Isn't that the WALL Mexico is paying for...???
When the global population overshoot collapses into cannibalism, it will just be another case of history repeating.
3
Just wondering... When did the "TO BE PAID FOR BY MEXICO" part get dropped from the wall proposal? It's almost like this is a bait-and-switch from a grifter.
1
A president who's wife has benefited from family reunification (so called chain migration) is against family reunification when it comes to other immigrants. What else is this if not sheer hypocrisy?
Chain migration refers to parents and brothers and sisters and adult children.
It does not refer to spouses and minor children.
Yes, allowing even spouses can lead to an abbreviated version of chain migration, given that the spouse can divorce, but remain and become a citizen, then sponsor a new spouse for immigration.
And the minor children will reach adulthood, and marry and their spouses might also be immigrants.
But those chains are likely to be shorter -- and slower to grow in length because encumbered by more time lags for each link in the chain -- than chains explicitly allowing parents and brothers and sisters and adult children.
Like everything else in this world, the question is one of drawing lines -- and then enforcing the decision about the lines drawn.
The nuclear family -- spouse and minor children -- is a better place to draw the line than the extended family -- parents, brothers, sisters, adult children, etc.
6
Development, Relief and Education for Appalachian Miners, DREAM, is catchy and should curry a lot of favor with the public.
3
Here's an odd thought - we have laws. If we can't abide by them then we should change them. If not, why have any laws at all?
8
I wish I could share the optimism that the Senate and the House will vote for the Dreamers and give them a path to citizenship. The only reason Mitch McConnell has agreed to have an open debate is because he double crossed some of the Republicans on the Tax Reform bill. I would not be surprised if he shuts down the debate if he does not like the way it is going.
There actually should be two discussions. One on just the Dreamers fate.
Then one on a comprehensive Immigration policy. Ideally everyone should come to the United States legally. But life is never ideal.
The Senate and the House need to take a realistic approach in how to handle new Immigration policy, not pander to the different constituents of each party.
It is the job of our Politicians to level the playing field for all in this country, which they seem to have forgotten. I hope they keep this in mind while they are debating.
They need to do what is best for the country, not what is best for Trump.
They can override his veto if necessary.
And the Wall should be a different debate altogether. It requires money, which if I remember correctly Orin Hatch said we did not have any extra money to spend.
Besides, I thought Mexico was going to pay for the wall. At least according to what Trump has stated many times.
1
Trump is asking for 25 billion dollars in a trust fund for a 10 year-border security plan, including infrastructure -- a wall or a fence -- and technology, personnel etc.
That is 2.5 billion dollars per year.
Much less than 1/1000th of the 4 trillion-dollar-a-year total federal budget.
Worth every penny -- certainly worth more than many other things in that total budget.
3
Open debate is fine but it might better occur after the appropriate Senate Committee has held hearings with experts, all affected parties and with public input. The committee then develops proposed legislation which is brought to the full Senate for debate, changes, amendments and a vote. By short cutting the more deliberative process we are likely to either end up with a poorly thought out law or nothing at all. The DACA issue needs swift resolution so why not just codify it the way it was before Trump cancelled it and then get to work on a rational comprehensive immigration policy which we can all live with.
1
While I'm sympathetic and empathitic to the young DACA kids and their plight under this disguised global capitalist Empire and faux-Emperor Trump ---- any serious anti-Empire, anti-war, anti-racist, and pro-democracy Revolutionally thinkers must keep in the forefront of their minds that the single 'issue' of DACA is just a tertiary footnote to a sub-section of a sub-section of the overall massive problem of igniting an essential Second American "Revolution Against Empire", since the cancerous tumor of EMPIRE is the core metastasizing disease needing to be expunged / 'excised' from our body-politic.
Focusing heavily on any one of the hundreds of little 'identity issues' --- [see 'ResistandProtests' over 200 little protest issues] ---- is exactly the type of distraction, dis-empowering, and most dangerously 'dividing' tactics that the 'smoother-lying' neoliberal-con 'D' Vichy party of the Empire uses to keep truly revolutionary and anti-Empire focus from consolidating into an effective solidarity of a single mass movement against this disguised global capitalist Empire.
Of course, the 'rougher-talking' neocon 'R' Vichy party working for the exact same Empire doesn't need as sophisticated a media/propaganda scheme to fool the less intelligent right-wingers into voting against their own interests --- [see Thomas Frank's breakthrough diagnosis of the simpler Republican deceit in his "What's the Matter with Kansas" 2005.]
2
What debate? Stop handing our citizenship to Mexicans! Most illegals are Mexicans. Let them go home. They are great people. Let them be great people in Mexico.
15
I am social worker in a sanctuary city right outside Boston. Most of my clients are illegal immigrants who are unemployed, have substance abuse issues, untreated mental health diagnosis, and high rates of domestic violence. A huge rate of these children end up in the foster care system. Guess who is paying for all of this? Taxpayers! Seeing all the problems illegal immigrants bring to our communities is infuriating. Also, we are obligated to offer them free daycare so taxpayers lose out on daycares because we have to provide it to families who are illegal. We need stricter immigrations laws it is completely out of control.
19
Unfortunately, federal judges have decided, in their infinite wisdom, that so-called due process under the Constitution supposedly requires not only extravagantly assiduous -- and time-consuming and expensive -- procedures in general -- but also the same procedures for anyone who manages to set foot inside the USA -- whether or not a citizen and whether or not legally authorized to be here. In short, it is olly olly oxen, all in free.
That simply re-enforces the need for very strong control -- much stronger than currently --- right at the border -- in the form of very strong physical barriers -- right at the border -- and very heavily staffed border patrol -- right at the border -- to make it as difficult as possible even to set foot inside the USA without legal authorization.
Airports?? That requires very strong measures -- heavy fines -- against airlines who allow anyone on board at the foreign departure point who does not have a valid US visa.
Visa overstays?? That requires very strong measures to thoroughly vet all visa applicants -- including applicants for visitor/tourist visas --- and that means vet not only for criminal histories/propensities/intentions but also vet -- deeply vet --for financial wherewithal to support themselves while here -- and pay for their return flight and to pay seriously substantial fines for visa overstays -- maybe even secured by substantial up-front cash security deposits -- and, if necessary, severely numerically restrict the number of visas available to persons from countries which have a history of large numbers of visa overstayers.
BTW -- half of all visa overstayers come from Mexico or other Latin American countries. That is in addition to nearly all the border jumpers coming from there.
5
How many clients do you have that fit this description?
You sound like Trump, who uses a broad brush to paint all immigrants as violent thugs who bring drugs and disease into the country and add nothing to the fabric of our country.
I thought Social Workers were supposed to be compassionate and keep the confidences of those they serve. You might want to try another line of work.
1
Most of the discussion revolves around DACA kids and their parents who are mostly from Mexico and neighboring countries. However there are so many naturalized citizens and permanent residents who come from Asian countries who have paid their taxes, who have been law abiding members of the society and followed all the legal processes, and have tried to integrate themselves within the community as best as possible. Many of them have aged parent(s) in their countries of origin and given the intensity of family/work life in the US can hardly manage one short trip a year to their countries of origin. The only way for them to spend some quality time with their parents is to have their parents stay here with them for an extended period of time. The least they can do is change the immigration proposal to allow immigrants to sponsor their aged parents for a green card. For some people who oppose legal immigration, I am sure it must feel nice to be surrounded by your family and rely on them for social and emotional support whenever needed.
6
I'm sure there are no objections to having aged parents come to stay. The problem comes up when they are eventually eligible for, food stamps, medicare and other government assistance when they haven't paid a dime into the system. Multiply this x thousands of aged elderly parents and we have a budget problem.
7
Until 50 or 60 years ago, nearly all immigrants to the USA left their parents and brothers and sisters behind -- in the old country -- forever -- often never to be seen again ---even on visits. That is what it meant to emigrate.
If you want to be an immigrant, you need to be prepared to start your life here anew -- on your own.
Yes, take advantage of modern inexpensive travel by air to visit them there.
Or have them visit you here, as long as you undertake serious measures to support them financially -- in full -- including all health care -- while they are here and to secure their return.
But do not expect to bring them with you - certainly not permanently.
A green card means legal permanent residence. So, no to that.
8
Here is the solution.
-Make DACA residents legal. Kick out their families after kid turn 18. They can then apply for a visa or citizenship.
-Trump can ask for a wall to be built with private money. If it is good enough for our infrastructure plan, it should work great. Besides, he has fleeced America so the wealthy can make more money. 25 billion is a drop in the hat to support their dictator.
-Deal with the other immigration issues down the road.
1
The role of the Senate is to serve as a deliberative body. That they have abandoned this responsibility is a failure primarily of the GOP. How tragic that the very thing these people were elected to do is now considered rare and worthy of headlines. Our elected representatives need to understand that they will be held to a higher standard of behavior, and that they were elected to serve ALL of their constituents, not just the donor class. Voters must insist on this, and the courts need to act on extreme gerrymandering as well as the wholesale theft of representative democracy thanks to rulings like Citizens United.
3
I know all these Dreamers are going to solve America's problems. they seem to be our nation's hearthrobs. we seem to want them over legal immigrants.
1.how many of these Dreamers, barring a few successful ones, have even completed college?
2. how many of these have finished high school? how many of these have started vocational training?
3. Children with college educated parents have a tough time going ahead, what happens to children whose parents have no schooling and often don't even speak English?
5. our citizen youth have a tough time getting entry level jobs. adding 1-1.2 million undereducated youth in not going to help the situation...
14
Your questions also apply to a substantial amount of citizens. Entry level jobs abound at Walmart, fast food restaurants, hotels, farms, nursing homes, Janitorial companies and landscaping companies, but our legal children and even adults think these jobs are beneath their dignity.
1
So-called dreamers are in reality Illegal Aliens who have broken numerous US laws willfully and knowingly. When the American people are fully aware of this fact I do not think that they would agree that these illegals should be rewarded for their lawbreaking. Giving Amnesty to 2 or 3 million illegal immigrants can only result in even more illegal immigration in the future. Average and poor Americans do not favor Illegal Immigration and Open Borders Immigration policies only the political and economic elites of this Country do. Enforce and strengthen existing US Immigration laws. End Illegal Immigration now. Reduce excessive legal Mass Immigration by at least half. Those are the kinds of real Immigration reform that are good for America.
13
While I'm sympathetic and empathitic to the young DACA kids and their plight under this disguised global capitalist Empire and faux-Emperor Trump ---- any serious anti-Empire, anti-war, anti-racist, and pro-democracy Revolutionary thinkers must keep in the forefront of their minds that the single 'issue' of DACA is just a tertiary footnote to a sub-section of a sub-section of the overall massive problem of igniting an essential Second American "Revolution Against Empire", since the cancerous tumor of EMPIRE is the core metastasizing disease needing to be expunged / 'excised' from our body-politic.
Focusing heavily on any one of the hundreds of little 'identity issues' --- [see 'ResistandProtests' over 200 little protest issues] ---- is exactly the type of distraction, dis-empowering, and most dangerously 'dividing' tactics that the 'smoother-lying' neoliberal-con 'D' Vichy party of the Empire uses to keep truly revolutionary and anti-Empire focus from consolidating into an effective solidarity of a single mass movement against this disguised global capitalist Empire.
Of course, the 'rougher-talking' neocon 'R' Vichy party working for the exact same Empire doesn't need as sophisticated a media/propaganda scheme to fool the less intelligent right-wingers into voting against their own interests --- [see Thomas Frank's breakthrough diagnosis of the simpler Republican deceit in his "What's the Matter with Kansas" 2005.]
1
Anything can happen! Reps want to fix the situation, however Dems are between defending the rights of other immigrants as well not just DACA. Too many restrictions to give out an offer, I hope it doesn't separate families.
Why do Democrats insist on mixing legal immigrants with illegal immigrants? The vast majority of Americans support legal immigration. I wish the Democrats would spend time on bread and butter issues that impact everyday Americans (including legal immigrants) rather than advocating for those who have broken the law or on identity politics. I'm a legal immigrant who is now a U.S. citizen. The whole journey took me 15 years. I can't imagine any other country to raise my kids. Immigration reform should focus on fixing the system for those who do it the right way, not on rewarding the law breakers. My family and I can't imagine voting for any Democrat who does not recognize this distinction. Good luck with taking back the house or senate in the 2018 mid-terms!!!
15
I agree that legal immigrants are a separate class of individuals from illegal immigrants. You are right to feel as though the system is unfair. Please explain what your path to citizenship involved and which doors were open to you upon legal arrival here. Can you imagine being denied entry to this country and having no options for your family's survival in your country of origin? Also, what are your proposed reforms for legal immigration?
Looking at a number of posts here, doesn't look like many of them support legal immigration either.
The US never lets you forget that getting born is the original sin that justifies all the tough love you'll experience here.
1
There is more at stake than only DACA immigrants. We need a comprehensive and visionary immigration policy. One that takes into account climate change migration that will occur when people have no food or water. Europe has taken the brunt of the migration from people running from Wars and famine. We are seeing some of the violence connected migration from the South. When temperatures increase these countries will not be able to protect their citizens from diseases and death tolls will be large. We need an immigration policy that will last 100 years but one that is adjustable to current waves of immigrants fleeing dangerous circumstances. Puerto Ricans had to leave their island because of the horrible conditions still not resolved after the hurricane. This is only the tip of the iceberg. I doubt there is anyone in the room who will stand up and raise the question about future migrations. All they see are the current illegal immigrants. We need to give them a path towards citizenship so that we can optimize our resources into facing the greatest challenge humans will meet, the chaos of ecosystems destroyed, water shortages, food shortages, virus mutations, weather patterns not seen before, coastal shrinkage and the list goes on. How we deal with DACA and illegal immigrants in our country today will tell everyone in the world if we do intend on living up to our values and those words written on the Statue of Liberty.
