The Parliamentarian Path to Victory - Take Action Now!
Democrats are trying "to use reconciliation to override any possibility of Republicans blocking the legalization of undocumented immigrants."
https://thehill.com/latino/563047-ma...in-budget-deal
The reason is because reconciliation "would be shielded from a Republican Senate filibuster. ... Yet perhaps Democrats' biggest hurdle is the Senate parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, who determines whether legislative language follows the chamber's rules."
https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden...9ab097bb168660
"The parliamentarian vets whether provisions of a bill passed using the legislative power known as budget reconciliation can evade a GOP filibuster and pass with a simple majority."
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/0...ackdoor-499778
And their argument for including amnesty in reconciliation is weak.
In one article after another I keep seeing the same argument. According to the Associated Press, "Democrats are pinning their hopes on a 2005 ruling by an earlier Senate parliamentarian that gave the green light to a narrower immigration proposal, though that provision never cleared Congress."
https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden...9ab097bb168660
According to Politico "lawmakers have pointed to a massive GOP-led bill in 2005 that included a measure to address a backlog of immigrant visas — which was allowed under the same arcane budget process but had much broader support from both parties."
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/0...ackdoor-499778
Pramila Jayapal, progressive caucus chair, referring to the 2005 bill, said that the "big question is what happens with the parliamentarian, but we have good precedent on the parliamentarian ruling in the past to include immigration provisions, we think that bodes very well"
https://thehill.com/latino/563047-ma...in-budget-deal
They are referring to an article in the Center for American Progress that stated that the "2005 precedent ... illustrates how legalization can pass the critical Byrd rule test"
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/0...ackdoor-499778
But according to James Wallner, Resident Senior Fellow, Governance, "the Senate did not create a precedent in 2005 that presently authorizes Democrats' effort to grant lawful permanent resident status to illegal aliens using the reconciliation process ... because the Senate did not adjudicate the question at any point during its debate in 2005. The Senate's presiding officer did not rule that the bill's initial immigration provisions were Byrd compliant. The full Senate did not adjudicate the question. The Senate adjudicated only one Byrd Rule point of order during the 2005 debate. And that point of order did not target the immigration provisions in the Judiciary title of the reconciliation bill."
https://www.rstreet.org/2021/07/21/i...the-byrd-rule/
Wallner also said that "the final version [21] of the legislation did not include any immigration provisions in its Judiciary title."
https://www.rstreet.org/2021/07/21/i...the-byrd-rule/
Wallner also said that the "lack of prior precedents combined with the controversy surrounding immigration policy in recent years suggests that including such provisions in a reconciliation bill violates the Byrd Rule."
https://www.rstreet.org/2021/07/21/i...the-byrd-rule/
This 2005 precedent has also caught the attention of NumbersUSA who said the following: "Some news organizations have reported that Democrats hold the likeness of a silver precedent bullet when it comes to adding amnesty to a Budget Reconciliation bill, pointing to a 2005 provision approved by the then Parliamentarian regarding the recapture of unused green cards.
It shouldn't need to be said, but equating the recapture of unused green cards to providing citizenship to approximately 8 million illegal aliens is a little too far of a jump to make."
https://www.numbersusa.com/news/gopd...ud-rec-package
So this 2005 precedent is being promoted by the mainstream media too.
But another article in the Federalist is even more devastating because it indicates that there is precedent against including immigration provisions in the reconcilition bill. According to the Federalist article under "Problem 3", the first bill that the Republicans introduced to repeal and replace Obamacare, "wanted to include more stringent citizenship and identity verification provisions for their (revised) subsidy regime than existed in Obamacare. Rep. Kevin Brady, R-Texas, then the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, specifically bragged about the stricter eligibility requirements during his committee's markup.
