopes are frothing at the mouth for their civil war.

Meal Team 6 is up in arms.

[Edward64]

Win or lose, pass or not, I do appreciate Joe's leadership in spending the political capital and taking the political risk to push the Border-Ukraine-Israel-Taiwan bill through.

He's taking a heck of a chance. My guess is there's more downside than upside for his re-election chances. I'd think for his base that Border policy > Ukraine-Israel-Taiwan.

Biden says he’ll shut down the border if deal gives him authority - POLITICO

“What’s been negotiated would — if passed into law — be the toughest and fairest set of reforms to secure the border we’ve ever had in our country,” Biden said in a statement. “It would give me, as President, a new emergency authority to shut down the border when it becomes overwhelmed. And if given that authority, I would use it the day I sign the bill into law.”

Biden’s Friday evening statement resembles a ramping up in rhetoric for the administration, placing the president philosophically in the camp arguing that the border may hit a point where closure is needed. The White House’s decision to have Biden weigh in also speaks to the delicate nature of the dealmaking, and the urgency facing his administration to take action on the border — particularly during an election year, when Republicans have used the issue to rally their base.

Nice.

The president is also daring Republicans to reject the deal as it faces a make-or-break moment amid GOP fissures.

[Edward64]

Just for future reference next time we come back to this same old thing ...

re: what Joe could have done his first 2 years, interview with Veronica Escobar for her insider perspective, co-chair of Joe's reelection committee and deputy whip of Progressive Caucus.

Biden’s Campaign Co-Chair Is Not Happy With His Border and Gaza Plans - POLITICO

It’s been a congressional failure for 37 years. The president out of the gate gave us a comprehensive immigration reform bill. I actually helped work on that for then-candidate Joe Biden. He created these unity task forces. Do you remember that?

Yes. Bernie and Biden. Everyone coming together.

I was so privileged and honored to be part of the immigration unity task force.

Pretty much what I was saying, Dems had a shot. She thinks legit shot.

When the president gave us that bill, House Democrats were in the majority, and we did not get that bill across the goal line. This is where a lot of my own frustration comes from. We had the power to pass that bill. We had the majority and we didn’t do it. So here we have a Democratic president that needs Congress to do its job and we failed.

The (possible) rationale ... other & bigger priorities.

What were you told at the time by Pelosi and the White House? “Wait for infrastructure, wait for the other priorities to pass?”

Even though I helped shape that bill, I was not a part of the whip team or the team that was in charge of moving it through the House. That job was given to far more seasoned members of Congress and I absolutely deferred to them.

And I think this is so important to understand why I felt I needed to work on a bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform bill a year later. Part of what I recognized is that our caucus is so diverse. Within our own caucus, there were things everyone found to critique and not be pleased with.

[RainMaker]

It wasn't Pelosi's fault. It was the ummm Russians...or Chinese...or whoever she is blaming this week.

[Lathum]

I feel like at this point Biden needs to play chicken. Pass a bunch of EO to stem the flow. They will likely be unconstitutional but make the GOP challenge them in court.

This issue is going to cost him the presidency unless he starts fighting dirty.

[flere-imsaho]

The Politico article is incredibly disingenuous. That Senate was split 50-50 and Manchin was publicly dead-set against any immigration bill. While the House could have passed an immigration-related bill (and, in fact, did), it would have not passed the Senate.

The Speaker needs to make calls on when to move forward with doomed bills, and when to spend time on other things. Also entering into the equation is the plusses and minuses of putting people on the record having voted for/against a bill that isn't going anywhere anyway.

It's one thing to advocate for something. It's another thing to believe in a magical fairy version of legislative process.

[JPhillips]

Yes. Show me how a Dem written immigration bill passes. There hasn't been a time this century when it would have passed both the House and Senate.

[Edward64]

There wasn't an Obamacare/ACA bill that would have passed in its original form. There was a ton of negotiations, whatever etc. to make it happen.