4
Puerto Rican's are US citizens and are not actual immigrants in the legal sense of the word.
2
McConnel is making this an open floor debate because it will force the Democrats to a compromise and will stop them from using DACA and immigration as leverage issues to attack Republicans. Here's your chance, progressives, better take advantage while it's still on the table.
8
Most Americans want to grant DACA enrollees citizenship or legal resident status, but know advocacy groups will work to thwart efforts to curtail future illegal immigration. In 1986, we granted amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants based on promises that the federal government would stop future illegal immigration. But the promises weren’t kept, and the resulting tsunami of illegal immigrants quickly pushed the number of people in the country illegally to more than 11 million. As a result, most Americans want to grant DACA amnesty as part of a legislative package that includes measures to deter future illegal immigration and secure the border. And many Americans think the legislative package should include a switch to a merit-based immigration policy similar to Canada’s immigration policy. There is nothing wrong, immoral or “racist” in demanding a deal that is good for Americans as well as Dreamers.
18
"Aren't the Mexicans paying for the big, beautiful wall?"
No, but that doesn't mean a wall is a bad idea.
When the Reagan-era amnesty bill passed in the late 1980s, we were told that there were 3 million illegal immigrants in the US, but that this would not happen going forward. Turns out it DID happen going forward, bigly. Now we're told there are 11 million illegal immigrants. To be sure, most of them are not Mexicans, and a wall may not be the best way to stem the tide, especially for immigrants who simply overstay their tourist visas.
But we DO need to do SOMETHING. We can't simply accept the government's word a second time. What's the old saying? "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me."
If I were a young non-American who wanted to come to the US, and legal migration were too slow or too uncertain or too expensive, I'll confess that I'd probably do exactly what many other young non-Americans are doing: come here illegally and hope for the best. But I'm NOT a young non-American who wants to come to the US. I'm an American who wants to exercise control over our borders, just like other countries. That desire doesn't strike me as unreasonable.
If "net migration" is negative, as we hear, expanding legal immigration won't "open the floodgates." We should streamline that process -- but NOT to the point of just looking the other way when someone immigrates illegally.
15
"the humanitarian crisis Donald Trump caused when he cruelly ended DACA"
What nonsense. Obama dithered on the matter (" I don't have constitutional authority, well, come to think of it, the political scene is good for me now, so yeah, I do have authority after all, so I'll sign it") and Congress after Congress and president after president delayed upon, deflected away from and ignored the job of changing and/or executing existing immigration law for the better.
Trump, for all his blather and shape shifting on issue after issue, has pushed the matter to the sticking point. We'll find out who's serious and who's a pretender and, not least, we'll get an idea if we're still a functioning republic when it comes to the issues of greatest import.
Whatever the outcome, the crisis we face today is not of Trump's making - to say so is to fall back into the pathetic posturing that pushed us to this moment.
9
Yup - got it. Dreamers are good and GOP is mean.
Instead of all the re-hashed crosstalk and inflammatory rhetoric, I was actually interested learning some of the Senate's procedure for this "debate". Is it really a "real debate" with rules as followed by a debate team? Or is it debate-Light as practiced by Senators, journalists and pundits on TV?
6
Like immigration itself, the real debate question is numbers -- and numerical limits.
There are only so many hours week, and only so many weeks in a year.
How many hours will get devoted to the debate?
And how will those hours get doled out?
Just like land, water, resources and people.
How many immigrants can the land, water and other resources of the USA support? And how will the available slots get doled out?
I certainly would not want to see the USA become even a tenth as crowded as Bangladesh, even with all the water and high proportion of flat, arable, fertile land that Bangladesh has. And I really doubt whether more than a very few other Americans -- even pro-immigrant Dems -- would want that either -- not if they have ever witnessed it in such a place -- up close, for more than a few days.
3
Are we really going to punish someone for the sins of their father?
But how to not punish them and still enforce the requirement that the family member(s) culpable for their illegal entry are held accountable? If the fault lies with the country of origin (as in political asylum seekers or refugees from countries at war) there should be amnesty for them and restitution from those countries. If you are following the 2018 Winter Olympics you will notice that N. and S. Korea are flirting with reunification. The fact is that there are N. Koreans participating in the Olympics who may defect to this or other democratic countries and claim political asylum. It's like requiring deadbeat dads to pay child support. If the man is impoverished or cannot/will not work he is unable to support his child though the law demands it. Those here illegally often have no legitimate means of supporting their children because they aren't eligible for employment on the books, federal/state programs for housing, etc. Those here legally have enough trouble doing the same legitimately. It's not a matter of punishment, it's a matter of accountability and amending a system that allows people in without means of provision. I don't believe they should be punished, yet there should be some restitution by these families as they become legal citizens of this country, whether community service, fines paid, garnishment of wages, etc. They have to put in to our legitimate systems of taxation and deductions from pay for services they will need later, if not immediately.
2
Please stop this charade that America is a nation of immigrants. It was true in 19th century. Not anymore.
10
There is no reason for Senate Republicans to give any ground to get a deal with Senate Democrats on immigration. To Pres. Trump's power-base, immigration reform means preventing yet another illegal alien invasion into this country ten years down the road. If Schumer and his followers want to take this point to the general electric, he is welcome to do so.
6
While we argue about how to Make America W.A.S.P. again, blindly close our borders to *everyone* from certain countries, and build tariff and people walls; the Chinese are busy spreading their influence across Africa (which has important natural resources), buying important technology companies across Europe, and inventing the future (especially in A.I.); and Canada is becoming a hub for research in technology where talented researchers (like PhD student Sara Sabour, one of the inventors of a technology that will soon be used for computer vision who had her visa to study at the Univ of Washington revoked because she is from Iran) are now flocking since the US has become unwelcoming...
3
China is practicing 21st century colonialism / imperialism in Africa. Do we want to be a part of that?
Our citizens are more than capable of doing cutting-edge research.
In fact if we had a lot less poor people we would have more resources to go towards research.
Sadly we are still stuck in an ageing 19th century economy. Why put in the investment to modernize when we can import the cheapest labor on the planet at any moment?
13
"While we argue about how to Make America W.A.S.P. again..."
If Trump's immigration proposals for a more merit based system are put into effect, it will not increase immigration from "W.A.SP. countries" as you put it.
Rather, the revised immigration proposals would result in an increase of immigrants from Asian and Middle Eastern countries and a decrease of people from Mexico and the African countries.
5
China is not -- and never will -- allow nearly as many immigrants into China as the USA allows -- and the very few that it does allow are not particularly likely to be from Africa.
As for the other direction -- Chinese are not likely to want to immigrate to Africa. And even Africans would not likely tolerate more than a few thousand Chinese -- let alone millions.
USA and Canada?
One single anecdote tells us next to nothing about good immigration policy.
In terms of really significant numbers, for years, more people born in third countries who migrate first to Canada and then re-migrate to the USA have outnumbered people born in third countries who migrate first to the USA and then to Canada.
People vote with their feet, and their feet bring them here, in overwhelming numbers, from all over the world, even from Canada. That does not mean we are obligated -- or wise -- to let them come. Certainly not any and all of them. We surely have no need to compete with any other country to attract -- or keep -- immigrants.
2
I’m so over caring about this issue and people who came here illegally.
17
I lost my compassion 10 million illegals ago
14
@M @karenCarpenter:
Amen. Well over it.
Let them all go home and MMGA (Make Mexico maravilloso again). Sick of my tax money funding their ‘better life’ cradle to grave.
5
The Trump presidency has been disruptive, to say the least. Most of that disruption has been negative.
We are beginning to see a glimmer of a something positive resulting from Hurricane Trump, though. Congress is beginning to do it's job again. For years it has done nothing but engage in partisan bickering, with one party occasionally shoving legislation down the other party's throat. Now Congress is actually negotiating, compromising and passing legislation. Nice change.
14
Aren't the Mexicans paying for the big, beautiful wall?
3
Democrats should explicitly say that everything is negotiable on the immigration issue EXCEPT the fate of the Dreamers, and that all other immigration-related policies enacted by this congress will be revisited when Dems re-take the House in 2018.
4
Better yet- the Democratic Party should form a very solid policy in regards to all illegal economic migrants, temporary protection programs, family reunification policies and future immigration levels.
They should present that plan to the people before the next election.
The Republican party should do the same.
Let the electorate decide which plan they support when they cast their ballots.
8
We took that vote Nov 8th 2016
3
I would not include those illegal aliens who did not bother to sign up for DACA. Leave them alone - let them get deported.
DACA - I would make them legal and give them a 10 year path to citizenship but would not allow them to work to to give citizenship to their parents who are the real criminals.
The bill must end the Diversity Visa Lottery and chain migration.
Border Wall physical wall were possible other wise an electronic wall. We could always go back to the Middle Ages and go for a moat filled with alligators. We do have to make the Rio Grande so that they cannot swim or paddle a boat across.
8
We are so used to bills being written in closed-door meetings and voted on by only one party, without any input from any other party, that when the Senate actually decides to talk to each other it is considered "wild" and deserves a headline. Isn't debate on bills actually what Congress is supposed to be doing all the time? It says a lot about how far our democracy has deteriorated that open-ended debate is now considered "unusual" and "rare."
5
It's just sensationalizing the news, nothing more.
Why doesn't NYT (or other mainstream media) truly investigate the immigrations issues instead of merely stating the obvious over and over again? We get that Dems are pro-immigration and the Republicans are anti-immigration. Why not explain to us the vast network of AMERICAN employers who hire these illegal immigrants and the Walmartization of retail? American consumers benefit from cheap labor but they also suffer from low wages as these illegal immigrants are willing to work for the lowest wage. It would also be helpful to understand what the process is for entering this country legally. How long does it take? Is the technical infrastructure up to date to handle it? We want more details than just the same headlines.
27
The question is simple: do we want a country with open borders and little or no immigration restrictions (as promoted by President Obama) or one with sensible limitations and a protectionist (towards American citizens) aspect? Why not let Trump do as he wishes? After all, Obama and previous Presidents did, often without regard for existing law.
14
Wow, the Senate actually thinking rather than members coming to the floor with talking points from their favorite lobbies: who would have thought?
3
When did deliberation become a dirty word in our democracy? We have passed massive bills on tax cuts and now a massive budget increase, all done behind closed doors---the public, remember us, left totally out of the picture. Where was Mitch McConnell's--"whoever gets to 60 wins"-- when the tax cut bill was written, or Obama care considered, or....Having said that, McConnell, if he was smart, would allow more of this kind of marketplace of ideas loose in the Senate. This administration is a moving train wreck----finding a way off this train before it goes off the rails would be a wise move.
5
The “immigration activists” will hold up signs showing the 9 aspiring physicists among the DACA crowd, never mentioning that a full half of the “Dreamers” hardly speak English, that many have not completed high school, and that the bill expressly permits convicted criminals to stay. They will hold up no signs advocating for the “diversity” lottery or for chain migration.
Because they’re not actually interested in a serious discussion.
The left believes that borders are “cruel” because they agree with DT about what other countries are like. They support immigration for its own sake, NOT because it benefits the country, but because they believe open borders to be a moral imperative. They support letting everyone in and sending no one home.
So, forget the “Dreamers”; that's easy. (Never mind that but for the malfeasance of the last administration(s), these folks would not exist; their families would have been booted out and kept united where they legally belong.) The right is willing to compromise to let them stay. The left is NOT willing to admit that unrestricted immigration is anything other than morally mandatory.
THAT will cost them the next election.
Good.
13
Despite this farse of an "open debate" nothing will be resolved. Both Democrats and moderate Republicans have come up with half-way decent bipartison legislation only to have it shot down by Trump and the Republican hardliners. This will be no different. The only people to suffer will be the Dreamers. Sad.
2
Now McConnell’s gone and done it. He’s opened up the door just a tad to show us what it means for a legislator to do his or her job. Once we in the public get a taste of this we just might demand more of it. “Earning their keep” is a phrase normally reserved for “welfare types” (usually a dog-whistle). It’s a phrase we should now, unreservedly, use for legislators, who have been on the lobbyists’ dole for far too long. Thanks Mitch.
4
I think the best thing about having an open debate is that everyone will know where everyone stands on the issue of DACA. A lot of these Republicans have been yakking for ages about how much they care about and "love" the Dreamers.
Well, it's time to put your money where your mouth is, fellas. Stand up in the Senate and tell everyone how you really feel.
1
One can always hope reason and national interest will win the day. I also hope to get a unicorn for my birthday. Once the leader of the Republican Party weighs in, McConnell’s “And it will be an opportunity for 1,000 flowers to bloom”, hopefully won’t look like Chairman Mao’s summer of love.
1
Those who are enthusiastic about building the wall are forgetting something. We have another southern border, the long Gulf coastline. If the land border is completely blocked, even more people will take to the sea. As I understand it, the Trump administration wants to cut funding for the coast guard. A bit short-sighted, wouldn't you say?
7
To all Senators, our eyes are on you. Good first step. Now take another...
5
Isn't this what they are paid to do?
3
Hey NY Times - can you revisit why the gang of 8 failed in 2013? All the Senators involved are still serving, and as I recall - some of what they put forward included a path to citizenship for some, an e-verify sort of system, and more money for border enforcement....all very similar to what is being talked about now.
