The Senate might not reach an immigration deal — and people are worried about what co

The Senate might not reach an immigration deal — and people are worried about what comes next


February 13, 2018

Joe Perticone

• The Senate is moving forward with debate on a potential compromise to fix DACA and provide border security.
• Republicans and Democrats are at odds on how to proceed.
• Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has set a timetable of completing any deal by the end of the week.

---

WASHINGTON — Congress is advancing on a plan to address both border security and the undocumented immigrants benefitting from the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program as part of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's commitment several weeks ago that ended the federal government shutdown.

But the Republicans and Democrats in the Senate remain fiercely divided on what kind of bill they would be willing to vote for — on top of whether President Donald Trump would sign the final product.

McConnell began Tuesday by begging Democrats to move forward with the amendment process to a shell bill now on the Senate floor. McConnell also stressed that any immigration fix has to come by call of business Thursday when Congress departs for a weeklong recess.

"Look, this is an issue we've been talking about literally for years," McConnell told reporters. "Something passed the Senate in 2013, we spent three months talking to the Democrats about this. There's no reason in the world why if there is a core 60 votes to support something, we can't achieve it in the next few days. So that's the timetable."

But Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer signaled he was not on board with McConnell's plea for Democrats to start offering amendments that would each receive a fair shake on the floor. Rather, Schumer wants the Senate to vote on two separate bills — one based on Trump's outline of immigration principlesissued last month, and the other on the text of the compromise deal between Sens. John McCain and Chris Coons.

Schumer acknowledged that neither proposal would pass a 60-vote threshold, but he said it would give senators a better picture on what kind of compromises could be made.
"That will tell us sort of the bounds," Schumer said in a press conference. "I don't think either of them will get large bipartisan support, but it will give us an idea of the parameters and can set us moving."


Some senators have strict nonstarters in any final bill

Some Republicans have already drawn lines in the sand over certain proposals, which could make the push to get 60 votes in favor of a bill that much harder.Sen. Ted Cruz told reporters he has no intention of backing a plan that provides a pathway to citizenship for DACA recipients and that nothing currently being considered would satisfy him.

"I do not believe we should be granting citizenship to people here illegally," Cruz said. "Right now there are a variety of amnesty proposals circulating, all of which I think are a bad idea."

In addition, Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake is at odds with the White House on curbs to legal immigration levels. MSNBC reported on Monday that Flake would be a hard "no" on any bill with such a proposal.


Major concern if the Senate fails to reach a deal by the end of the week

Schumer sidestepped McConnell's end-of-week timetable, telling reporters that "we're gonna keep fighting in every way we can."
"But right now our focus is getting to 60. That's gonna take a lot of push and pull, a lot of compromise," Schumer added. "No one is gonna get everything they want. That's how we work around here."

But Republicans suggested there is a real danger in failing to come up with a solution this week.

"We can't lose sight of the fact that even though the court case has allowed DACA eligible persons to go back and reapply, there's a real deadline out there everybody should be mindful of," Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina told Business Insider.
"If there's no deal by the end of the week, I think that leaves the DACA recipients in some jeopardy," added Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn.



http://www.businessinsider.com/will-...ca-deal-2018-2

They're in jeopardy because they're in our country in violation of US immigration law. You want to change the law and let children hauled in here by parents and smugglers become citizens because they didn't come here "through any fault of their own", then change the law, but unless you change the law so it applies equally to everyone, then your legislation is unlawful because it violates the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, the naturalization clause of the US Constitution, and yes, even the ex post facto clause of the US Constitution, in addition to the US Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Senate immigration debate quickly stalls

McConnell remarks on immigration debate on Senate floor
Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell spoke in morning remarks about the immigration proposal on the table from Republican senators.




And Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is giving senators only one week to find a solution for Dreamers.


By BURGESS EVERETT and ELANA SCHOR
02/13/2018 11:26 AM EST


Updated 02/13/2018 05:24 PM EST


The Senate's much-anticipated immigration debate stalled on Tuesday with party leaders feuding over how to even begin.
And there may not be much time left to reach a deal, as Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced that the Senate's work on a solution to the expiring Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program would be limited to this week.

“Senators have had plenty of time to prepare,” the Kentucky Republican said. “There’s no reason why we should not reach a bipartisan solution this week. But to do this, we need to get the debate started, look past making political points and focus on actually making law.”

McConnell later attempted to set up floor votes on a sanctuary cities amendment from Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) and a competing proposal chosen by Democrats. But Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) objected, saying the Toomey language "doesn't address Dreamers, nor does it address border security" — the two basic elements underpinning this week's debate over the fate of hundreds of thousands of young undocumented immigrants who will soon be at risk of deportation.

