Thread: Senate immigration deal on life support

Senate immigration deal on life support

A bipartisan plan for Dreamers is facing stiff opposition from Trump and his GOP allies.

By BURGESS EVERETT and ELANA SCHOR
02/14/2018 12:11 PM EST
Updated 02/14/2018 09:16 PM EST

A bipartisan Senate proposal to protect thousands of young undocumented immigrants from deportation is struggling to survive.

While negotiators in both parties reached a tentative agreement on Wednesday evening, prospects were dim amid strong opposition from President Donald Trump and Senate Republicans as well as tepid buy-in from Democrats.

Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri said some of her fellow Democrats are "upset about" certain elements of the agreement, which she supports: "By and large, I'm hopeful that we'll get there, but some of this stuff is hard to take" for other Democrats. The White House is considering issuing a formal veto threat of the legislation, a White House official said late Wednesday.

Likewise, Republicans followed Trump's lead after he urged the Senate to defeat any amendment that does not mirror his own, which tackles border security, a path to citizenship for those in the Deferred Action for Child Arrivals program as well as cuts to legal immigration through the diversity lottery and family-based migration.

"The starting point should be something we know the president will support," said Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), who has been in talks with Democrats on immigration in recent weeks. “If it doesn’t have a reasonable approach for each of the four pillars, I can’t support it."

Senators in both parties raced to finish the text of their amendment in time for the Senate to consider their bipartisan proposal before the week ends. On Wednesday evening, a group of eight Republicans and eight Democrats co-sponsored the bill — leaving the measure several votes short of the required 60 votes.

The bipartisan amendment is led by Sens. Angus King (I-Maine) and Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) and it provides $25 billion for border security, a 10- to 12-year pathway to citizenship for hundreds of thousands of young undocumented immigrants and restrictions on those immigrants' parents becoming citizens. It would also bar legal permanent residents from sponsoring adult, unmarried children.

The proposal also outlines priorities for immigration enforcement, a move likely to rile immigration hardliners. The amendment prioritizes people convicted of crimes and those who pose a threat to national security. But when it comes to people only guilty of “unlawful presence” — in other words, law-abiding undocumented immigrants — it calls on immigration officers to focus on those who arrived after June 30, 2018.

Senators were also discussing reallocating the diversity lottery's 55,000 annual visas to a merit-based system, but that language was dropped Wednesday, a source familiar with the talks said.

“Each side has had to give a great deal, but we are closer than we have ever been to passing something in the Senate to help the Dreamers," said Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.).

The lead sponsors of the bill were Schumer, King, Rounds and Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine), Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), Chris Coons (D-Del.), Cory Gardner (R-Colo.), Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) and Mark Warner (D-Va.).

Despite that progress, Republicans who are committed to Trump's plan showed no signs of deviating from his four-pillar foundation to a narrower bill that would focus simply on border security and a path to legalization for some undocumented immigrants. Privately, some Republicans fumed a bill being sold as bipartisan had the fingerprints of Democratic leaders on it.

"The four pillars are what he would sign into law," said Sen. David Perdue of Georgia, a top Trump ally who panned the bipartisan agreement. "It also has to pass the House. This is the question for the United States Senate: Do we want to pass a bill, or do we want to pass a law?"

Democratic leaders gauged support from outside allies on the potential outlines of the bipartisan deal while awaiting its details, according to an aide. Democrats met at 5 p.m. Monday to discuss the proposal and senators were optimistic that their party would mostly fall in line.

Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) left the caucus meeting predicting "there will be consensus" among the minority around a "very simple" proposal, though he declined to say whether the bipartisan group's plan had been scaled back to win such broad support.

The centrist proposal is a last-minute response to most senators' view that the president's framework, and its cuts to legal immigration, cannot pass the Senate and its supermajority threshold. Short of a compromise on a narrow bill, some senators argue that nothing will pass to address the DACA program Trump is rescinding.