But in the waning days prior to the House floor vote, Republican leaders had to rewrite their bill. They removed all language creating a new verification regime because that regime—including its implications for Social Security—struck the Senate parliamentarian as potentially violating this 'Byrd rule' test (among others)."
https://thefederalist.com/2021/07/12...-mass-amnesty/
The reason was that the "Congressional Budget Act that governs the reconciliation process precludes any legislative provision 'that contains recommendations with respect to the old-age, survivors, and disability insurance program established under Title II of the Social Security Act.' Also, unlike the first problem above, in which a 'Byrd rule' point of order would mean the offending provision would get stricken from a reconciliation bill absent the votes of 60 senators, a violation of the Social Security point of order, or the committee jurisdiction point of order, would prove fatal to the entire bill. ... It quite logically follows that, if creating a citizenship and identity verification regime violated the 'Byrd rule' prohibition on changes to Social Security via budget reconciliation, changes to immigration laws—particularly a mass legalization program-would almost certainly violate the same provision. In other words, if ... immigration changes get attached to a budget reconciliation bill in the House, guidance from the parliamentarian could kill the entire bill in the Senate."
https://thefederalist.com/2021/07/12...-mass-amnesty/
In other words, giving illegal aliens a path to citizenship or legal status would allow them to get social security and that changes to social security are a violation of the Byrd rule and it would be unconstitutional.
"The Senate Judiciary Committee is taking the lead on crafting the immigration provisions of the bill."
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/0...mocrats-510605
And that would seem to me to be another potential violation of the Byrd rule listed under "Problem 2" in the Federalist article. "In both the Senate and the House, the Judiciary Committees retain jurisdiction over most elements of the immigration system, while most of the budgetary impacts of any immigration changes—changes in tax revenues and welfare spending—lie within the purview of the Senate Finance Committee.
The reconciliation process is grounded upon giving specific instructions to specific congressional committees—who can alter programs solely within their committee's jurisdiction—presenting a chicken-and-egg problem on issues like immigration. Giving a reconciliation instruction to the Judiciary Committee regarding immigration would yield little or no budgetary changes to programs within its jurisdiction, making it subject to be stricken under the 'Byrd rule.'
Conversely, giving a reconciliation instruction to the Finance Committee would only generate budgetary savings if the committee altered areas of law not within its jurisdiction—also verboten under the 'Byrd rule.' Either way, the process makes passing immigration provisions highly unlikely via reconciliation."
https://thefederalist.com/2021/07/12...-mass-amnesty/
And the Federalist article includes various legal examples for why passing amnesty through reconciliation is unconstitutional.
And Democrats seem to be aware of this. Democrat Congressman Yarmuth said, "there's some things we think we probably can pass the Byrd rule, but a lot can't."
https://www.rollcall.com/2021/07/07/...n-immigration/
A Politico article calls it an "immigration reform Hail Mary" and a "long shot even to liberals".
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/0...ackdoor-499778
And their approach seems to me to be a result of deception, desperation or delusion based on the following excerpts from a Politico article: "'I'm pretty confident,' Ruiz said, citing several studies about the policy’s economic impact, but he stressed that the goal was a measured approach that can satisfy the Senate budget rules. 'We will be flexible and continue to push throughout the entire process and get as far as we can get.' ... This time around lawmakers and advocates said they are taking a gentler lobbying approach, making sure not to look as if they are personally attacking the parliamentarian as they push for immigration reform to be included."
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/0...ackdoor-499778
Who are Democrats trying to convince, the parliamentarian or themselves and their base? It's not the progressive Democrat's approach that's wrong. It's that their arguments are unconstitutional and flawed.
Republicans in the West Virginia state legislature think that it is an absolute certainty that the parliamentarian will rule against the Democrats. In a letter to Senator Manchin, representatives of the West Virginia state legislature wrote the following: "We, the representatives of the people of the great State of West Virginia, ask that you hold to that standard when your party's leadership asks you to overrule the decision of the Senate Parliamentarian blocking illegal amnesty from the budget bill."
https://www.scribd.com/document/5159...hin-on-Amnesty
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...-corporations/
I think that the only way that the Parliamentarian doesn't rule in their favor is if Senate Republicans drop the ball either because of corruption or ignorance or the parliamentarian is corrupt.
According to CBS News "Congressional officials said they could receive a decision from the Senate parliamentarian as early as next week. If the first bid is not successful, Ruiz said Democrats will present a new case to the parliamentarian to vouch for the legalization program's inclusion."
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/immigra...ill-democrats/
"'Unlike minimum wage, it’s not a one-shot deal,' said Kerri Talbot, deputy director of the Immigration Hub and former chief counsel for Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J."
https://www.rollcall.com/2021/09/10/...rliamentarian/
So it appears there could be repeated arguments presented by Senators of both parties to the Senate Parliamentarian, so activist groups and Senate Republicans need a copy of the information in this post to use in potential future arguments in their case to the parliamentarian in case they don't have the information contained in this post.