"Let’s get this debate started on the right foot," Schumer said. He proposed a pair of votes, on a GOP amendment to implement the president's immigration framework and, from Democrats, a bill by Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Chris Coons (D-Del.) that addresses Dreamers as well as border security. The McCain-Coons proposal, which includes no border wall funding, has no support from the White House and would almost surely fail to get 60 votes.

McConnell chided Democrats later Tuesday for their objection, telling reporters, "I'm not trying to dictate to" Democrats which option they should put up for an initial vote, so the minority "shouldn't be trying to dictate to us" which GOP proposal to call up.

Several Republican senators were under the impression last week that McConnell could allow multiple weeks of debate. That prospect seems to have faded, though, as senators race to submit their amendments to a blank immigration bill now on the Senate floor.

Democratic leaders also suggested Tuesday that the immigration debate could wrap up by this week. Schumer told reporters that "if we can get a bipartisan compromise that looks like it's right in the ballpark of 60, let it rip. Let's go."

Two Republican amendments are expected to be ready imminently: The Republican effort to codify President Donald Trump's immigration framework and a compromise plan from Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) that follows some of the contours of Trump’s vision.

Senate Democrats are also considering whether to introduce a partisan Democratic bill, according to one Democratic senator, and several bipartisan proposals are under discussion. Flake is also expected to introduce a bare-bones amendment enshrining DACA protections for three years in exchange for some increased border security.

But Republicans have chafed at talk of a centrist proposal to protect people eligible for DACA offered by Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Dick Durbin (D-Ill.). The pair have yet to officially introduce their idea.

“I’ve got everything ready. I can give them five amendments today if he wants them,” Durbin responded on Tuesday. “And [McConnell] knows what’s in these things. It’s no secret.”

Durbin said he’s trying to fuse border security and protections for DACA recipients with some changes to family-based immigration. He said both Trump’s plan and the DREAM Act supported by Democrats will fail on their own: “It has to be something in between.”

Graham, like Durbin, declined to commit to pushing for a vote on a version of their plan. The ideal outcome, Graham said on Tuesday, remains "a consensus amendment that can get 70 votes." He called the GOP version of Trump's immigration framework "pretty good," calling for "some compromise off that proposal," though he declined to say he would vote for it.

Once senators in both parties produce some amendments, McConnell is prepared to hold alternating votes between Democratic and Republican immigration amendments, according to a Republican senator. That senator predicted none will get 60 votes in the current political environment.
“This is a very difficult issue. We’re all aware of that,” said Schumer on Tuesday. “We’re on the verge, it’s still hard. We’re not there yet, but we can get something done.”

McConnell is supporting Trump’s framework to cut legal immigration, provide $25 billion in wall funding and establish a pathway to citizenship for 1.8 million young immigrants. But the plan faces overwhelming opposition from Senate Democrats, giving it no realistic path to 60 votes in its current form.

“I believe it deserves support of every senator who’s ready to move beyond making points and actually making a law," McConnell said. "But if other proposals are to be considered, our colleagues will have to actually introduce their own amendments rather than just talk about them."

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...connell-407269

"There is no right way to do a wrong thing."

May the squabbling continue.

GRIDLOCK! GRIDLOCK!! GRIDLOCK!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GeorgiaPeach

"There is no right way to do a wrong thing."

May the squabbling continue.

---

EXACTLY!!! Furthermore, it's totally unconstitutional, because it all violates the 14th Amendment, the uniform naturalization clause as well as the ex post facto clause of the US Constitution. DACA AMNESTY like any AMNESTY for violations of existing and continuing law is ILLEGAL in the United States. You have to repeal the law they broke and THEN grant amnesty. These Congresscritters are so frigging stupid, it's just unbelievable.

They have been "debating" stinking Amnesty since 1986!

Nothing to debate...deport them ALL.

NO COMPROMISE AND NO DAMN DEAL!

NOT ONE TAXPAYER DIME TO UNDOCUMENTED FOREIGN CITIZENS WHO ARE IN THIS COUNTRY ILLEGALLY NO MATTER WHAT ROCK THEY CRAWLED OUT FROM!

The courts should have been called in on the Reagan Amnesty. It was as illegal as this one they're talking about. It's just proof beyond doubt that our Congress does not understand the US Constitution at all.

Democrats’ Filibuster Blocks Senate Immigration Debate

http://media.breitbart.com/media/201...06-640x480.jpg

February 13, 2018

Neil Munro


Democrats are blocking GOP Senators from debating proposals sought by GOP voters during the Senate’s debate on immigration, and are demanding the Senate only discuss the terms of an amnesty for millions of illegals.

The surprise Democratic filibuster began Tuesday morning when the Senate’s Majority Leader, GOP Sen. Mitch McConnell, introduced an amendment restricting sanctuary cities, which polls show are very unpopular. Sen. Chuck Schumer quickly refused consent, saying it “doesn’t address dreamers, nor does it address border security.”