3
The current proposed Federal budget is $4.4 trillion. $25 billion over 10 years for the border wall is $2.5 billion a year, which is about one half of one thousandth of the total Federal budget. So why is this such a big deal? It seems like a stupid reason to oppose legislation that will let the DACAs become citizens. Democrats are suffering from Trump derangement syndrome and the Dreamers, and the USA, will lose as a result. Dems, get your head on straight!
2
"Liberal interest groups and immigration rights activists have mobilized to insist on legal status for the Dreamers without the concessions demanded by the president and immigration hard-liners: billions for a wall on the Mexican border, an even more aggressive crackdown on illegal immigrants and dramatic changes to the legal immigration system that would favor skilled immigrants over the family members of citizens and green-card holders."
The majority of Americans wants illegal immigration stopped - NOW! They want chain migration and the visa lottery stopped. They want criminal illegals deported and to stay deported. These ungrateful illegal DACA's should be grateful that Trump is offering this amnesty which Obama did not offer. But they demand to be able to sponsor their illegal parents, the people who brought them here illegally. NO! I am against this amnesty and I hope the Dems refuse this deal.
23
The only consensus I'm aware of is that we want illegals who are also violent or dangerous criminals to be deported. We are sharply divided in our stance toward those who have illegally entered but are otherwise not criminally culpable.
Hypocrites all. Let's let the Apache, Paiute, Lakota, and Cherokee set the immigration policy. White people weren't here first. They were her next.
2
That was then.
This is now.
Then the standards -- world-wide -- were the Rule of Conquest.
The standards have changed.
Now the standards are the Rule of Law.
If you want to go back to the Rule of Conquest, just say so.
But first, you might want to think some more about whether you are ready for that.
12
@sam - The Rule of Conquest is still very much alive. If you conquer a country, you can keep it. Who is going to stop you?
I always wondered- what tribes did the Apache, Paiute, Lakota, and Cherokee displace long, long ago?
I then wonder- did the Native Americans at the time of the original white settlements wish they had had some say in who emigrated onto their lands?
Many European settlers were just escaping terrible conditions in their home countries.
4
Whatever happened to Mexico paying for the wall?
3
I trust McConnell as far as I can throw him.
He has something dirty up his sleeve, just in case it does not turn out like he wants.
2
Fine. But the stupid, out of date bill Orrin Hatch trots out - I-squared - to vastly increase the number of the badly abused and little audited, so-called skilled worker visas - H1b, L1 and B1 needs to be trashed immediately.
With merit based immigration policy there will not be a need for those any more.
And, per-country caps must be in place. We do not need to be colonized with people from only a few countries - diversity must remain a goal.
Call your senators.
8
If diversity lottery is kept -- with per country caps -- then the caps ought to be allocated to each country according to its home population as of some recent year, say 2010 -- as determined by the USA -- using such international data as the USA believes reliable. The lottery cap for the Maldives should not be the same as for India, nor the cap for Lichtenstein the same as for Germany, nor the cap for Costa Rica the same as for Brazil, nor the cap for Benin the same as for Nigeria.
Furthermore, if extended family repeal is not enacted, then the total cap for all diversity ought to be subtracted from the total cap for all extended family visas.
4
Merit based and diversity in one sentence? Surprise never ends.
@samm finn,
Why is the United States supposed to accommodate the worlds population problems?
8
Transport all DACA kids along with their illegal immigrant patents with $200B in infrastructure money to Puerto Rico and let them create their own country to be citizens of.
7
This Senate debate should be an interesting exercise. What might happen when the lawmakers are not voting on some special-interest bill that was crafted by some corporation or trade group and simply presented by a Senate sponsor for quick passage? Or are there multiple versions of such pre-formed bills already waiting, to be introduced in response to whichever way the political wind blows?
2
Actually, there is considerable overlap between the groups refugees, skilled workers, and family members. In a country in turmoil, people with skills are often among the first to come under attack and need to flee. Also, for someone with skills wanting to work and live abroad long term, whether or not they can bring their families with them is an important consideration. Also, the impression people overseas are getting of the current U.S. is that one can be randomly assaulted and even killed by the supposedly law-abiding citizens of the country, just for "looking different." There are lots of countries that need skilled workers. The U.S. is already far from the most attractive choice that they have. Those countries that also welcome refugees and families are also more likely to attract skilled workers.
1
Given they are even trying is a breakthrough.
1
The bottom line for many Americans is that our immigration laws must be obeyed and that people shouldn't be streaming across our southern border. That's a very reasonable position. Secure the border, and Americans will welcome the Dreamers.
The problem is the extremists in both parties. (In the democrats' case, they are trying to galvanize Hispanic voter for the midterms.) Also, political maneuvering has now replaced Congressional legislating.
If Americans want a reasonable immigration solution, they should ignore extremists and send a strong message that extremism is unwelcome. Immigration is actually one area where many Americans agree.
9
Both sides agree that some thing has to been done about Dreamers but other than that they are poles apart. Having merit based point system of immigration is not a bad idea in itself as long as this is free of prejudice, racism, bigotry and cultural intolerance. A possible marriage of ideas is also possible. Lets say we make every thing related to immigration a point based system. Lets also assume that we have total of 100 points out of which one would need 65 or 70 points to stand in the line. We can allow DACA dreamers and possibly all 11 million undocumented immigrants to compete. They can get a penalty of 20 to 25 scores out of 100 for being illegal. This means that will have to gain 90 to 90% scores in other areas including proficiency in english, crime free record etc. Same scoring system can be extended to family based migration. Where parents , spouses and children of US citizens will automatically get 60 points and will earn remaining points if they buy health insurance and not use welfare in US. The brothers and sisters of US citizen who want to come legally immigrate be given 25 or 30 points for their relation to US citizen and they will have to earn the rest by earning skills and learning language etc. The same can be extended to lottery system where it will be continued in the same countries where it is operational now. Lottery visa will mean that applicants will get 20, 25, or 30 points and they will have to earn the rest.
4
I would suspect that the making of laws is a new experience for this Republican body. I am not sure they can handle such a challenge.
3
Honest debates can lead to compromise which is a good thing! I remain convinced that the last thing the Dems want to do is agree to solve the immigration problem. That is the only talking point they have in 2018 and 2020.
8
Mr.McConnell has employed a shrewd maneuver to make sure that the Senate does not come up with an immigration bill.Letting them debate gives the illusion that they can craft legislation and pass it.Already all the cards are stacked against it. Mr.Trump has his own plan which has no flexibility and the House has less than no enthusiasm for solving this problem.
1
I'm puzzled... Why would we need to allocate $25 billion for the wall? Isn't Mexico paying for it? :P
If it does not benefit the USA and Americans first then any immigration notion should be DOA. Forty years of immigration insanity must end now, and this includes a serious look at DACA, how many DACA candidates are in the USA and how to get rid of the criminals among them, and folks, there ARE criminals among them. Time for our worthless pols to shape up and "kick are and take names" in the immigration debate and formulation of policies. Item: start by passing a resolution to enforce the USA's immigration laws already on the books. No exceptions.
13
Some factual information would be nice. What percentage of the DACA kids speak English? What percentage has graduated from high school? How many are going to college?
11
As a liberal Democrat and the son of immigrants, the prize is saving 1.8 million Dreamers. The potential change in the Trumlp "pillar" on cjained migration that is both desirable and possible is to keep the Dreamers families intact, that is, by allowing their parents and sibling to avoid deportation. The Democrats have a very weak hand. They must not try to over play at risk of rescuing the Dreamers.
5
That's the way Congress is supposed to work, but it's been moving away from that kind of deliberation for generations. Now it's considered some sort of freakish event.
12
They should have demanded an end to birthright citizenship in exchange for DACA, as well as the ridiculous investor visa.
23
That would be an amendment to the constitution. Not easy or quick.
2
Birthright citizenship is horrible - due to things like Foreigners traveling to the US to drop a baby. Citizenship should only be granted to persons born to at least one citizen, preferably to children born to citizen(s).
This is why I hope that RGB retires and she is replaced by someone who reads/follows the constitution and does not infer/interpret rights that do not exist from that document.
Investor visas are problematic, but at least those new citizens have to prove their value to the country through their wallet and/or actions which hopefully benefit the country.
10
Precisely the reason that the negotiations for the grant of legal status should have included an amendment to the Constitution to eliminate birthright citizenship -- proposed by the Congress and ratified by the states -- before legal status becomes permanent.
8
This always-vote-Democrat says DACA and and protecting Dreamers is the prize. It's the only thing. Forget about bringing in relatives except spouses and children, and forget about the visa lottery. These are bad things which should not be continued.
23
The Senate just waive the 60-vote rule or, if necessary, use the “nuclear option to stop a filibuster. No immigration reform bill that gets 60 votes in the Senate has a chance of passing in the House of Representatives. (Yes. I know that this means that this would mean the bill that pass might not be nonpartisan, but the Constitution doesn’t require bills to be nonpartisan. It doesn’t recognize political parties or assign political parties a role to play in government. The Constitution requires only a simple majority to pass all measures that come before the Senate except treaty ratifications, impeachments and constitutional amendments.) If the Senate waives the 60-vote rule and passes the bill, the speaker of the house wouldn’t dare invoke the Hastert Rule to prevent the bill from advancing to a vote in the House of Representatives.
4
At this point in out history, immigration serves no purpose and makes no sense. What was Kennedy thinking in 1965?
19
Kennedy was dead. It was Johnson. He was thinking partisan advantage for his party as always. The old system was a 1920 thinking and needed change. The current system is 1965 thinking and needs a change.
7
That was Ted Kennedy, not John. And Robert Kennedy promised that there were be a small surge in immigration from Asia, which would then subside.
2
I taught English to adult immigrants and migrants for yrs. near L.A. and I can attest to the monumental negative effects of chain migration in this area. Sure, it involves Mexico & Central America but an even bigger problem is rapid and overwhelming migration from China. A single person qualifies for a green card by paying a huge amount to set up a business (govt incentive), brings his wife & kid, then their parents. Arcadia CA has been almost totally re- populated in this manner with a dire effect on traffic. Chain migration is a very destructive force in LA, in my extensive experience working, living, & commuting. I loved my students & Chinese culture but this is an urgent problem.
70
20 years ago, the NYT had an article how the elderly parents of the anchor migrants went on SSI as soon as possible. Every person that is part of a family chain should keep an airline ticket in escrow for the return until their death, instead of going on the dole.
18
So we should stop allowing hard working immigrants to bring their families into this country because it causes traffic problems?
4
Clearly you, and possibly the New York Times of 20 years ago, do not understand how Social Security works. It is based on your lifetime earnings. Therefore, it is very difficult to see how elderly parents who never worked in the United States could go on SSI at all, since their earnings here are either de minimus, or non-existent. Social Security is not "the dole" - it's earned benefits, the operative word being *earned.*
7
No $25 Billion for a wall without new funding for it. Republicans, if you want that wall, raise taxes for it.
4
What happens to those people who have applied for immigration the legal way? Will they be put at the back of the line after waiting for years to gain citizenship? If they are pushed back, it will prove that it pays to come here illegally without any restrictions. Somehow that does not seem fair.
48
Fake argument, since there is no "line".
Yes there is Andy. Have you heard of something called the State Department Visa Bulletin? Look it up. It states the "current date" of visa availability based on filing date. Also, both family and employment based visas have a per country limitation. The applicants who don't have a "current" filing date are in line. Look up Family Based F4 category... some countries have a 20 year waiting period.
4
If you rush everyone through who is waiting in line today what do you think the line would look like tomorrow? We cannot absorb the world.
Stop using the term "chain migration". It has no real meaning except for its racist roots and is misleading at its core because it sets aside its proponents true objective. Call it what it is -- a measure designed to keep families apart indefinitely. It is an anti-family policy that doubles down on racism by placing extra stress on people who are not white in an effort to discourage them from immigrating to this country.
14
Labeling "chain migration" a racist term is the latest liberal meme to control the conversation and is 100% phony.
13
McConnel's Mao quote seems like obvious sarcasm to me, mocking the idea of a "peoples" approach to law-making.
4
Any form of amnesty must coupled with strict overhauling of current immigration laws, assuring that this question does not visit congress 20 years from now. I am amazed how the debate has changed the meaning of words: illegal immigrants have made a dialectical transformation into undocumented immigrants and finally transforming into immigrants. The illegal population blame current immigration laws for their status, blaming the time frame and the expense of obtaining a green card. Why wait in the bureaucratic maze of immigration law; cross illegally, stay illegally, obtain fraudulent documents criminally; hide in the shadows and in due time the liberal sentiments of NY, California will prevail and amnesty will follow. The current proposal of amnesty will only encourage further illegal crossing. Any new measure must curtail family migration, lean toward a merit base immigration policy. America is a finite resource and the world' s forgotten poor an infinite amount. Every measure can be countered, a strict compliance of e verify would be a herculean start.
38
I hope serious consideration is given during this "open-ended" floor debate on the fact that our continental United States has 12,383 miles of coastline, or 95,471 miles of shoreline, which cannot be walled off. Building a wall on the southern border may stop most overland entries, at a great cost to taxpayers not just for construction but for perpetual maintenance and policing, but entries from the ocean via vessels of all sizes, from fishing boats to container cargo ships, will take up the slack. What then? The best and lowest-cost remedy is to prevent illegal aliens from getting jobs or business licenses, opening bank accounts, obtaining credit, getting drivers' and occupational licenses, in short, all the means of making a living here. That would require mandatory, universal E-verify and a crackdown on counterfeit documents. As long as illegal aliens can not only make a living here but thrive, nothing will keep them from coming.
16
there is no rational reason to deport people who thrive here.
4
Yes,
Entry over salt water is also possible.