"We can do what we’ve done for the last 35 years, just quit and continue this mess. Or we can make this a substantial down payment on fixing a broken system," Graham said. Asked about what happens if the president explicitly condemns the deal, he replied: “Then we won’t go very far, and we’ll have three presidents that failed: Obama, Bush and Trump."

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...-senate-409201

"We can do what we’ve done for the last 35 years, just quit and continue this mess. Or we can make this a substantial down payment on fixing a broken system," Graham said. Asked about what happens if the president explicitly condemns the deal, he replied: “Then we won’t go very far, and we’ll have three presidents that failed: Obama, Bush and Trump."

No Lindsey, the Presidents didn't fail, the American People won. We don't want amnesty, we don't want DACA, we don't want TPS, we don't want illegal immigration into our country at all for any reason and when it happens, we don't want to reward it, we want them deported. That is our law, just and necessary law to protect the jobs, educations, resources and welfare of American citizens and those who came legally.

What is it about this that you as a big mouth former prosecutor don't understand??!! It doesn't matter why someone broke into your house and stole all your valuables, you want them prosecuted for grand larceny. Is that the type of prosecutor you were, Lindsey? Did you tell all the thieves and cheats and frauds, "oh, that's okay, you're free to go." Of course you didn't, so why do you bounce your butt to the United States Senate and do nothing but try to reward lawbreakers violating US immigration law? What kind of sick person are you?

Do you remember the Clinton impeachments hearings you were involved with? I do. I listened to your speech, it was the best damn speech I ever heard on the floor of the Congress. I was opposed to the impeachment of Bill Clinton over his affair with Monica Lewinski. I didn't believe lying about a private affair, totally consensual between two adults, was something that should have even been investigated, let alone used to try to remove a President from office. But your speech was almost convincing. One of the best I've ever heard.

So you wanted to overturn a US Presidential Election and remove a sitting President from Office because of a lie about a private consensual sexual affair that has nothing to do with anyone else, let alone the American Public, but you don't want to prosecute and deport illegal aliens stealing jobs, educations, resources, benefits and tax dollars from American citizens and running drugs, gangs, criminal enterprises of all types, and killing and raping Americans??!!! Really?? WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU??!!!!

I'll tell you what's wrong with you, you're a Wack-O-Doodle.

KILL THIS DACA DEAL BILL. KILL IT DEAD AS A DOOR NAIL and do it today.

Judy wrote (excerpt):

Do you remember the Clinton impeachments hearings you were involved with? I do. I listened to your speech, it was the best damn speech I ever heard on the floor of the Congress. I was opposed to the impeachment of Bill Clinton over his affair with Monica Lewinski. I didn't believe lying about a private affair, totally consensual between two adults, was something that should have even been investigated, let alone used to try to remove a President from office. But your speech was almost convincing. One of the best I've ever heard.

Former President, Bill Clinton, got exactly what he deserved in regards to the Monica Lewinski affair. He was her boss and used his position and authority to take advantage of the woman and her blue dress!

There is absolutely no evidence of that at all. She liked him. She really, really liked him, and I think he really liked her. Monica wasn't hurt by Bill Clinton. That's not to say other women weren't, but she wasn't. She was hurt by the scandal. Our country was hurt by the scandal.

Originally Posted by Judy

There is absolutely no evidence of that at all. She liked him. She really, really liked him, and I think he really liked her. Monica wasn't hurt by Bill Clinton. That's not to say other women weren't, but she wasn't. She was hurt by the scandal. Our country was hurt by the scandal.

She liked him in the way a groupie likes a rock star. Even she has since said he took advantage of her. I'm going to stick with what I said. As her boss he took advantage of her. In my mind that is wrong and grounds for firing in any work environment.

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

Bill Clinton didn't ruin her life. The US Congress and Special Counsel did. She couldn't even live her life in our country after this. A lot of women liked Bill Clinton.