And through the torturous process, something happened.

In Joe's Immigration bill, seems like let's get the Infrastructure bill done first.

[JPhillips]

And it took the short window of 60 Dem votes in the Senate to make it happen. Every single GOPer in the Senate voted against it.

How many times does the GOP have to say we won't pass a Dem immigration bill until you believe them?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

How many times does the GOP have to say we won't pass a Dem immigration bill until you believe them?

And that's the rub ... Dem Immigration Bill.

Same question back. How many Dems would pass a GOP immigration bill (e.g. the one the GOP House passed in Summer 2023)?

[JPhillips]

The 2003 McCain bill had plenty of Dem support. The GOP killed it.

The current Senate bill is bipartisan and would get probably 45 or more Dem Senate votes and 140 or more Dem House votes. The GOP in the House won't allow it on the floor.

There is a pathway for a bipartisan immigration bill but time after time the far-right folks in the GOP kill it. That's where we were twenty years ago and that's where we are now.

[Edward64]

No problem in admitting the GOP plays spoiler more.

My central tenet is below. As supported by today's Veronica Escobar quote.

My perspective is both parties share blame (not necessarily equal, but significant enough) in not moving forward and trying to compromise, when they've both owned the Executive & Congress.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

And it took the short window of 60 Dem votes in the Senate to make it happen. Every single GOPer in the Senate voted against it.

How many times does the GOP have to say we won't pass a Dem immigration bill until you believe them?

The 60 vote threshold is just a made up rule they can eliminate at any time. The Republicans do.

[Edward64]

The details of the proposed border deal.

Senators unveil border deal and foreign aid package for Ukraine and Israel ahead of key vote | CNN Politics

The deal will grant the Department of Homeland Security new emergency authority to clamp down on border crossings if daily average migrant encounters reach 4,000 over a one-week span. Once the authority is triggered, the DHS secretary could decide to largely bar migrants from seeking asylum if they crossed the border unlawfully.

If migrant crossings increased above 5,000 on average per day on a given week, DHS would be required to use the authority. The authority sunsets after three years.

The GOP pushback below.

As the deal has come under attack on the far right, Senate negotiators have attempted to dispel what they say are misrepresentations of the agreement. Conservatives have argued the Senate’s package would allow thousands of migrants to enter the US every day – a line of attack negotiators have pushed back.

I understand the Dems are denying that up to 4,000+ can/will enter into the system (cross the border) every week, but from what I've read so far, it does sound like 4,000+ can do just that. Don't know what the supposed misrepresentation is?

“We believe that by quickly implementing this system, individuals who come for economic reasons will learn very quickly that this is not a path to enter our country and will not take the sometimes dangerous or treacherous trek to our border,” Sinema, who has lived her life close to the Mexican border, said on CBS on Sunday.

This seems pretty weak rebuttal IMO. I can easily see 4,000+ every week but admittedly, maybe I'm missing something.

For context, a Dec 2023 Fox report said daily illegal immigration is 5k so weekly is approx. 35k.

The Biden administration has told lawmakers that an average of 5,000 illegal immigrants are currently being released into the U.S. each day at the border, while there were over 670,000 illegal immigrants who evaded Border Patrol last fiscal year, Fox News has learned.

I personally think this is a bad deal from the GOP point of view. But I'm okay with it if it advances aid to Ukraine (e.g. I don't know what the frak Israel needs our $14B or Taiwan, both can afford it, we should sell the weaponry they need but we shouldn't be subsidizing them).

[JPhillips]

Scalise said tonight that this bill won't get a vote in the House.

Probably because it would pass.

[JPhillips]

dola

Chamber of Commerce and Border Patrol union come out in favor of the bill. The Chamber is interesting because they are likely behind the immediate work permits piece so their members can fill empty job openings. Still don't think this is enough to sway the GOP leadership, but maybe.