“We need to be focusing on making laws that deal with those two issues, not making a point,” Schumer later told reporters. “We want to do two things – protect Dreamers and get 60 votes.”


“The path to sixty [votes] is by focusing” on just those issues, said Sen. Chris Coons who has drafted an amnesty bill with GOP Sen. John McCain. “I think we should stay on this topic until we get this job done,” Coons said, adding:

If we build bipartisanship in solving this, something that has long been the hallmark of Senator [John] McCain’s leadership in this body for more than three decades, I think we then lay the groundwork for bigger and more important work.

When asked by a reporter how the chain migration issue could be split from citizenship for younger illegal immigrants, Schumer simply widened the Democrats’ demands by suggesting that the illegal-immigrant parent’s young illegals should also get amnesty. “The parents are not outside the scope [of the ‘dreamer’ issue] — it is one of the issues we are looking at.”



The Democrats’ ‘dreamer’ bills are intended to win amnesty for at least 3.25 million young illegals, regardless of their huge cost and their impact on Americans’ workplaces and communities.


The Democrats’ demand for a focus on the illegals and “border security” would silence debate about the GOP’s popular plans to curb or end sanctuary cities, chain migration, the visa lottery, and the border loopholes which create “catch and release” laws which require the government help move unskilled migrants and MS-13 gang members into the United States. The gag order would also silence any debate on the workplace and civic impacts of mass-immigration.


In his press conference, McConnell slammed Democrats’ filibuster, while also shrugging off objections from the pro-amnesty reporters. McConnell said:

There is no reason in the world that if there is a core 60 votes to support something we can’t achieve it in the next few days … I’m not trying to dictate to them what they offer, they should not be trying to dictate to us what we offer, we ought to just get started …
I appreciate your advice about how to handle this — we’ll decide the order in which we offer our [amendments], and I’m not trying to dictate to them the order which they may offer their [amendments] … We need to get started. We could have voted on amendments today.

We’ve got multi-days here to deal with an issue we’ve been talking about for a very long time. There is no reason not to come together and get a solution this week. This has been going on endlessly — they shut down the government over this [in January]. I want to see what they want to do. I assumed they had an idea here to lay before the Senate since they took us into a government shutdown. They actually requested the date that I ended up agreeing to … Where’s the [Democratic] plan?

Under Senate rules, debates proceed 30 hours after a proposal is made, unless the Senators provide unanimous consent. Schumer and his Democrats are denying the “UC,” but once the 30 hours are up, McConnell will be able to force the Democrats to debate or vote on various amendments, likely on Thursday.


The Democrats’ reluctance to debate the issues is also highlighted by their refusal to submit any proposed amendments, even though GOP Senators had already submitted almost 10 proposals, a Capitol Hill source said early afternoon. “The Democrats have not offered a single amendment yet … they don’t want to have an immigration debate – they only want a DACA debate. That’s not what we agreed to have a debate on.”


“We’re going to keep fighting every way we can,” Schumer told reporters while repeating his demand that GOP-leaning amendments be kept out of the debate. He said:

We Democrats have always said that the issue of family unification is something not part of ‘dream.’ If you want to do that .. but tot put that as part of the mix here makes no sense … Once you go outside the boundaries of border security, dreamers, experience shows you run amuck.

The Democratic filibuster reflects the popularity of the President Donald Trump’s 2016 immigration proposals — and the unpopularity of the Democrats’ pro-amnesty, pro-migration, pro-cheap labor policies.


Immigration polls which ask people to pick a priority or decide which options are fair, show that voters in the polling booth put a high priority on helping their families and fellow nationals get decent jobs in a high-tech, high-immigration, low-wage economy. Those results are very different from the “Nation of Immigrants” polls which are funded by business and progressives, and which pressure Americans to say they welcome migrants.


http://www.breitbart.com/2018-electi...ration-debate/

DACA should go to the SUpreme Court where there will be some ideological votes. But where is the legal justification for taking a essential element of the constitution---naturalization---and saying one elected politician can take the scissors to it and just do what he wants? Where is there any precedent for this? How can it apply to one narrow group of people and not the rest with illegal status. It's arbitrary and exceeding the Executive authority.

If the Administration can't come up with such basic and essential arguments maybe they need to be in another business.

There are 2 issues, whether the President has the constitutional authority to permit illegal activity and then the other issue of whether Congress can exempt a narrow group for illegal activity. Neither have the authority because both violate the Constitution.

I'm sure if Congress chose to exempt these DACA people, there would suddenly be lawsuits from the ACLU, et al, that such was a discriminatory policy. Sort of a one size fits all argument. Never mind that they are technically not here and thus do not have standing in a court of law (who is "Jose Enrique Gonzlaez?"----I dunno, he lives in Mexico but we are bringing a lawsuit on his behalf and a couple million friends"). The ACLU or LULAC or whoever would just go jurisdiction shopping to find a sympathetic judge, just as they have in the last week to further DACA.