As Wallner said, "Like all Senate rules, the Byrd Rule is not self-enforcing. Instead, senators must take the initiative to enforce it."
https://www.rstreet.org/2021/07/21/i...the-byrd-rule/
"Democratic staffers from the Senate Judiciary and Budget committees, as well as Senate leadership staffers, met with MacDonough to make their case that the immigration plan complies with the arcane rules that govern what can be included in the spending package."
"GOP staffers also pitched MacDonough on Friday about why the Democratic plan doesn't meet the requirements laid out for what can get included in the budget bill. They've been signaling for weeks that they would fight Democrats' plan to try to sidestep them on immigration."
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/...on-green-cards
So in addition to calling various Senate Democrats and threatening to do everything we can to vote them out if they support amnesty, we need to contact trustworthy Senate Republicans on the Judiciary Committee and activist groups who are trying to stop amnesty from going through.
At https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/about/members is a link to the names of every Senator on the Judicary Committee. I would recommend contacting Chuck Grassley, Mike Lee, Ted Cruz, Josh Hawley, and Marsha Blackburn.
At https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/abo...nd-immigration is a link to the names of every Senator on the Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, and Border Safety of the Judiciary Committee. I would recommend contacting Ted Cruz and Marsha Blackburn.
The following three groups should be contacted by phone and email. Their contact info is as follows:
Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR)
https://www.fairus.org/contact-us
NumbersUSA
https://www.numbersusa.com/help/contact
Center For Immigration Studies
https://cis.org/contact
The following 2 links contain the contact info for every U.S. Senator.
https://www.cop.senate.gov/general/c...nators_cfm.xml
https://www.cop.senate.gov/general/r...phone_list.pdf
I would recommend giving them links to copies of the following articles:
1. A Link to this post
2. No, Democrats Can’t Use Budget Reconciliation To Offer Mass Amnesty
https://thefederalist.com/2021/07/12...-mass-amnesty/
3. Immigration and the Byrd Rule
https://www.rstreet.org/2021/07/21/i...the-byrd-rule/
(This article includes additional information not covered in this post.)
4. Can Democrats Go It Alone on Immigrant Amnesty?
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/ar...igrant-amnesty
They may have all this information and they may already have presented it to the Senate Parliamentarian but this is just to make sure.
My prediction is that if Senate Republicans do their job, and the parliamentarian isn't corrupt, the most likely scenario is that the parliamentarian will rule in their favor, Senate Democrats will likely back down after that and this attempt at amnesty will be dead.
According to a Breitbart article, Democrats "need the support of the Senate's parliamentarian to get their amnesty measure through the Senate. But Democrat budget chief Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) suggested that the official could be replaced if she objects to the inclusion of amnesty measures in the spending bill.
That is also a risky maneuver because the firing would give some Democrat Senators an easy excuse to stall the bill."
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...udget-amnesty/
Dick Durbin said that they will try to pass amnesty through reconciliation "if the parliamentarian gives us a green light".
https://www.rollcall.com/2021/07/13/...e-budget-bill/
Back in February when Democrats were trying to stuff a minimum wage increase into a reconciliation bill, Joe Manchin said, "My only vote is to protect the Byrd Rule: Hell or high water ... Everybody knows that. I'm fighting to defend the Byrd Rule. The President knows that."
https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/16/polit...age/index.html
Senator Kyrsten Sinema said, "The minimum wage provision is not appropriate for the reconciliation process. It is not a budget item. And it shouldn’t be in there."
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/0...mocrats-468768
And amnesty isn't a budget item either so if amnesty is rammed through in the reconciliation bill, instead of making illegal aliens Americans, it will make them "unconstitutional budget items".
Sinema also said, "There is no instance in which I would overrule a parliamentarian's decision ... I want to restore the 60-vote threshold for all elements of the Senate's work."
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/0...mocrats-468768
Nevada Democratic Senator Jacky Rosen said, "That's going to be up to the parliamentarian—what's in there. We'll leave that to her discretion ... And then, based on that, we'll decide where the appropriate place is for it."
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...tructure-bill/
Now I'm sure the far left will try to push them to override the parliamentarian but I think it is likely that there will be at least one Senate Democrat who won't do that. But if the parliamentarian rules in the Democrats favor, then they will try to use that as legal cover to ram through amnesty in the reconciliation bill.