But not nearly as easy as entry across the Rio Grande or by land, even the Sonoran Desert.
The distance -- and time - for an end-run on saltwater is significantly greater than the short distance across a river or mere line or weak fence on land.
For starters, there are only two points at which entry can be made by saltwater -- either where the border runs into the Gulf of Mexico or where it runs into the Pacific Ocean.
In contrast, there are tens of thousands of points along thousands of miles of the border on the Rio Grande and the Sonoran Desert and other land portions of the border.
Sure -- you can go out into the Gulf or the Pacific so as to enter at many points north of where the border runs into the sea, But the further north you go, the longer the journey -- and as you go north by sea, you can be spotted from the land -- unless you go farther out to sea -- out of sight from land -- but that adds still more distance -- and time -- to your journey -- making it still more difficult. Yes, possible, but ever more difficult.
Further, all that extra distance must be made by a boat -- not by foot -- nor by swimming -- the number of people in the entire world who can swim more than a few hundred feet is very very minuscule.
Sure, boats are available. But not nearly as available as shoes for your feet.
And most boats are not as fast as walking. So all that distance adds still more time -- time during which you can be spotted.
3
One rational reason: to not reward and therefore encourage more illegal behavior.
8
I support the emphasis on merit based immigration, but I think the immediate family should always be allowed to come (i.e. parents, kids and spouses). I'm ok with drawing the line at other relatives, or perhaps giving more rights to those who completed the entire immigration process legally from beginning to end. If parents are no longer going to be allowed to come it will be a big burden on those who are only kids, yet want to do their part to help keep America great.
2
My dad was ten when his uncle sponsored him and my grandparents to come to the US from Nazi Austria in 1940. They had no money (Hitler let them keep $10) and no higher education or special skills and didn’t speak English. My great uncle decided not to bring our other relatives over because of rampant anti-semitism in America. My dad, who ended up going to Harvard on a scholarship, never forgot the family that died in the ovens of Auschwitz and Treblinka.
8
There should a special lifetime tourist visa for any parents and siblings so they can visit at any time for however long they like, but at their own (or the US citizen's) expense and without the ability to work in USA or collect benefits.
6
In this age of practically free communication and international travel dramatically less expensive than in past generations, family ties do not require presence. People who immigrate in late midlife consume far more of the common pot than they can ever contribute.
7
The Secure and Succeed Act is the way to go.
Yes, lets have the debate.
But there is nothing in it which Dems should oppose.
An open debate will make that clear.
There is absolutely no justification for footdragging on taking strong measures, here and now, for strong immigration enforcement so that there will not be any Dreamer 2.0 scenario.
And absolutely no justification for mere genuflections about border security with mere half-measures and quarter-measures.
Furthermore, legal status for Dreamers ought never be a model for legal status for any other illegal immigrants.
The only justification for granting legal status to the Dreamers is that supposedly they were brought here through no fault of their own.
Then whose fault was it?
Their parents fault of course.
Consequently, nothing in any supposed solution to the Dreamers situation should never result in any legal status for those who were at fault -- their parents.
Above all, immigration and immigration law needs to serve the interests of Americans and America -- not the interests of others.
And certainly not the interests of any persons who were not brought here as children.
16
When Ted Cruz is the only person on the other side, for once you know you must be doing something however small right.
6
The "progressive" democrats will be forced to acknowledge there is a difference between "legal" and "illegal" immigration. Should be interesting.
35
As long as the attempt to reform immigration laws is led from the Senate, the effort is doomed to fail. If we want a bill, it must originate in the HOR, specifically in the House Judiciary Committee. As the bill would begin in the HOR, its provisions would have to be almost exclusively those desired by the Republican majority. After passage in the HOR, the bill would go to the Senate, where a bipartisan group from the Senate Judiciary Committee could modify (and probably soften) its provisions. The amended bill could pass the Senate and the be sent to a conference committee for reconciliation. This procedure is the normal way legislation become law and is the only way to reform immigration laws. All other attempts are doomed to failure, as we have seen in three previous attempts.
3
Deliberation. Debate. Who knew that such things were even possible?
7
How unique, the self described greatest deliberative body on earth actually deliberating on something? I suspect this will not work well for "progressives" it might require honesty.
12
If I wanted to see a show I'd buy tickets to Hamilton.
"Whoever gets to 60 wins...."
I'm thinking "Lord of the Flies". How about what's in the best interest of the United States of America.?
10
Don't forget Mao Tse Tung said, "Let a thousand flowers bloom," and when some people took him at his word, they were sent to hard labor in re-education camps.
4
Dear Richard Watt,
I think the Senator was being ironic. He kept his word to hold the debate, but clearly sees no hope for any useful conclusion.
Imagine your kids for a second, Mr Cruz.
They were born into your family, with a hispanic sounding name, and as far as anyone can presume, grew as earnest patriotic Americans as best they knew how.
Now it appears through a technicality of questionable parenting they’re entire lives are being thrown into doubt.
Perhaps their skin is typically a shade darker than yours, Ted.
But if you are to treat fellow Americans as something to be extracted and ridden for their poor fortune or background, you have no place serving this nation of immigrations, and irrefutably a heart of stone — if one at all.
8
Two parties are working on this issue. One party despises immmigrants, the other party cynically feigns concern for them to boost their electoral prospects.
The results will be about what you'd expect in such a situation.
6
"Despises immigrants" is an odd thing to say about Trump and McConnel who are both married to immigrants.
4
From the article: "At the same time, the idea of an open-ended debate is so novel that many newer senators say they have never experienced one, and are scurrying to learn the rules." The corporate overlords have not allowed such a thing in quite a while. Make the most of it, America.
6
Why is universal (all employers), mandatory E-Verify (with serious criminal penalties for employers) not one of the "pillars"? The great majority, if not all, illegal immigrants come and risk arrest to "make a better life" for themselves and any children they bring here or produce after coming, correct? As long as they can get jobs, they will continue to take the risk. E-verify goes hand and hand with border security. The goal should be to stop the flow. If businesses continue to hire, the border will continue to be breached one way or another, no matter how tall the wall is. If they can't come to the "promised land" by land, they will come by sea. Our coastlines can't be walled off, you know.
32
Hopefully the discussions will cut through all the PR talking points, hyper-partisan gamesmanship and media shenanigans, but I won't hold my breath.
Definition of Insanity is "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results". As part of DACA legalization there have to be common sense solutions for tighter border security, enforceable immigration laws with additional judges, agents to resolve cases quickly and equitably, special conditions for DACA recipients on family sponsorship, critical look at shutting down on random green card lottery (especially after the NY Terror incident), e-verify expansion that will give confidence to Americans that there is a process that is reliable while being sympathetic to the DACA recipients.
On immigration at some point laws have to be respected and enforced. The world 100 or 200 years ago was different. With Automation, Mechanization and overpopulation we are a different country in a different world and a judicious balance of being an open society has to be found while at the same time focus on the well being of the citizens who are suffering from the degradation of education, environment, infrastructure.
If not by above definition, we are by definition Insane.
12
A cynic would say that the politicians actually ARE hoping to get the same results, just telling us otherwise. No insanity, just liars and dupes.
1
My, shades of the Founding Fathers!
Just think: the possibility of an honest to god civil and multisided debate. To be sure there will be fireworks and theater, but at least some actual discourse - and maybe concurrence - will occur.
19
Why can't this be done with every bill?
The idea that the majority party gets to decide what is debated and discussed is antithetical to democracy. If the minority party's idea doesn't have the votes to clear a committee or the chamber as a whole, then so be it. But what possible excuse can there be to censor debate in either house of Congress?
We need more debate in this country, not less, and we need Congress to quit playing power games so much and focus more on actually deliberating about what are good policies. Partisan blocking of debate and discussion serves no useful purpose.
12
Yes, quite so, let's check with Harry Reid. Why did he control the senate's agenda with an iron hand when the Democrats controlled the senate?
12
Dear CastleMan,
The reason is because the US is not, nor has it ever been, nor did the Founding Fathers ever want it to be a democracy. They had studied history and saw how the Athenian experiment imploded.
In any event, the rule of the majority of those elected representatives is hardly "antithetical to democracy". The minority never gets to rule.
The Senate is supposed to be a deliberative body, kudos for them getting back to that, even if it’s only for show, although the wee bit of optimism left in me hopes it is not.
8
I would suggest to Nancy she puts on some more sensible footwear for this next battle.
3
This structure for putting together a bill is a useful change for what has become a dysfunctional system. Traditionally, Congress worked on the basis of committees, with the rationale that no Member could be knowledgeable about everything, that participation on a given committee would help the Members to learn the subject matter.
As that system has not worked for a decade or so, this open-ended floor debate may well be a good way to get things moving again. However, one should be cautious about endorsing it as a precedent, inasmuch as the rationale for committees still is valid. One hundred mostly know-nothings will not in the course of ordinary legislation produce a better result than ten know-somethings.
Also, it is legitimate to argue that illegality should not be rewarded, that illegal immigrants are just that, illegal. However, I would ask those who think it is a simple, clearcut issue whether they believe that those who act illegally by speeding or DUI should have their driving license yanked on a first offense, whether spouse abusers should be allowed a license to marry again, or whether a corporation that violates the law through fraud should be allowed to keep its license to operate?
If you answer consistently, I will respect your opinion that illegals are simply illegals. If not, if you think there should be some nuance in applying the indicated penalties for the illegal acts, then I expect you will also approach the question of illegal immigrants in like manner.
5
The DACA discussion is not a matter of consistency in one's judgement about the degree of punishment called for on the basis of the particulars of an offense. It is a question of morality versus legality. Clearly a dependent brought to the U.S. is not culpable for the breach of law committed by their parent(s). Thus, it is clearly a moral obligation to adjust the law to fit our moral principles. Furthermore, there is no question here of "rewarding" bad behavior. If you carefully read the DREAM Act (sponsored by Graham, Durbin, Flake and Schumer, https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/s1615/BILLS-115s1615is.pdf) that is currently being debated in the Senate, it isn't rewarding anyone for misbehavior. That is a complete falsification. The bill clearly places the onus on the applicant to prove they will make as good a citizen of the U.S. as anyone else who currently enjoys that status. Less than a "pathway to citizenship" the act is an obstacle course to citizenship.
8
David, thank you for your addition to the discussion !
3
It would be nice if the debate started off with a discussion about the premise that the future welfare of the 690,000 Dreamers can be used as bargaining chip in a legislative debate. The threat of deporting law abiding members of our community, to unfamiliar countries they left as small children, is a quid pro quo that promises to harm hundreds of thousands of people. Give me what I want or I'll hurt all of them.
In retrospect one might assume that Trump put the future of the Dreamers' well being in jeopardy precisely to use them as an offering in return for wall funding and immigration legislation. This is not politics, it is cruelty. And contrary to any supposed human values we thought our country stood for.
43
Unfortunately they must be held as pawns in order to get something rational done. I do not think the democrats want to change any of the absurdly liberal immigration policies in place. I want the DACA recipients to be allowed to stay, but just look at why they're called DACA- the previous president made an illegal move (yes, illegal. He didn't 'de-prioritize' enforcement of the law- he created an entirely new classification and granted them rights without congressional action).
We need monumental changes in immigration restricted it to real refugees or those who can support themselves here without public assistance (meaning food, shelter and medical care) until we can take care of everyone already here.
13
They wouldn't be facing deportation if they were law abiding.
10
Don't ask how the sausage is made, just enjoy the taste.
1
I wish there were more of this. Its time for the Senators to speak, on the record, about their positions on immigration--they've been hiding behind proxies for too long. If we want an outcome that results in true compromise--like, say, citizenship for the Dreamers and ending our ridiculous birthright laws, it will take both sides conceding some ground. I'm all for a humane solution that also ends up with us having tough but fair and enforceable immigration policy.
5
This is the most exciting thing to come out of Congress in ages. If they want to restore faith in the institution, this is one step toward doing so.
Open debate on an issue that matters to a lot of people and on which there is a great range of opinions … why, it's almost like actual legislating!
7
As someone very sympathetic to the "liberal activists" cited in article, I'm amazed at how blind they are. Do they real!y believe that a party with minorities in both chambers can get a bill signed by Trump w/o compromising? Wake up a and smell the reality already!
14
Democrats have the option of blocking action now, hoping that the administration will refrain from an all out assault on DACA recipients and then, once the Democrats have taken over Congress, doing the right thing. This will require either overriding the President's veto or waiting until he is removed. Giving in to what is likely to become a long-term isolationist immigration policy, for the sake of protecting a limited number of people may not be the best move in the big picture of things. I'm not saying this is my assessment of the situation but it isn't necessarily being "blind" to take this longer term view. Progressives have accomplished a lot by taking the long term view (as have conservatives). When they have a majority as they did in the first two years of the Obama administration, they can move forward boldly. When reactionaries are in command, blocking their reactionary policies may be seen as a relative positive. I also don't necessarily see it as sacrificing DACA recipients. It is the Republicans who are using them as hostages to gain repeal of progressive immigration policies (that they themselves supported in the past). Ultimately, the question is what is the lessor of the two evils presented to the Democratic minority.
2
@David - If they do that, then they are very unlikely to take over Congress. Not many voters will supporter a party that puts the rights of illegal immigrants ahead of the rights of American citizens.
5
Better to go out with a bang than a whimper. I think transparency and open discussion of the many sides of the immigration issue is what the American public demands and deserves from its Senate. Whether or not DACA was legal it was still viewed as a promise by the Dreamers and the American public who feel as though families matter more than laws. People are aware that this will cost money. As I have learned over the course of my life (sometimes painfully), you have to choose what things or projects or people to financially back. This is worth supporting as a one time effort to preserve families and keep a promise that, whether legal or not, most Dreamers and Americans believe in and are expecting will come to pass for this vulnerable population inhabiting our country. If this country cannot give them the chance promised it should safely transport them to countries that will.
