Senate parliamentarian deals blow to Dems' immigration push

[Omaha Steve]

Source: AP

By ALAN FRAM

WASHINGTON (AP) — Democrats can’t use their $3.5 trillion package bolstering social and climate programs to give millions of immigrants a chance to become citizens, the Senate’s parliamentarian said late Sunday, a crushing blow to what was the party’s clearest pathway in years to attaining that long-sought goal.

The decision by Elizabeth MacDonough, the Senate’s nonpartisan interpreter of its often enigmatic rules, is a damaging and disheartening setback for President Joe Biden, congressional Democrats and their allies in the pro-immigration and progressive communities. It badly damages Democrats’ hopes of unilaterally enacting — over Republican opposition — changes letting several categories of immigrants gain permanent residence and possibly citizenship.

MacDonough’s decision was described by a person informed about the ruling who would describe it only on condition of anonymity.

The parliamentarian decided that the immigration language could not be included in an immense bill that’s been shielded from GOP filibusters. Left vulnerable to those bill-killing delays, which require 60 Senate votes to defuse, the immigration provisions have virtually no chance in the 50-50 Senate.



Dozens of dump trucks form a barrier as security measures are put into place before a rally near the U.S. Capitol in Washington, Saturday, Sept. 18, 2021. The rally was planned by allies of former President Donald Trump and aimed at supporting the so-called "political prisoners" of the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol. (AP Photo/Gemunu Amarasinghe)


Read more: https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-immigration-e590795e4593feccb2d966090a633be7

[PoliticAverse]

1. Completely expected. Did the Democrats have 50 votes for that proposal? n/t

[Hoyt]

2. Support immigration measures. But we can't expect infrastructure to pass if

we keep adding — critics will say “piling on” — more stuff. The whole infrastructure is going to get scuttled and/or slashed if too much more is added at this point.

Consider stand alone legislation for immigration, etc. I get it will be tough to pass as a stand-alone, but it’ll be tough to pass in infrastructure too.

[DallasNE]

3. This Is The Second Time

The Parliamentarian has killed a Democratic bill. Sadly, it seems like the right decision as the Budget Reconciliation law is there to apply to monetary matters. Killing the filibuster would, however, tear down that barrier. Getting rid of that Jim Crow era rule really makes sense.

[Mr.Bill]

4. The Parliamentarian does not have the final say in this or any other matter.

Shumer has the authority to over-rule it. Let me think...what would McConnell do?

[FBaggins]

9. Schumer does NOT have the authority to overrule

It takes 51 votes to do so.

Unless you think that he can get unanimous consent?

[Cryptoad]

5. Senate's parliamentarian told teh GOP no,,,,,,

and they were fired and and a new one was hired that would say yes..... funny how that works. sounds like the ticket to me!

[AZSkiffyGeek]

6. So you want Democrats to act like Republicans?

Just ignore the rules and do whatever the fuck they want?

Sounds ethically sound. I know I want Democrats to break rules when ever they feel like. That’s a good way to distinguish ourselves from Republicans.
/s

[rpannier]

15. Break what rules?

It's perfectly legitimate to do so
From what I have been able to find, there is no rule that says you cannot fire this person because they want someone else
We're never going to get anything passed unless we start playing harder -- as a friend of mine would say, "Fire up a high hard one on an 0, 2 pitch just to remind them you're not f-ing around."

[Orrex]

7. I remember all of the Republican measures that their parliamentarian blocked

Oh wait.

[tritsofme]

14. I remember too, she chopped up their ACA repeal, and struck big pieces of their tax giveaway.

[Orrex]

17. The repeal was doomed anyway. The massive tax giveaway happened anyway

When Dems are pleading their case in 2022, they can always say "but our mean parliamentarian prevented us from doing all of that great stuff we promised in 2020. Vote for us again, and this time we'll get it done for sure. Honest!"

[Orrex]

8. It'll be great when the Democrats one day control the House, Senate and Whitehouse

And before anyone replies with some clever rejoinder about procedural minutiae or vote-tallies or whatever, I would like to mention that the constituents didn't vote in Democratic majorities on the promise of endlessly self-hamstrung proposals, nor will such excuses win the 2022 midterms.

[riversedge]

10. "It makes zero sense that you can spend trillions of dollars or give away trillions in tax cuts with

@brhodes
·
1h
It makes zero sense that you can spend trillions of dollars or give away trillions in tax cuts with 50 votes, but can't fix a broken immigration system or protect voting rights unless you have 60 votes. This is obvious, but that is somehow irrelevant in American politics.

Link to tweet

?s=20

[riversedge]

11. The GOP fired the parliamentarian in 2001 to get the Bush tax cut passed. It's time for the Dems to

add voting rights bill to this and do it or reform the
filibuster. past time to get things DONE!

The GOP fired the parliamentarian in 2001 to get the Bush tax cut passed. It's time for the Dems to fire the parliamentarian and pass immigration reform and a higher minimum wage.

[sarcasmo]

12. +1

[FBaggins]

16. This ignores a critical difference

The full Senate determines what the rules are - and some previous senates have overruled the chair and/or parliamentarian.

But this isn't a Senate rule. It's a law. Which means that the courts are the final arbiter.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

13. Sens. Durbin and Padilla say they have a plan B following the Senate parliamentarian's ruling

Link to tweet

[ripcord]

18. I don't understand the anger against the Parliamentarian

She is interpreting the rule correctly, everyone knows that immigration doesn't belong in a budget reconciliation bill.