I've been posting on this for awhile here, but people don't seem to be able to get their heads around it for some reason. We have a 14th Amendment that guarantees equal protection under the law, that means equal treatment under the law. That means especially equal treatment and equal protection under the law from the law. Because of the 14th Amendment, no Congress or State can pass laws that treat certain people better or worse than others. Our laws must apply equally to everyone.

An amnesty is meant to forgive those who broke a law before a law was changed. Take the draft amnesty as an example. Soldiers who dodged the draft and went to Canada were eventually given amnesty so they could come back home, AFTER the draft was repealed. If we hopefully some day end the War on Drugs by repealing those federal laws, an amnesty would be appropriate for those currently incarcerated or on parole or whatever, AFTER you repeal those laws. You wouldn't give an amnesty to drug laws while they're still in effect any more than you would give an amnesty for dodging the draft while a draft was still in effect.

But here with illegal aliens, just as the stupid Congress did in 1986, you are giving an amnesty to illegal aliens who violated US immigration law without first repealing the law, the laws continue to exist and are applied to everyone else. YOU CAN'T DO THAT. It's unconstitutional.

Makes you wonder about all the lawyers in Congress, doesn't it? Most of them are former prosecutors. Prosecutors who don't know the different between a honest legal amnesty after repealing a law and a discriminatory pile of crap that exempts certain groups from existing law still applied to everyone else in as blatant and bold a manner as "amnesty" for illegal aliens aren't exactly the right people to be in charge of the criminal justice system, let alone the US Congress.

And for anyone wondering, the answer is no, the US Congress does NOT have the authority to discriminate, it has the obligation to uphold our Constitution in all laws it passes. No branch of government has the authority to create special classes of people who are above the law, not the Courts, not the Congress, not the Executive Branch. They are all bound to the US Constitution including the 14th Amendment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

I've been posting on this for awhile here, but people don't seem to be able to get their heads around it for some reason. We have a 14th Amendment that guarantees equal protection under the law, that means equal treatment under the law. That means especially equal treatment and equal protection under the law from the law. Because of the 14th Amendment, no Congress or State can pass laws that treat certain people better or worse than others. Our laws must apply equally to everyone.

An amnesty is meant to forgive those who broke a law before a law was changed. Take the draft amnesty as an example. Soldiers who dodged the draft and went to Canada were eventually given amnesty so they could come back home, AFTER the draft was repealed. If we hopefully some day end the War on Drugs by repealing those federal laws, an amnesty would be appropriate for those currently incarcerated or on parole or whatever, AFTER you repeal those laws. You wouldn't give an amnesty to drug laws while they're still in effect any more than you would give an amnesty for dodging the draft while a draft was still in effect.

But here with illegal aliens, just as the stupid Congress did in 1986, you are giving an amnesty to illegal aliens who violated US immigration law without first repealing the law, the laws continue to exist and are applied to everyone else. YOU CAN'T DO THAT. It's unconstitutional.

Makes you wonder about all the lawyers in Congress, doesn't it? Most of them are former prosecutors. Prosecutors who don't know the different between a honest legal amnesty after repealing a law and a discriminatory pile of crap that exempts certain groups from existing law still applied to everyone else in as blatant and bold a manner as "amnesty" for illegal aliens aren't exactly the right people to be in charge of the criminal justice system, let alone the US Congress.

And for anyone wondering, the answer is no, the US Congress does NOT have the authority to discriminate, it has the obligation to uphold our Constitution in all laws it passes. No branch of government has the authority to create special classes of people who are above the law, not the Courts, not the Congress, not the Executive Branch. They are all bound to the US Constitution including the 14th Amendment.

---

That is what I have said, in effect, you cannot give a free pass to people who are breaking our Laws that exist on the books. You cannot say...oh, you came here 30 years ago...our laws to not apply to you...but they apply to everybody else.

Does not matter if they came 30 years ago or 30 minutes ago. They ALL need to be deported.

Same with the Student Visa. Foreign citizens apply to come here and get approved to attend our schools. These illegal aliens do not. They need to be booted OUT of our schools. You cannot have one set of laws and rules for people who come here illegally and another set for those who come legally!

Does not matter how old they were when they came here. Our laws apply to 8 year citizens who break our laws, commit murder, rape, etc!

No papers, no rights, no entry!

Exactly. Any amnesty for any illegal alien for any reason when the law they violated is still existing and in effect, violates the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, the uniform naturalization and ex post facto clauses of the US Constitution as well as the US Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Such amnesties are racist, discriminatory, illegal and unconstitutional, whether done by a President, a Congress and yes, even a Court.