8
I think you are misunderstanding the supposed legal status question. They are only "illegal" until the laws are changed. That is exactly what Congress is discussing. The question is, do the technicalities of current immigration law match up to our moral principles. In this case they clearly don't. A minor brought to this country by his or her parent(s) cannot be seen as culpable in the breach of law committed by their parents. Clearly, it would be immoral to deport them. As such, the laws must be changed.
It would be dishonest to pretend that this can be done as a "one time effort". There will continue to be children brought into the country illegally. The responsible thing to do is to have a serious debate about a sustainable response that we can live with. Simply kicking them out isn't one. A "one time" amnesty will have us dealing with the same issue over and over with new groups of illegal immigrant's children.
2
Perhaps I was hasty in not including in the remark that I believe in legal immigration. That we are a republic, a nation of laws, has not escaped my attention. I just believe that these children, some of whom are adults, are already integrated into our society, thus deportation would damage not just them but us as well. For the sake of continuity of this cohesion we should revise the immigration law so that it doesn't apply to those who were not complicit in breaking them. It would be a one time provision that revised immigration laws and enhanced enforcement would ensure will not recur.
1
The DACA children didn't choose to be here. Give them citizenship and have done with it. They're Americans.
The 11 million undocumented folks are also here. Instead of arguing for another decade and getting nowhere, let's be smart like the Romans and bring them into the fold. Offer them citizenship with a $10,000 price tag payable over 15 years (or whatever amount and whatever period). That'll bring in 110 billion dollars if I'm counting my zeros correctly. Not a paltry amount, plus all the taxes they'll pay etc. etc. Plus savings on not arresting and locking up and deporting people who are already working in the USA.
Also vastly reduce the hot air coming out of Congress which will improve the climate there.
Is it fair? No, but lots of things aren't fair. Grownups (not many of those in Congress and none in the White House these days) deal with reality. If I want to hear fairy tales I'll read to my granddaughters. From the government I'd like something a little more grounded.
No, I won't hold my breath.
16
What is unfair about creating a pathway to citizenship for people who are currently undocumented? The fact that others came here legally? I don't necessarily see it that way. Those who came here illegally probably had less choice than those others. Bad luck, lack of resources, desperation to escape miserable conditions, etc. put them at a disadvantage to those who came legally. A pathway to citizenship will still put them through the same background checks and require them to overcome the same, or even greater obstacles, than legal immigrants faced. On the other hand, I'm sure you can find many examples of legal immigrants who faced similar obstacles, but opted for the legal path. Were they doing so out of respect for U.S. laws or were they merely gambling that this route would work out better in the long run? Finally, the moral good of the whole has to be considered, as you've said. What is good for the nation isn't necessarily blind adherence to outdated laws. That's why we have a legislature that can change the laws when a level of consensus is reached on new laws that will achieve an overall purpose such as peacefully assimilating immigrants who will become positive contributors to the whole. This of course boils down to whether or not you view immigration as a net positive. Those who don't are lacking in knowledge of U.S. history, basic economics, and, in many cases, are deluded about the causes of their own lack of satisfactory conditions.
1
Every decision that the Democrats make until November must be appropriately calibrated to win back the House and the Senate. Nothing. No single issue is as important as gaining majority control of Congress. Then in November, we can begin to overturn these calamitous policies of the Trump administration and start to address the real priorities of the "majority" of our Democracy and the American people.
12
Alas, Harrison - with every seat in both houses filled with Democrats, we could not undo some of the things Trump has done. I've learned a lot about the power of the president in this go-round. We can't undo all the damage (Gorsuch, for example), but we can possibly stop more from happening. Let us hope.
3
It's precisely this strategy that interferes with legislating. Pelosi is following this strategy, riling up anger in the base to galvanize different identity groups (a/k/a "whipping" the base).
To people who do not want compromise, we should "Just Say No."
1
"“For a lot of us, we’re going to have to learn this process,” said Senator Mike Rounds, Republican of South Dakota, who was elected in 2014."
Reading things like this just make me feel so hopeless. A tear actually swelled in my eye. We have passed the event horizon.
4
Well, this is good news. However, I have fears, mainly for the Democrats. They may find themselves in a Catch-22, faced with the dilemma of a possible Republican ploy to hold our Dreamers hostage in order to pass a more rigid immigration bill contrary to the Dems core beliefs re this issue.
Perhaps, they can come to a reasonable compromise that will make it to the House. Then the worries really begin. However, time is indeed running out for our DACA recipients. There is a strong possibility that per "habit" an overall immigration reform bill will be postponed "for a later date." This is where I believe we need to actively join the debate...that being insist that there be a stand-alone bill/law that will allow these young productive adults to stay here with the promise of eventual citizenship. We have a moral and ethical responsibility to them, and should do more than just sit, fret, and watch.
1
Interesting article regarding the billions paid into Social Security by undocumented workers who come simply to work and make a living. They use a fake SS card, employers turn a blind eye, and bingo, the coffers grow. Year after year after year. This never seems to be a part of the conversation.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/09/undocumented-immigr...
6
Well, what is the net-net? Two kids in public school at a cost of $15K each? You'd have to pay a lot of FICA to cover that.
5
Don't punish the kids for the sins of the parents, but punish the parents. Want a clean DACA bill? I'll trade the DACA kids for sending the DACA parents back to their nations of origin without hope of returning to the United States ever again.
We can deal with the rest later.
17
Why?
Because it is going to require a Carte nationale d'identité for everyone to make any sense, and I'd rather get the DACA parents out and the DACA kids in before we make any moves in that direction. Then, within 10 years after we institute a card, all illegal immigrants should depart with a $1000 check and plane ticket, or face permanent deportation with no possibility of return to America. Meanwhile, the card or a valid visa should be a condition of work.
100 nations have national ID cards, including France, Denmark, Sweden, Finland and Switzerland, and their illegal immigration problem isn't nearly as bad as America's. We need one, too.
7
So you suggest breaking up families, where parents who worked hard and sacrificed to give their children a better life should never again be allowed to visit their children and grandchildren in the homes they helped to build.
What a party of "family values" Republicans are.
3
So.. they're going to try actually governing and legislating? What a concept! Tune in next week when they try to actually keep a campaign promise.
haha. I kid.
3
This is the way the Senate is supposed to work.
3
Amen. The founding fathers looked at Senate as the deliberative body.
3
It’s funny how skill based immigration is so controversial. And how a diversity lottery is for some reason something that must be maintained. Democrats do not control any lever of government. They better learn how to compromise, or these kids are getting deported
32
If your statement, which sounds like the threat of a hostage taker, is representative of Republican legislators, it is incumbent upon Democrats to resist this sort of rule by gangster tactics. By the way, in my view, Democrats are already somewhat more inclined to compromise than Republicans. We can share examples and see who is historically more accurate. Just recently, Democrats and Republicans have signed onto a budget compromise that quickly brought to an end a government shutdown that could have gone on for weeks. Democrats gave up their insistence on a solution to the DACA question in order to accommodate the majority of voters who felt that DACA was not worth a shutdown. On the other hand, in a parallel situation, when Obama was president, Republicans shut down the government for 16 days as they were unwilling to pass an appropriations bill without a repeal of the ACA (Obamacare). According to polls, "81% of Americans disapproved of the shutdown, 86% felt it had damaged the United States' image in the world, and 53% held Republicans in Congress accountable for the shutdown." That didn't seem to deter uncompromising Republicans. (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_government_shutdown_....
2
McConnell must have made a weekend trip to Colorado.
1
Good! What they have been doing does not work. Each day seems to bring something new in both sides trying to work together. This is how it's supposed to work.
16
Though many are loathe to admit it, having a president who isn't beholden to politics and that type of game-playing has actually brought some fresh air to the process. The GOP cannot control Trump, and he generally means what he says, so democrats don't have to worry he'll be forced to renege at the last moment, as Obama did, and leave them hanging.
3
As a retired high school history teacher I taught my students that this is how it is supposed to work. I am glad to see that for once it is happening. Open debate and open votes how refreshing.
6
Rather than wonder about the future of DACA legislation, one might simply plant a bug in the tangled Medusa's communication knot of Americans for Prosperity, American Legislative Enterprise Council, and the Koch brothers.
This bug might pick up their decision, how that decision will be communicated to GOP legislators, and just how much each lawmaker will be paid for their vote on the fate of close to a million of our friends, relatives and neighbors.
2
President Trump's immigration proposal is the best choice that most Americans on either side can support.
Or, we could pass something similar to what our neighbors -- Canada and Mexico -- have for their immigration control. Surely, the democrats couldn't reject this choice?
16
I believe I am accurate in stating that at one time (not very long ago) both Republicans and Democrats believed the U.S. is a nation of immigrants. That is why they both voted for the law that established the "diversity lottery" (correctly referred to as the Diversity Immigrant Visa program) that many - but not all - Republicans now want to repeal. It was part of the Immigration Act of 1990 signed into law by President George W. Bush. It was approved in the House and Senate by overwhelming majorities. The support was bi-partisan. You can count the number of Republicans that voted for this bill on this page: https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cf.... You can read more about the Immigration Act of 1990 here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1990. Were you in favor of this act or against it at the time? If you were in favor, what has caused you to change your position? Thanks Bhaskar.
3
@David Sokal
Thank you for the information. I cared more about my pet hamster than politics back then.
As I travel around now, I see people whose families have lived here for generations, living in poverty, scarred by drugs, their jobs taken away, almost forgotten.
It's painful. That's what has changed.
5
For those who said Dems were fools to believe McConnell - looks like he is holding up his end of the bargain. Genuine debate and an open process. Nice to see a bit of respect for Democracy here, allowing everyone to be heard. Whether I agree or not with the outcome, this is the way to do it.
10
Maybe it's time to finally be forgiving and offer amnesty to all those lawbreaking citizens who hired folks without the proper documentation. Oops! Forgot that the only lawbreakers here are those who supplied our demand for cheap labor, drugs, etc.
5
I think most support the prosecution of people who knowingly hire illegal labor.
4
Under the existing law, you just have to file I-9 forms in binders, and it's all legal. Legal, but absurd.
1
The "world's greatest deliberative body" debating? WOW!
2
Just want to point out quickly that you made an error. The Senate is debating illegal immigrants not undocumented immigrants. They are here illegally correct? Their parents did break our immigration laws correct? Spare us the euphemisms.
63
Many of the immigrants entered the country legally but overstayed their visas or lost their status, for example by dropping out of or finishing school if they were here on a student visa. Others entered the country without inspection by an immigration agent (ie, entered illegally). Both groups lack proper immigration documents, so both groups are described as being undocumented. It’s not a euphemism.
The correct terminology, found in Federal law, is "illegal aliens." Whether their condition is the result of breaking into the country, being brought in by parents breaking in, or overstaying a visa, they are not "undocumented immigrants" or any other kind of immigrant.
I immigrated to the US in 1961. Legally.
4
I guess the Democrats are getting their chance on DACA. I hope they don't forget that 1) they are here illegally (I grant through no fault of their own) 2) there are millions waiting behind them to come here and 3) the welfare of American CITIZENS should be the most important factor. And please stop the comments that 80% of Americans want them to stay. It all depends how you phrase the question.
67
NPR:
"That latest poll from the Washington Post found that 87 percent of Americans support "a program that allows undocumented immigrants to stay in the United States if they arrived here as a child, completed high school or military service and have not been convicted of a serious crime."
3
Lynn:
That poll doesn't exist in a vacuum. Americans support immigration enforcement too.
5
Gosh - this sounds like a dream, or something I remembered from civics. . . Discussion, debate, no opening straightjacket. Could this be democracy?
3
No, it is a Representative Republic. Citizens getting to vote on initiatives is democracy. When we allow our Representatives (Senators and House Representatives) then they are being our Representatives. You will have no vote on the final legislation. If there is any resolution.
1
Anything, ANYTHING, is better than conniving in secrecy, leaving half the team in the dark and then springing a plan on them at the last minute. We voted these 100 people (for better or worse) into office to represent us. All of us. All sides. That's what a Democracy's all about. Anything less than that is a Trumpocracy. And I've had enough.
15
Lol remember how Obamacare was passed?
5
Last I checked, President Trump’s actions are what returned this decision to our elected legislature
6
@Jake, yeah, with year's worth of committee hearings, in which Democrats added a bunch of Republican provisions that partially crippled the system, only to have no Republicans back it.
It is odd that so many who comment forget that it took years for the Dreamers to be brought to the US. Years of national gov'ts run by both Republican and Democratic presidents as well as years of border state governments who used the flow of "undocumented" workers to do the work US workers thought was beneath them.
Many of us who grew up in farming regions remember the "seasonal" workers who came bringing children who had no opportunity to attend schools and families who were willing to live in the broken-down trailers and shacks available Many of us remember the exploitation by employers of "Migrant Workers". There was little pressure on employers for the "documents" of their workers.
The families of other Dreamers came with different skills needed in the US. They built businesses, were part of communities, paid taxes and their children called the US home, all without documents.
The Dreamers were named by Pres. Obama but not created by him. He identified them as the children who had no voice in where their parents brought them. Unlike their brothers and sisters who by chance were born in the US to citizenship, the Dreamers were not citizens but like their siblings, they felt as if the USA was home. We as a country need to see our responsibilities to the children of the workers who came without documents to work for decades.