[RainMaker]

The whole thing is bizarre. Biden begging Republicans to go along with a very far-right bill. Republicans holding off because they want to pass it under Trump instead.

I think the bill is DOA and Republicans will just bring it to life after the election one way or the other. They've got all the leverage at this point.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The 60 vote threshold is just a made up rule they can eliminate at any time. The Republicans do.

I believe you can only change Senate rules at the beginning of each legislative session. Back in 2009 there was no precedent for removing the filibuster, which, of course, if done would have given us a better ACA.

Now, of course, Democrats should consider it every time they have a majority in the Senate. And indeed they did prior to this session starting but both Manchin & Sinema came out against it.

Again, reality.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I believe you can only change Senate rules at the beginning of each legislative session. Back in 2009 there was no precedent for removing the filibuster, which, of course, if done would have given us a better ACA.

Now, of course, Democrats should consider it every time they have a majority in the Senate. And indeed they did prior to this session starting but both Manchin & Sinema came out against it.

Again, reality.

You can change the rules in the Senate with a majority vote. It's a weird little loophole, but considering this is a modern era rule, I don't see the issue. Senate was able to get by for almost 200 years without it.

And I don't think we would have gotten a better ACA. I think they ended up exactly where they wanted to in the end.

[JPhillips]

McConnell recommended a no vote on cloture, so it's dead.

Hard to negotiate with people who get almost everything they want and still reject it.

lol Just saw that Lankford won't commit to vote for his own bill.

[RainMaker]

Not much of a negotiation when they gave them everything they wanted. Everyone comes out looking pretty bad here.

[Jas_lov]

Didn't the same thing happen with Rubio voting against his own bill? They asked for this border bill to be packaged with Ukraine aid. Then they say the Senate should pass their HR2 bill to fix the border but also that legislation is not needed. I just don't know how you negotiate with them anymore.

[SirFozzie]

What happened was something like this:

General Public: Wow, you actually look like you can actually do something with government, GOP.

GOP: Wait, they agreed?

Public: Yep.. so, what's next...

GOP (develops a nervous tic): Next? (gulp)

Public: I mean..

GOP (in a full scale panic): WE CAN'T ACTUALLY GOVERN, THEN OUR CONTITUENTS WILL EXPECT US TO DO THINGS LIKE THIS ALL THE TIME INSTEAD OF LISTENING TO US RANT ABOUT LESBIAN IMMIGRANT CATGIRLS CROSSING THE BORDER TO PUT LITTERBOXES IN CLASSROOMS!

Public: oh, we're not that..

GOP: THIS SUCKS! WHERE DO I GET MY BREITBART ARTICLE ABOUT HOW WOKE COMMIE PROPOGANDA IS BEING KILLED BY MAGA TEAM 6?

Public: Calm down!

GOP (Swallows): Sorry.. It's anxiety, because we can't figure out how to pay our presidential candidates legal bills and judgements against him by actually governing. Don't forget that when you donate $20 by texting IMASUCKER to Trump's Mega-MAGA Mall, at least 0.4% of it will not go into Trump's pocket directly!

[Thomkal]

LOL Foz, gotta watch for those lesbian immigrant catgirls

[JPhillips]

How the fuck are you supposed to do anything with these MFers?

So Dems wanted a bill for Ukraine.

GOPers demanded border security with any Ukraine funding.

Senate Dems and GOPers negotiate a border bill with Ukraine funding.

Far-right GOPers kill the bill saying they won't do anything on the border this year.

Dems introduce Ukraine funding bill.

GOPers vote against it and demand border bill first.

[RainMaker]

They're not going to do anything. It's Lucy and Charlie Brown. They have gotten Democrats to shift their position on immigration to an extreme far-right position. So that likely bodes well long term for Republicans.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

LOL Foz, gotta watch for those lesbian immigrant catgirls

I find Fozzie's ideas intriguing and would like to subscribe to his newsletter.

[Edward64]

Good to see more now see this as a very serious issue. It's clear this is a losing hand for Joe. Regardless of what he does now with executive orders or negotiate, the GOP will point to his failing to recognize the severity issue early enough.

6 in 10 See Illegal Immigration As Very Serious Problem | Monmouth University Polling Institute | Monmouth University

“Illegal immigration has taken center stage as a defining issue this presidential election year. Other Monmouth polling found this to be Biden’s weakest policy area, including among his fellow Democrats,” said Patrick Murray, director of the independent Monmouth University Polling Institute.

More wall talk.

A majority of the public (53%) supports building a wall along the U.S. border with Mexico, compared with 46% who oppose it. During the Trump administration, support for this project registered no higher than 44% and stood as low as 35%. Support stood at 48% the first time Monmouth asked this question (September 2015) and 42% the last time this question was included in one of Monmouth’s national polls (April 2019). Compared to public opinion nine years ago, support for building a border wall has increased by 13 points among Republicans (from 73% to 86%) and 11 points among independents (from 47% to 58%), but it has declined by 14 points among Democrats (from 31% to 17%).

[flere-imsaho]

Disappointing. Illegal immigration is absolutely not an issue of any seriousness. Another win for lies and disinformation.

[GrantDawg]

It really is amazing how Republicans have successfully distracted people from issues that actually affect thier lives for fear of the brown people.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

[RainMaker]

Have they? Is there any evidence that this issue is hurting Democrats? Every election cycle we go through this with migrant caravans and all the other stuff. Republicans haven't exactly been winning elections.

[RainMaker]

Like what's the fucking point in voting for Biden?

Access Denied

[Brian Swartz]

I never thought I'd see the day when I would vote for the Democratic candidate for president, and Rainmaker wouldn't, in the same election.

It's been answered already, but for me it's to keep Donald Trump, and more largely the current version of the Republican Party, out of power. I rate Biden pretty low, and overall I didn't have high hopes for his first term and think he's somewhat underachieved those expectations. I think he's arguably unfit to be President. That makes him a zillion times better than Trump.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Like what's the fucking point in voting for Biden?

Access Denied

you're right. We should totally put in the guy who is a combination of narcissist, authoritarian, criminal, dictator wanna be with a healthy side of syphilis infected brain worms back in power.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Like what's the fucking point in voting for Biden?

Access Denied

This is a ploy to try to force Trump to go on the record for those who haven't been closely following as being the one directing the GOP legislators to refuse to pass a bill that has everything they wanted in it from their demands 6 months ago.

Maybe I'm overthinking it, but I almost view this as a deposition question the answer to which will be used later at trial. It will be used to show that Trump never had a good faith position on all of his "immigration crisis" posturing.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Lathum

you're right. We should totally put in the guy who is a combination of narcissist, authoritarian, criminal, dictator wanna be with a healthy side of syphilis infected brain worms back in power.

If he is all those things, why are you working with him? The people chose Biden, in part because he said he would end the cruelty at the border. They didn't choose Trump.

You can't claim Trumo is here to end democracy and then say we need him involved in drafting policy.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I never thought I'd see the day when I would vote for the Democratic candidate for president, and Rainmaker wouldn't, in the same election.

It's been answered already, but for me it's to keep Donald Trump, and more largely the current version of the Republican Party, out of power. I rate Biden pretty low, and overall I didn't have high hopes for his first term and think he's somewhat underachieved those expectations. I think he's arguably unfit to be President. That makes him a zillion times better than Trump.

To keep Trump oyt of power we must elect the guy who wants Trump to be part of the policy making in this country.

[Jas_lov]

I don't think he wants Trump to be part of policy making. I think he just said that because he knows Trump won't work together and it will make Trump seem like the one who doesn't want to actually solve the problem.

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by Jas_lov

I don't think he wants Trump to be part of policy making. I think he just said that because he knows Trump won't work together and it will make Trump seem like the one who doesn't want to actually solve the problem.