Borders are man made and will never be perfect. The debate is about people who came to work in the US and the children who came along.
76
It was not work that US workers thought was beneath them. It was working that they willing to do at those LOW wages.
I have a master's degree and make a decent living. If you me would pay $60 an hour to pick apples, I would pick apples, but that's not the prevailing wage in that industry. So when you use that canard about Americans won't do work beneath them, I stop listening. If you say Americans won't do that work at THAT WAGE, then I'll listen to your arguments.
13
Many of us who grew up in farming regions, Americans many generations back, did not think farm labor was beneath us and performed that labor instead of subverting the nations laws. I did. My parents did. We do not have an immigration problem. We have a values problem with regard to attitudes toward work and systematic enablers of sloth and entitlement. Americans once harvested American produce. We have the idle hands. The immigration issue is a byproduct of a bigger problem.
6
I have had the opportunity, twice in the last three years, to visit evangelical super churches, one in Texas and one in Southern California. In both cases a very significant portion of the congregation was hispanic. Both had bulletin boards loaded with flyers in Spanish. The most recent visit in Texas had a meeting set up with volunteer lawyers for Dreamers. The notion that the Democrats have a lock on the Hispanic vote is by no means certain.
11
Even the low hanging fruit extension of DACA would, I think, be a major victory for this congress. If we get ourselves in gear and VOTE in November other provisions can follow.
5
There are so many children who came legally in this country but their future is in jeopardy as their parents are stuck in High skilled (Employment Based) green card backlog. If the backlog is not cleared these children who came with their parents need to deport themselves from the only country they know growing up. Their situation is as dire as the dreamers.
28
Cry me a river. How many engineers of your kind did it take to replace the one US one who trained you and got laid off for his trouble? How low is your pitiful salary? Thanks for ruining our job market at the upper end as the illegals ruined it at the bottom.
9
You knew the rules.
1
Those of you with long memories will immediately recall that McConnell said he had made an "iron-clad promise" to Senator Susan Collins of Maine to before December 31 bring to the floor and support two health care bills that have not been seen since. And that he promised Senator Flake to bring a clean DACA bill to the floor in January. And that the current promise was that if there was no government shutdown on February 8th he would then let Democrats offer their DACA bill. Well, not only is it after February 8th, he has reneged on the terms of the promise. McConnell channels Lucy from Peanuts.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me lots of times, you're Senator McConnell.
10
Here in Kentucky we like him. He is doing what we elected him to do
10
Not everyone in Kentucky likes him.
2
Clearly we like him enough
2
Why can't We, the People have a vote on this?
Why can't we have a say as to whether we want immigration to continue the way it has been since 1965?
Or whether we want 'another amnesty' to happen?
Some of us remember the last one being the last one in 1986.
Legal immigration should be halved today.
Too many people, both legal and illegal. Time out!
65
If there were a vote, you'd lose. The majority want the Dreamers to stay, and don't have your problem with the rest of the immigration system.
2
Indirectly, you'll get your vote. When you Senator and House Rep vote, you will know their stand and can vote for / against them.
Our Constitution does not provide for a direct vote by citizens on legislation. However, a proposed Federal Accountability Amendment does.
1
You may want to go back to your history/social studies class. We are in a republic, not a true democracy. We are represented by the people we send to Washington DC and they decide the laws. With voter turnout at such a low percentage, That's probably a good thing.
2
How about we put some better treatment for those attempting to immigrate legally into this bill? They're treated like garbage at the moment, while we debate how nice to be or not to be toward those here illegally.
28
I really hope that something will be done to remove or at least reduce the green card back log for the LEGAL High Skill immigrants.
30
Not a good idea. So many H1b visas granted on fraudulent diplomas and false resumes. Extreme vetting needed for those applying for green cards.
4
Citizenship is supposed to mean something in a representative-democracy.
Now we just hand it out to anyone with enough courage to break our laws.
57
It's even worse than WillT26 suggests. I'm a citizen just because my parents were citizens. Unlike the Dreamers I had to jump through exactly zero hoops.
3
At what age do you become a criminal? 6 months, no...2 years, can't be....5,6,7 not yet....maybe when they are a teanager?
How many toddlers have "enough courage to break our laws?"
2
We would be an enviable nation if everyone was willing to do anything, even risk their life, for a better life for their family.
1
I think most folks need to revisit the activities of our first big debate, i.e., the Constitution Convention. Floor debate was vigorous. The result was consented but ratification was up in the air and required much more debate. Even then it took the promise of The first Ten Amendments to gain the final document. Even the subsequent amendments were difficult to ratify, for the most part. We remain a divided country similar to several major rifts in the past.
17
The Constitutional Convention was, above all, secret. No delegate was allowed to reveal anything about the proceedings. That is why frank debate and compromise was possible.
We are a nation of immigrants, but we also need to be methodical:
Provide a reasonable, faster path to citizenship, get rid of today's illogical hurdles in paperwork, deport immigrants who commit violent crimes (keep immigrants whose only crime was trying to get working papers or create a taxpayer ID so that they could pay taxes!), provide larger budget for assimilation and ESL, continue rigourous safety screening for entrants and continue to monitor social media, deny all immigrants access to guns unless they are in the military or police force (and then expand that rule to US-born citizens over time). Encourage highly educated entrants and also build a robust, replicable plan to educate less educated and illiterate entrants.
Last, a note on assimilation - we live in a democracy where ALL people are equal, not just men, and we cannot enable or promote the subjugation of women (from any of the orthodox religions or patriarchal societies!) New entrants need to be A PART of equality, NOT APART. Canada has excellent assimilation support models that we should study to improve our processes here.
11
At least they're trying a new processes, because the old process hasn't been working very well.
The important thing to remember is that if DREAMers get their deal they need to go to the back of the line, behind the legal immigrants.
16
I know I'm "old school"
But what ever happened to the committee system where there were hearings, staff work, and committee deliberations to mark up a bill for full Senate consideration.
I welcome the debate, but I fear a "free for all" that is better "engaged" and resolved at the committee level.
5
As you saw from the Republican tax cut bill with last-minute changes pencilled in the margins, the Republican method is for Republican leaders and a small group of men, with input from wealthy donors and lobbyists to put a bill together behind closed doors and make it the only choice.
The process you describe definitely should have been used for the tax bill.
The current immigration floor vote at least lets everyone see what is going on, so it is better than the men in secret model.
The "regular order" you describe could take place starting next week for the broad issue of immigration if a clean DACA/Dreamers bill passed this week just to address the immediate emergency Trump created by the loss of DACA in March (what Feinstein suggested at the meeting with Trump and then Republicans shot down).
1
Democrats should consider compromising on the wall because long after the Trump presidency it will serve as a reminder of ancient technology and wasted money. And years from now, people running for office can remind voters we are still waiting for Mexico to pay.
9
"Democrats should consider compromising on the wall "
Schumer tried that to avoid the first shutdown but Trump reneged on the plan.
2
A monument to ignorance.
2
WOW!
It will all be filmed and recorded, so watch out GOPer's what you say will surely come back to haunt you this November.
They will clearly wish they had not agreed to that.
Wonderful news.
4
Same for the Democratic Senators and Representatives.
If you look at the seats up for the Nov election, there are more Democratic Representative seats up for election in states that President Trump carried, than Republican Representative seats in states which the other candidate carried.
1
If you want a progressive, yet fair & balanced, review of immigration policy, read Paul Collier's, "Exodus". One reason I trust his vision is that his grandfather, a migrant from Germany to London, was so badgered by British chauvinists that they returned to Germany after the war. A decade later, horrified by what they saw happening, they returned to Britain and changed the family name from Hellenschmidt to Collier. Paul Collier, born in 1949, is now "Sir Paul" with a professorship at Oxford. A second reason I trust him is that he treats his graduate assistants as human beings.
2
A narrow deal that gives DACA participants legal residency and increases border security should be the Senate's focus, given the short time to March 5 and the need for bipartisan support. Many here call for additional measures. Given the GOP majority, a second, separate bill containing those measures would certainly pass in the House. Give Trump his '4 pillars' in two parts. Save his 'edifice complex' wall and his white race-based immigration plan for another bill.
1
It is entirely legitimate for someone to argue that illegality should not be rewarded, that illegal immigrants are just that, illegal. However, I would ask those who think of it as a very simple black and white issue whether they also believe that those who act illegally by speeding or driving under the influence should have their driving license yanked on a first offense, whether spouse abusers should be allowed a license to marry again, or whether a corporation such as Wells Fargo that violates the law through palpable fraud should be allowed to keep its license to operate?
If most Americans can answer consistently, then I will respect their opinion that illegals are simply illegals. If not, if they think there should be some nuance in applying the indicated penalties for violations of the aforementioned laws, then I expect they should also approach the question of illegal immigrants, especially the "dreamers", in like manner.
8
I suspect i likely agree with you on the issue, but i am not at all sure that the disparate group of rhetorical questions that you pose lead to a consistent set of answers, or that they set up, individually, let alone as a group, a useful analogy to the DACA issue.
1
Helping Anne Frank was illegal. So were escaped slaves and the underground railroad. Sometimes the right thing to do is illegal and we hope the law will catch up. Nice try on the rhetorical questions, but in the end no cigar.
1
I don't think the NYT realizes how palatable the White House's proposal is to the majority of America (USA). Keep Your Eyes open.
73
The majority of Americans favor a solution for DACA/Dramers. The majority of Americans are opposed to a border wall.
3
"Donald Trump Backs Citizenship Pathway for Dreamers." The White House would offer 1.8 million Dreamers a path to citizenship, in exchange for strict limits on legal immigration.
2
I don't think you realize that the majority of Americans do not want to spend a single red cent on building a border wall, let alone billions of dollars. Let's fix the water in Flint first. Let's restore electricity and clean water to US citizens in Puerto Rico first. Let's protect the environment from further damage by Trump's cronies first. I suggest you keep your eyes and ears open so you can discern what a lying con artist Trump is.
2
Call me a Pollyanna, but isn't this the way it oughta be?
9
This thing is dead the minute Ryan invokes the Hastert Rule.
5
Ryan has already invoked the Trump rule, which is worse than the Hastert rule. He will not allow to even come to the floor anything President Trump might veto. Since Trump has many different positions on immigration, as on many subjects, this eliminates everything.
5
I am still confused on why our representatives are having a debate at all. This is not Disney World where everywhere can "...wish upon a star...". They all should be gone because they set an example of lawlessness and it has dripped down over American society since Obama allowed this to happen. Why should we alter laws to accommodate lawlessness?
28
Children set an example of lawlessness, when they are brought into the country through no fault of their own, and successfully integrate into American life?
7
Are you suggesting that we should have kept the laws that allowed slaveholders to keep slaves and lawless slaves from being freed after they fled their masters? There was lawlessness in the underground tunnels that were devised by those who knew that the laws were unjust and highly punitive of a particular population who had no right to speak on their own behalf, as they were considered property. Does our history of slavery in any way resemble that of those here illegally who have the threat of deportation, low wages at jobs that Americans don't want, criminal trafficking, impoverishment or imprisonment as their daily lot?
1
Before everybody falls over themselves applauding the return of democratic open debate, please commit yourselves upfront to supporting the results of that process--whatever they may be.
7
What planet do these liberal, open borders warriors live on? They want DACA amnesty without addressing the problems that allowed 11 million people to enter a sovereign country illegally in the first place?
Without border security, e-verify and end to chain migration, this situation will go on ad nauseum and a new generation of Dreamers will flow across the border. I favor a DACA solution but an American working class which has seen its real wages frozen for two decades deserves relief, too.
110
Those American working class people voted for tRump and still support him. If they aren't getting relief maybe they should talk to him instead of just blindly supporting everything that he does.
4
Didn't bother anybody in 1620.
3
I hear you, but: Many of the illegals in this country arrived by plane legally and overstayed their welcome. A wall wouldn’t make a bit of difference. And as far as frozen wages, there is something rotten alright but it has nothing to do with illegal immigrants. The net wealth of the country has greatly increased over the last 40 years but it’s only gone into the pockets of relatively few. It’s a systemic problem.
5
It is a cruel way for Democratic and Republican politicians of leading on the Dreamers with false hope. Not enough Democrats will vote for the wall or cut future immigration in exchange for DACA. There is clearly no chance that DACA will be renewed and Dreamers be allowed to stay legally..
3
Well, there might be "open" debate - but if it's anything like the tax "reform" bill - be prepared for last minute add ons in the margins that no one really understands - and everyone votes for. If I had to hazard a guess - the GOP will have to make some accommodations to the GOP/Trump supporters who benefit economically from undocumented workers - like in the agricultural and housing sector. After that, it's anyone's guess.
12
“but if it's anything like the tax "reform" bill - be prepared for last minute add ons in the margins that no one really understands..”
Sounds a lot like Obamacare.
1
We want to have a fair and open discussion. But bear in mind these 3 essential Democratic points
1. Many people here claim that undocumented migration disadvantages legal migration. However, the administration's insistence on doing away with family and lottery based applications in exchange for DACA protections will actually punish those who are currently following the law to the letter while granting a break to those who didn't or couldn't, and so we do not accept these explanations as a valid argument for pushing through these un-acceptable terms. We will not pass ANY measure that reduces the rate of legal immigration, particularly from countries that do not meet the president's particular ethnic standards
2. We remain, as we always have, open to increasing funds for border security, towards whichever projects the administration feels is necessary towards that end. However, we still believe that a wall will be highly ineffective and counter-productive measure, and would advise against spending tax-payer money on such an ineffective measure.
3. We will continue to stand by our cities in their decision not to cooperate with ICE's overzealous round-up of undocumented civilians with no serious criminal records. We will not allow the administration to pass unconstitutional measures that aim to bully our civic leaders into actions that will expose their police departments to civil suit and sow distrust within the communities they serve.
11
So you are unilaterally going to decide which democratically enacted laws you are going to enforce?
I guess that whole rule of law and equal application thing is out-dated. We can have a feelings based legal system.
We do not need an 18th century immigration policy in the 21st century. We do not need an 18th century economy in the 21st century.
Lets call a moratorium on immigration and start investing in our own kids. We can modernize our economy. Young people who like working with their hands can build robots and help automate.
We can build a 21st century renewable energy system. A world-class national transit system.
And we can streamline and reform our judicial system so we can humanely deport those here illegally with respect and dignity. We can rededicate our nation to the rule of law and its equal application.
The idea that all are treated equally and not based on sympathetic stories or self-created dilemmas.
26
AJ Garcia,
Your conditions sound a little like hijacking U.S. governance. Who are "we" and what gives you a voice if you are here illegally? Do you know of any country that would allow you to enter and demand the right to stay? Get a grip.
28
Dlud, on what basis do you assume that AJ Garcia is here illegally? Just the name? You've betrayed your own prejudices with this assumption.
AJ Garcia's Point #1 is an argument for maintaining existing avenues for LEGAL immigration, instead of reducing those avenues.
Point #2 is that a border wall would be a HUGE waste of our tax money. Some of us also object to it because it will cause environmental damage, and impact endangered wildlife in the border region. There are far more effective ways to spend that money, if border security is the goal.
Point #3 is about allowing cities to decide their own course on policies that affect possibility for community policing. If local police are required to report to ICE, this makes it harder for them to build trust with witnesses of truly serious crimes like murder, human trafficking, and sexual abuse.
These are all completely sensible, mainstream ideas that the majority of Americans can agree on.
2
I don't know by whom or how the pieces would be put together, but wouldn't it be nice to see groups of Senators present, in public, chunks of a law on topics they are passionate about. Then see how many cosigners they could get for each chunk. Then those with the most popular chunks try to fit them together into a coherent bill. As I said, all in public. One might actually get people to feel their government was working, that Senators were not after all, less popular than used car salesmen.
2
Puppet-face McConnell may have kept his promise to open debate on immigration, but we all know how this is going to turn out!
The illegal immigrants will be expelled from the USA!
1
Seems like a great idea to me. I thought that's how our Congress is supposed to work. Bills coming down from on-high to be rubber stamped by Congress seems more like China than America.
I hope the Democrats are willing to actually compromise. I like the Dreamers, but I want a secure border, e-verify, merit based immigration, and a focus on helping the citizens and immigrants who are already here.
If the Dems shut this down or refuse to make a deal to do these things in exchange for helping 1.8 million Dreamer, I will be angry. The Dems made their narrative and they should end this now before people start to believe that the Dems care more about illegal immigrants than the American citizens who elected them to serve their interests.
106
I am so tired of the "Democrats care more about immigrants than the American citizens." Democrats just signed off on a budget that had no DACA deal at all. And it's Republicans who just gave away the store to the one percent in tax breaks, and who are now talking about cutting the safety net - which they call "entitlement reform." Do you consider your Social Security an "entitlement," or do you feel you've contributed to it and deserve it?
3
I understand your point of view but would refuse it (if I where an American citizen). Your are combining two questions to get what you want instead of finding common ground on two separate problems: save borders and a way to deal with illegal immigrants. Your are blinded by the suggestion that a wall would solve the illegal crossing of the boarder but it would only shift the way people try to come to your country (you have to improve the living conditions where they come from) or build a wall around your country everywhere. – Secondly you have to find a way to deal with people who are there. Because if you fail these people will live under conditions without rights (they can't work, send there children to school ore ask police for help – this will increase crimes). Even if you do not want them to become citizens you have to think of them as human beings – you can't withhold everything a state should do for people living in his boarders. – You have to deal with these questions separately and find a majority for each topic separately otherwise one topic is taking the other hostage. Even if you can't find a solution for your boarders you can't leave the problems of illegal immigrants unsolved. This problem is piling up with the numbers of illegal immigrants you cant have people in your country living in constant fear and without any rights. DARCA is now but the problem remains and needs a different approach than giving citizen ship away when the numbers increase in the future.
Do you not think the Republicans should compromise too? If they stand firm on the border wall, as opposed to being open to border security measures with more of a chance of working, they will be shutting this down. Compromise comes from both sides.
I say put the emphasis on people. Dreamers and their families are living in terror at the thought of being deported and having their lives totally disrupted. I say regularize the status of Dreamers and their families and give Trump his stupid—because it will ineffective—wall.
3
I look forward to, finally, hearing a number from the Democratic Party.
I suspect the Democratic Party definition of a Dreamer is quite a bit different from that of a typical citizen.
Not that long ago we were told that we had to protect 690,000 college kids / army veterans / selfless volunteers needed to be protected.
Then the headlines changed to 800,000. Then Trump offered 1,800,000. Democrats said no.
So what is the number? How many people does the Democratic Party just want to handout citizenship to?
I have seen videos of Dreamers in the faces of sitting members of Congress screaming All or None.
I think the Democrats are going to end up asking for 20 million people to get amnesty and citizenship.
I cannot support that. Our collective future cannot support it.
81
Sure it can! Although I think you exaggerate what most Dems would want, immigrants in general have lower rates of crime than citizens overall, and contribute to a growing economy. Just like everyone else, they are consumers, workers, and taxpayers. Just like everyone else, just like you.
9
@Rdeannyc,
My concern is the environmental impact and the overall costs of an ever increasing population.
I cannot support granting citizenship to anyone here illegally.
We face a bleak future because of climate change. I am afraid we cannot afford to be the relief valve for the worlds population problems.
17
Hmm, well let's see, there's the parents and siblings, (and their children and in-laws), for starters. After this DACA 'amnesty deal' there will be millions more waiting to get in through the back door. Wait for it.
11
Senator McConnell is living up to his word that he will provide a debate on immigration, but it is difficult to see how a free standing debate can craft effective legislation that can garner 60 votes in the Senate, a majority n the House and POTUS' signature. Every thirty years, it seems we have an immigration bill. With the Simpson -Mazzoli bill in 1986, we thought we solved the problem by granting asylum to millions already in this country and strengthening the border. That only encouraged more illegal immigration. The issue is a basic one: does anyone who crosses a border to live in the United States without incident, such as a criminal conviction, deserve automatically to stay in this country. If the answer to this question is affirmative--and I suspect that it is not--, the problem is solved. If not, do the so called Dreamers, who were taken here as children, stand on a separate footing than other undocumented or illegal immigrants? If we grant protection to the Dreamers, how do we treat subsequent child migration? Are we encouraging parents to throw their children into coyotes to cross the border illegally with the understanding that we will compassionately allow these children to stay? Perhaps the solution is to deny citizenship to Dreamers but permit them to stay and state that there will be no extensions of the program to future children who appear without documentation in our country, which insures that immigration laws will be enforced.
13
Apart from Sen. McConnell channeling Chairman Mao ("Let a thousand flowers bloom!), this structure for putting together a bill is a useful change for what has become a dysfunctional system. Traditionally, Congress has worked on the committee system, the understandable rationale being that no Member could be knowledgeable about everything, and that ongoing participation on a given committee would help the Members to become more familiar with the subject matter.
As that system has not worked for a decade or so, this open-ended floor debate may well be a good way to get things moving again. However, one should be cautious about endorsing it as a precedent, inasmuch as the rationale for committees still is valid. One hundred mostly know-nothings will not in the course of ordinary legislation produce a better result than ten know-somethings.
4
Has floor debate ever changed the outcome of a vote in the modern era?
1
“And it will be an opportunity for 1,000 flowers to bloom.”
I know Republicans have gotten weird, but to see their Senate leader (mis)quoting Chairman Mao is something I didn't think I would get to see.
Mao's Hundred (not thousand) Flowers movement was followed by purges resulting in the imprisonment, torture, and often death of untold numbers of people. I don't know what Mitch is planning, but it doesn't look good.
15
"...lawmakers will, in effect, attempt to build a bill from scratch on the Senate floor..."
They are resorting to this because Republicans cannot legislate. They are gibbering incompetents.
2
It would be thrilling to see a team of qualified elected officials actually working out the shape of what healthcare could look like in this country, if there were really a clean slate to start with, and if there were such a thing as a "qualified builder of national healthcare systems" somewhere in Congress. The groups involved will not be looking to first principles to "build" a humane and effective healthcare system from the ground up; they will return to partisan first principles at the first session break. During the run up to the election, I read comments from voters warning nominees to "Keep Govt out of my healthcare!", while lamenting cuts to medicare and medicaid. How can reps stay loyal to their bases if the bases believe any government solution to a problem must by definition be a bad one? The Republican Conservative mantra has been that Smaller Government itself is the solution, to everything - and their plan to shrink government starts with showing how ineffective the popular vote is at selecting people with large brains and long vision. Coupled with the understaffing of key positions, there may not be anyone left in Washington smart enough to accomplish anything but obstruction - you know, the kind we talked about before the current president took on the role of Chief Obstructionist, the kind where you showed up to work on the floor, voted against all of the opposing party offerings, thumbs up with all of your own. Simple!
1
The dictionary definition of "congress" is:
"the act of coming together."
Yet the fact that it is big news that congress plans to actually, maybe, debate and talk (as opposed to ramming gerrymandered and closed door partisan bills down each other's throat) is remarkably sad.
Our democracy is on life support.
44
I like the idea, yet unfortunately, I do not believe the humane element of the republican part of the Senate, if there still is one, will stand up to the anti-immigration faction and to the president. They really are xenophobic at this stage, and it is a shame. So not what our country was founded on.
3
Yes it is totally stupid, this "issue" should not take more that a couple of hours. Take either the house bill or the president's proposal (or both) and vote on them. Repeat with some adjustments until something passes. We know the things that have to be in it, so why even waste time talking.
4
This is the process. Let it play out. It used to be called "sausage-making" before party heads started dictating that their party's members must stick to talking points.
Under Trump, Congress is actually getting back to work. It's been playing politics and accomplishing little for so long it might be hard to actually get things done again. The mid-terms are the real obstacle, drawing them back to their political playbooks.
The media is another group that needs to get back to work. It's so steeped in opinion politics that it has lost its ability to report objectively. It peddles far too much of the equivalent of trash talk.
1
“We’re going to have something in the Senate that we haven’t had in a while...”
....open discussion, open debate, and a vague reminder of democracy.
Well, isn't that just earth-shattering ?
171
I understand the sentiment towards DACA and there should be a solution. However, what about legal immigrants waiting in long backlogs for both employment based and family based - Noone should cut in the line and we should get rid of the per country caps and the diversity visas during this negotiation.
42
And birthright citizenship aka anchor babies.
9
Silly me, what you call a 'novel approach' I would characterize as the bones and sinew of what was meant to be our constitutional republic's experiment with deliberative democracy -- indeed, if Ms. Stolberg is interested, she might read a book or three about the process out of which our Articles of Federation and then our Constitution was crafted, and she might realize creating things from scratch is in fact our original tradition.
8
One hopes that the Senate will debate immigration -- that is, whether and how to permit immigration to our country going forward.
As for the illegal aliens present in our country, there is no debate: the enforcement effort should be redoubled until they have all been deported. It just makes good sense.
33
Your idea makes no sense at all.
I think the only solution to the problem is a blanket amnesty for all immigrants currently here, followed by a new strengthened immigration policy restricting future arrivals.
We need a clean slate if we are to make a fresh start. Otherwise, too many lives will be disrupted for no discernible advantage.
2
Every time we've put through a new immigration law, its makers have promised that the blanket amnesty for all (illegal) immigrants here would be followed by a newly strengthened immigration policy restricting future arrivals. The second part seems not to follow.
13
Can you give me a number on the cost of deporting 11 million people? Can you give me an number of the economic impact of doing so?
1
It's the House that's most worrisome when it comes to a vote on immigration issues.
Paul Ryan has no leadership skills, and is afraid of the Freedom Caucus, a truly horrible group of people with the mentality of terrorists, who refuse to compromise with anyone.
13
Really?? Some might insist that giving DACA individuals any special benefits is not correct at all. I don't support them getting citizenship in any special way, but have no problem with the current program continuing.
9
vulcanalex,
Where do you see anything in my comment about "special benefits?"
Also, what are you asking "Really??" about?
Did you accidentally reply to me?
2
Exactly. Through Ellis Island, checked for lice to boot, not through some illegal tunnel in the desert. And my family came one by one all legally and it took ten years for all of us to get here and get that US passport ! And I’m all for the dreamers, but illegal is self evident
47
Because there almost no immigration restrictions (except for the racist, exclusionary ones). Your (presumably European) ancestors had to satisfy almost no qualifications to make it through Ellis Island
Angry, if people did what was required to make it through Ellis Island, regardless of how easy you think it was, it was legal at the time.
My ancestors followed the rules of the time. THAT'S the salient point.
And once here, they got nothing for free. No food, housing, medical care, etc.
6
The circus has come to town.
Groups of Senators should have banded together to propose some straw men.
"When you find yourself in a hole, you must first stop digging". That means wall, mandatory eVerify, and, most definitely, an end to the lunacy of Birthright Citizenship.
This country never solves complex problems quickly. The current illegal "immigration" mess has been developing since the misbegotten Reagan Amnesty of 1986 --32 years! And every year of that, illegal "immigrants" have been having US citizen children and making this issue much more complex to solve.