This exactly. It isn't 4D Chess being played here. If the border is in as much chaos as we have been told and we are in imminent danger and it is an emergency, prove it by correcting it now for the good of the nation.

It will also be a Biden/Dem talking point about how the GOP congress cannot function independently without Trump approval and is that how we want the three branches of government to operate (or do we want checks and balances as the forefathers intended)?

Not saying it will work this time, but unpopular incumbents running against "do nothing" congresses has worked before by giving the incumbent a tangible foil to play against. Certainly worked for Truman and, to a lesser extent, Clinton.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

To keep Trump oyt of power we must elect the guy who wants Trump to be part of the policy making in this country.

This is so naive and such a misreading of the situation I almost think you are doing it on purpose.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Jas_lov

I don't think he wants Trump to be part of policy making. I think he just said that because he knows Trump won't work together and it will make Trump seem like the one who doesn't want to actually solve the problem.

I mean it is Trump's policy. So I think that part has been accomplished. He's just asking Trump to help pass a Trump policy.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I mean it is Trump's policy. So I think that part has been accomplished. He's just asking Trump to help pass a Trump policy.

Trump has no policy. He's already said the bill is bad. Biden is goading Trump into refusing to do nothing to lay bare the naked politics of his bad faith unwillingness to push his own party to fix a crisis (in their own words).

[JPhillips]

Sens Schatz and Murphy have been talking about this on twitter. They say polling shows the immigration issue zeros out for Dems once people are told the GOP rejected a solution.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

the GOP rejected a solution.

It was no solution.

The only acceptable solution is zero tolerance for illegal entry.

Anything else is just a form of surrender to an invasion.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Sens Schatz and Murphy have been talking about this on twitter. They say polling shows the immigration issue zeros out for Dems once people are told the GOP rejected a solution.

I wonder what the polls show on abortion and access to IVF, birth control, and maternal care. That is the only thing I'd be talking about if I was Biden and the Democrats. I would never stop talking about what happened in Alabama and laws in other states that will do the same thing and more.

Immigration is a dumb issue to focus on. Republicans have been running on it the last few elections and losing them all.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I wonder what the polls show on abortion and access to IVF, birth control, and maternal care. That is the only thing I'd be talking about if I was Biden and the Democrats. I would never stop talking about what happened in Alabama and laws in other states that will do the same thing and more.

Immigration is a dumb issue to focus on. Republicans have been running on it the last few elections and losing them all.

The Republicans do control the house and if they would've picked better candidates than Dr. Oz and Herschal Walker, could control the senate, not to mention they recently had the presidency.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

It was no solution.

The only acceptable solution is zero tolerance for illegal entry.

Anything else is just a form of surrender to an invasion.

I know you don't believe it, but this is just the right wing version of a lefty issue like "there should be no homelessness." In practical terms, neither is truly viable as an implementable policy.

[JPhillips]

Yeah Jon's plan is about as realistic as rainbows shooting out my butt. 3000 people per day for ten years isn't going to happen. It won't happen here and even if it did the home countries wouldn't take them back.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

In practical terms, neither is truly viable as an implementable policy.

Do what should have been done long ago:

Detain upon detection
Deport with great haste.
Eliminate all forms of U.S. aid in any fashion to any nation that delays the return of their citizens.

Make 2nd offense a capital crime.
Make providing any form of aid to offenders not in custody a first time capital offense.

Might not get to absolute zero, but it'd move the needle.

[Ksyrup]

And again, not going to happen.

I mean, there are technically ways to do a lot of things - none of which will ever happen. And if you're pretending like this is close to what the GOP proposed, of course you are wrong. They negotiated for the bill they eventually shot down, even though it had everything they publicly asked for.

Because doing something (amything) to at least start to address the issue is not what they want. They want an issue to run on. Screw doing anything that would actually help the country. Even if this is just a stepping stone solution, by definition it's better than doing nothing since it's such an immediate crisis. That incongruity cannot be explained away.