58
You do realize that birthright citizenship is enshrined in the Constitution, correct?
7
It's in an amendment to the Constitution, originally meant to protect the children of newly freed slaves.
19
A wall!? Paid by Mexico, right? I mean, Trump PROMISED they'd pay for it!
Listen, pal, unless you're a Native American, you're an illegal immigrant, one way or another!
So, you mean, Democrats and Republicans get to propose ideas without some pre-existing framework? And then discuss those ideas, and modify them? And try to come up with some cohesive plan that a majority will approve?
I'm going to faint.
133
Save the fainting for when they have an actual proposal that has 60 votes...
5
One wonders why the Democrats didn’t do this when they had the chance. Is it possible they whaed to keep the issue and it attendant turmoil alive rather than actually work to find a solution? Now we can see what each party proposes. Seems like a great idea to me.
27
Politics is the reason, dems have ways to keep folks in line, that is why I never vote for them.
6
They did. It passed in the House in 2010 and the GOP filibustered it in the Senate.
6
Democrats desperately need the Hispanic turnout in the mid-terms. Pelosi's 8-hour "talk" was her contribution.
Good thing Mexico is going to pay the $25 billion that Trump says he needs for his needless wall!
After all he promised the American people numerous times - and he wouldn't lie to us would he?
Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. Well, he's fooled the American people literally hundreds of times and his Republican base keeps coming back for more.
32
Yay! I think.
3
How can open ended debate in the Senate be novel? That is the whole point of the reason that the Senate allows filibusters ! The idea of replacing open ended debate with a rule to end a "filibuster" with 60 votes is absurd. The senate should institute rules allowing for much more open ended debate with those measures that receive the most votes winning - that should be the filibuster rule.
5
This debate needs to concentrate on the immigration policy and not just illegal immigrants. From what I am hearing/seeing on youtube, it looks to be more about wall and illegals but not a long term immigration policy that addresses the concerns of blue collar US citizens and the business needs of the US economy.
20
You get your political news from YouTube? Other than cat videos, I didn't realize they are a news source.
3
Great. Get all the racism out in the open, for all to see.
8
Yes the racism of many posters and some news organizations.
6
The Twit at 1600 PA Ave is proposing to slash Medicare to pay for more nukes, but the opposition has won a major victory in forcing the Senate to debate . . . immigration.
2
This will be fascinating to watch, and hopefully proof that our Senate still functions as a legislative body. I'm hoping for a good outcome containing plenty of compromise, and no threats of gridlock by either side. They should also completely ignore Trump for the moment, as his demands will be like sand in the legislative gears.
9
This needs to be celebrated. Be still my heart and "Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader, told reporters last week. “And it will be an opportunity for 1,000 flowers to bloom.” OMG. Really OMG!
Maybe we have been down so long this is starting to look like up to me. (I have plagiarized of course)
"Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader, told reporters last week. “And it will be an opportunity for 1,000 flowers to bloom.”"
So now Mitch McConnell is quoting Chairman Mao Zedong ?
Just when you think that American politics has reached peak weird...
83
A president who take his lead from Putin. McConnell who quotes from Mao. Any doubt who won the Cold War now? Sad.
1
Let a thousand flowers bloom, Mr McConnell? Just like Mao in 1956 (except ten times as many, in a nod to DT). We all know how well that one turned out....
10
If nothing else, it's a welcome change to see the Senate at least embrace the prospect of an honest, open debate without a lot committee back room dealing and partisan politics controlling what can even get a vote.
Unfortunately, I think there's too wide a gap between the two sides for anything to get done. The GOP insists that every migrant is a criminal, and the Democrats want to give even the actual criminals flowers, hugs, taxpayer-sponsored handouts, and permanent citizenship lest we be too "mean" to them. Hopefully smarter heads will prevail, and we'll address DACA, tighten security to ensure we don't have an endless need to keep granting amnesty to childhood arrivals, and start to prioritize skilled migrants who will help jumpstart our economy and keep us ahead of China from a technology standpoint.
16
Oh my, it's almost as though we are living in a transparent, functioning democracy.
45
No, this is an example of the Representative Republic. The Representatives you elected may be able to shape this legislation.
The outcome would be based on Democracy if everyone got to vote for the final measure.
7
Renegade, you might as well give up. The average American learned that they live in a "democracy" in the 3rd grade, and have not grown any more knowledgeable or sophisticated in their understanding of our government, its Consititutional foundation, and its history. I wonder how many would be shocked to know that prior to the 17th Amendment, passed just over 100 years ago, people did not even vote for Senators.
1
Miriam-Webster
Definition of democracy
"1 a: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections."
The opposite of a democracy is a dictatorship. We should all hope that the United States is still a democracy.
Well, our Senate advertises itself as the "greatest deliberative body", I think they add, in the world.
Show time, now.
Folks supporting DACA fix are going to regret this "60 votes" magic number. It is just for the same reason that it has not passed since 2001.
If past is any prologue, the Majority Leader will tell the Senate - after a week - "time to press on to other legislative business."
8
60 votes is only a rule, a lazy one to prevent people from actually holding the floor. If an elderly female can talk for 8 hours others could talk for days. Eliminate the rule.
2
Say what you will about McConnell, but he is living up to his word that he would open the Senate to debate immigration.
85
Until issues are settled, no one's lived up to anything, my friend.
4
Well, let's just see what McConnell actually does before praising him.
If history of his actions is any guide, this wily, evil one will sabotage anything that doesn't fit the Radical Republican plan.
You can be sure he is working behind the scenes with his trademark smirk (or is it a sneer?).
Trust him like you would a snake in your shirt.
4
That's because he knows it won't survive the House vote ( that's if Paul Ryan will even allow one.)
3
Immigration is the issue of our time. It touches all of the big issues directly and indirectly.
The environment. We need to be seriously discussing cutting our nations emissions and transforming our economy into one that runs on renewable sources. We had one thing going for us- a national population that was declining. We have now lost that and are talking about bringing in tens of millions of additional people. This is lunacy and will end up hurting all of us in the long term.
Social programs. We continue to believe that if we import enough low income workers we can, somehow, pay our future obligations. This begs the question- what happens when all these imported workers retire? We must reform our social insurance programs so they are sustainable- and do not require ever growing numbers of people to finance.
Income inequality. We must face basic economic facts- importing workers depresses wages, prevents modernization and perverts normal economic forces. We are forcing the weakest citizens in our society to compete, directly and on every front, with the poorest people in the world. It is not fair to them. Not just jobs- housing, school resources, county resources, ratio of service providers to citizens. There are tens of millions of jobs, performed by illegal labor, that cannot be outsourced.
It is 2018. The pie is not getting bigger. Every additional person is less for each of us individually- and a darker future for our entire country and planet.
90
I'm not sure I follow. The environment doesn't recognize borders. People use resources whether they are on one side or the other. Your argument about reforming social programs is independent of immigration. They need help regardless. Income Inequality refers to the gap between the wealthy and the poor, not who gets to make up the poor. Competition for jobs exists even without immigration. Normal economic forces create this. Which is why unionization was an important development last century.
3
@Joseph,
Per capita emissions in the US are the highest in the world.
When you move someone from a low emission economy into a high emission economy you end up- wait for it- increasing emissions.
Social programs in trouble today? Yes. What about in fifty years? Will they be better with more people- of course not. They will be worse off.
Income inequality. The poorest earn less because wages have not increased.
7
Try this the sustainable population of the US is about 230 million, any more is bad for the environment. And tariffs can reform competition, our demand should (must) directly or indirectly support jobs in our country.
5
Amazing. That almost sounds like democracy. Unfortunately, It has always been the case that having the votes necessary to pass something doesn't matter. The decision is on whether or not the votes of the correct party are there. In effect, many bills that could receive a majority never reach the floor. As the President would say: "Sad".
8
No this sounds like a Representative Republic. You don't get to vote on the final outcome of the legislation. And it is sad that you do not understand how this concept differs from a democracy.
2
Renegade, there's nothing about a Republic that should prevent a vote from coming to the House or Senate floor so that the people's representatives can do their job.
The current situation is the antithesis of a representative republic. Even under the Constitutional requirement that sparsely populated states get the same number of senators as larger ones, President Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court would have been confirmed, if not for the cynical manipulations of anti-representation Republicans.
1
Charles:
Yes the process that is happening consists a Representative Republic. Voters elected Representatives - Senators and House Representatives. To present legislation to the President both the House and the Senate have to build and vote on the legislation.
Perhaps your confusion come from my use of a pronoun. I meant that John, You or I will not get to cast a vote on the legislation that this process may come up with. That is Democracy, where citizens get to vote on an initiative. We elected these Representatives, so the legislation they pass for the President to sign is an example of a Representative Republic.
Building a bill from scratch is not novel within well-run organizations. It's called brainstorming. There is no better way to come up with the best ideas.
6
This sounds like what the Senate should always do, but with Mitch McConnell in charge I'm skeptical.
14
Senators having an open floor debate with the hopes of creating bipartisan legislation? Imagine that. Let's hope the going back to basics approach is successful and can be replicated for other issues.
4
There are many on the left who said that the Democrats got nothing but a promise from McConnell to have a open floor debate on DACA and immigration when they voted to end the government shutdown, but it looks like he is keeping his word on this.
14
Now they will claim it means nothing because...(fill in the reason). Irrational people are never satisfied.
2
Good, it's about time debates like this started happening. Congress needs to work together to pass bills, not divide the country by shoving them down the throat of whichever side is not in power.
4
What ever happened to the time-honored idea of starting major legislation in the appropriate subcommittee with hearings, debate, mark-ups and amendments? From subcommittee the bill goes to the full committee for further debate and amendments. Then it goes to the floor where the entire body gets to debate and then vote on the measure.
Someone should tie McConnell to a chair and force him to watch School House Rock.
4
Wow, what a concept...actual democracy at work. In an institution that usually styles itself as "...the greatest deliberative body in history" but hasn't actually debated in so long that members don't know what to do, this is a step, albeit a small one, in the right direction. Now if senators can debate the facts (another novel concept) and not their prejudices, we may get somewhere.
But then...there's the House which will probably shoot it down without even reading the bill. Amazing how often votes are taken without reading/knowing what's in it.
3
No Representative Republic at work. Democracy is when all citizens of the Republic vote on an issue.
3
When all is said and done, after we've gone through this charade, this is what's likely to happen: ICE will be unleashed to go after tens of thousands of undocumented immigrants, including Dreamers, and those who recently lost protected status (by Executive action), Haitians, Salvadoreans, and others.
They're likely to be detained (incarcerated) in for-profit prisons (who by the way, are a huge source of political campaigns' contributions).
This situation will spread fear (and terror) in immigrants communities. Also, many people of color who are citizens or have legal status are likely to be affected by what ICE folks have euphemistically (and cynically) called "collateral damage."
The fear, the tearing families apart, while the right wing cheers on, will create a very toxic social environment where racism, xenophobia, nativism, and ultra-nationalism will continue to gain strength, unless people of goodwill stop this from happening.
One more thing: the Democratic party establishment (figures) are likely to say that "they didn't see this coming."
5
"When all is said and done, after we've gone through this charade, this is what's likely to happen: ICE will be unleashed to go after tens of thousands of undocumented immigrants, including Dreamers, and those who recently lost protected status (by Executive action), Haitians, Salvadoreans, and others."
Exactly how would this be a bad thing?
28
Wow what an imagination!
Do you really think that the Immigration service has enough agents to go after approx 800 K DACA participants, even though they have a current address on all of them?
Police can rarely find anyone even within their own city unless they just happen to pull over a car for a minor traffic violation. And then they need a warrant to arrest them.
Besides DACA participants are protected under Federal law still.
mpound, you ask, "How is this a bad thing?"
Maybe you should have read the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs, instead of just giving your knee-jerk reaction to the first.
Pouring more tax money into a private prison industry that continuously lobbies for its own expansion is a bad thing, in my view.
This, as Mr. Mendoza wrote, is also a very bad thing in my view:
"many people of color who are citizens or have legal status are likely to be affected by what ICE folks have euphemistically (and cynically) called 'collateral damage.'"
1
A debate in Congress? This is impossible. The opinions of all sides are concrete and fixed way before any discussion. Its fo political show, to seem to actually show they are willing to listen and perhaps change their minds with sufficient facts. No, these are belief driven folks and they are already decided. A debate is for actual facts and statistics to be given to try and prove a position. This is not what our politicians do.
Can only hope it is a helpful debate. It will be like seeing them draft their own campaign ads.
Good to hear Congressional representatives may actually learn how things are supposed to be done. Typically, it's a one-party, closed-meeting process that won'd see a vote unless victory is guaranteed. That way, voters will never know what their elected officials will commit to.
Congress might even learn to like the process. Everybody in the pool.
3
My prediction: nothing will be done, any fair and decent legislation will not pass, and the anti-immigrant crowd who elected Mr Trump will have their way. Their way is a white America. How much will it cost to deport this number of people, many of whom or most of whom have good jobs, raised families, etc. Even if a decent good bill passed in the Senate, it is doomed to failure in the House. A pity. How many of us in America are descended from ancestors who came over from Europe or elsewhere, and landed on Ellis Island? They walked free to take up citizenship in the US.
The New Colossus
BY EMMA LAZARUS
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
“Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”
28
How we have forgotten the verses on the Statue of Liberty! How noble and free, proud of our legacy.
Instead our shameful president and Republican allies would have us close the doors of freedom - now that they have entered. Shameful people all!
3
Yes, poetry should be policy
25
What is it about that kitschy poem that bedazzles the open borders crowd? Is it the rhymes?
45