McConnell now offering time for vote by 12 Noon Monday

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here is the link to the cloture video thread. Listen carefully, to all of it, not just the immigration part. As I said before, start around 1:08, and hang in there until at least 1:50.

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/698376.page

Listened and to me it suggests that they will be working on bills for any/all the things they listed during the next few weeks, and on the assumption that a budget is passed on Feb 8, if DACA hasn’t come up in a bill/vote by then, it is McConnell’s “intention” to bring it up specifically, before the March deadline.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here is the link to the cloture video thread. Listen carefully, to all of it, not just the immigration part. As I said before, start around 1:08, and hang in there until at least 1:50.

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/698376.page

Yes, he said what he said. But try reading all the news coverage of the issue. There were lots of talks off camera. The coverage makes clear that McConnell promised a lot more than what was said on camera, because he knows Trump and the hard-liners will look to criticize what he said on camera. The Dems would not have backed down based on just the vague words he said on camera. The gist of his promise is to give a true and fair DACA vote. If he just loads up the DACA vote with a bunch of poison pills about wall funding, then he's breaking the spirit of their agreement.

[Anonymous]

We shouldn't have to interpret what McConnell means. If it's this unclear to us, I have to imagine that it's unclear to Congress as well. I don't understand why Schumer didn't nail McConnell down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We shouldn't have to interpret what McConnell means. If it's this unclear to us, I have to imagine that it's unclear to Congress as well. I don't understand why Schumer didn't nail McConnell down.

I think there are more specifics behind the scenes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We shouldn't have to interpret what McConnell means. If it's this unclear to us, I have to imagine that it's unclear to Congress as well. I don't understand why Schumer didn't nail McConnell down.

McConnell had Schumer by the cojones and was squeezing them really hard .........

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We shouldn't have to interpret what McConnell means. If it's this unclear to us, I have to imagine that it's unclear to Congress as well. I don't understand why Schumer didn't nail McConnell down.

I think there are more specifics behind the scenes.

Let's hope so, and it better be in writing. McConnell wouldn't think twice about shafting Schumer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We shouldn't have to interpret what McConnell means. If it's this unclear to us, I have to imagine that it's unclear to Congress as well. I don't understand why Schumer didn't nail McConnell down.

I think there are more specifics behind the scenes.

Let's hope so, and it better be in writing. McConnell wouldn't think twice about shafting Schumer.

At least now there are some public words from McConnell which, if he doesn’t keep with the spirit/intent, could potentially be used in later 2018 in Dem ads and so forth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The fundamental problem is not whether some accommodation should be made for the Dreamers but what the nature of that accommodation should be. The Hispanic lobby and most Democrats want them to be given amnesty with a path to citizenship. But there are other alternatives to protect the Dreamers:

- they could be given 5 year renewable work permits which would grant them permanent resident status as long as they don't break the law
- if the above happens, then one could offer citizenship to those who serve in the armed forces and are honorably discharged

This would be a compromise that would prevent them being deported but still not reward them for breaking the law. But in conjunction with this one would need border security that would minimize the likelihood of this happening again. There would need to be legislation that enable the prompt deportation of those who enter the country illegally. Sanctuary city nonsense would need to end. Chain migration should be limited only to parents and minor children.

Visa overstays should be dealt with by prompt deportation.

Keep in mind that there are millions of people following the rules and waiting patiently to enter the country. Why should Dreamers have precedence over them in permanent resident status?

And if all of the above happens, then the issue remains about what to do with the parents who were the ones who broke the law in the first place.

All of the above would take care of the Dreamers but would not be responsive to what the left wing of the Democratic party wants which is amnesty and citizenship.

I disagree. Sure there are many who want a comprehensive immigration bill that covers lots of things and includes a path to citizenship for good actors. But that's not what's driving this. DACA was a perfectly acceptable middle ground for many years under BOTH Republicans and Democrats. And DACA was a lot more restrictive than even you're suggesting: renewal period of 2 years (not 5), zero path to citizenship, requires high school degree or military service, intensive background checks, etc. Other right wing dog whistles you raise (visa overstays, chain migration, sanctuary cities, etc) are completely irrelevant to the DACA children. The are not here on visas, they have no rights to sponsor other family members, they have no need of "sanctuary cities" because they're protected under law.

What's caused the current blow-up is that Trump unilaterally ended DACA in September. The protections those DACA children had begin to expire in March 2018. This isn't about comprehensive immigration reform; it's about protecting people who are facing immediate hardship.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We shouldn't have to interpret what McConnell means. If it's this unclear to us, I have to imagine that it's unclear to Congress as well. I don't understand why Schumer didn't nail McConnell down.

Long game. When’s the last time this Congress did something in 2 weeks that TRump didn’t F-up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fundamental problem is not whether some accommodation should be made for the Dreamers but what the nature of that accommodation should be. The Hispanic lobby and most Democrats want them to be given amnesty with a path to citizenship. But there are other alternatives to protect the Dreamers:

- they could be given 5 year renewable work permits which would grant them permanent resident status as long as they don't break the law
- if the above happens, then one could offer citizenship to those who serve in the armed forces and are honorably discharged

This would be a compromise that would prevent them being deported but still not reward them for breaking the law. But in conjunction with this one would need border security that would minimize the likelihood of this happening again. There would need to be legislation that enable the prompt deportation of those who enter the country illegally. Sanctuary city nonsense would need to end. Chain migration should be limited only to parents and minor children.

Visa overstays should be dealt with by prompt deportation.

Keep in mind that there are millions of people following the rules and waiting patiently to enter the country. Why should Dreamers have precedence over them in permanent resident status?

And if all of the above happens, then the issue remains about what to do with the parents who were the ones who broke the law in the first place.

All of the above would take care of the Dreamers but would not be responsive to what the left wing of the Democratic party wants which is amnesty and citizenship.

I disagree. Sure there are many who want a comprehensive immigration bill that covers lots of things and includes a path to citizenship for good actors. But that's not what's driving this. DACA was a perfectly acceptable middle ground for many years under BOTH Republicans and Democrats. And DACA was a lot more restrictive than even you're suggesting: renewal period of 2 years (not 5), zero path to citizenship, requires high school degree or military service, intensive background checks, etc. Other right wing dog whistles you raise (visa overstays, chain migration, sanctuary cities, etc) are completely irrelevant to the DACA children. The are not here on visas, they have no rights to sponsor other family members, they have no need of "sanctuary cities" because they're protected under law.

What's caused the current blow-up is that Trump unilaterally ended DACA in September. The protections those DACA children had begin to expire in March 2018. This isn't about comprehensive immigration reform; it's about protecting people who are facing immediate hardship.

I am referring to a permanent fix to the DACA situation. What you cited was part of Obama's executive order. Legislation to fix the situation permanently which is the right way to go can be something a lot less than permanent status and a path to citizenship. But the Democrats will resist this because they want amnesty and a path to citizenship.

The rest of what I suggested are things to deal with border security, etc - not directly related to DACA but part of what is needed to avoid a repetition of where we are today. I was around when Reagan granted amnesty to 3 million illegals with the assurance that border security would be ramped up - it did not happen and I doubt if Trump and other Republicans will go along with another fiasco like the one in 1986.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We shouldn't have to interpret what McConnell means. If it's this unclear to us, I have to imagine that it's unclear to Congress as well. I don't understand why Schumer didn't nail McConnell down.

I think there are more specifics behind the scenes.

Let's hope so, and it better be in writing. McConnell wouldn't think twice about shafting Schumer.

McConnell would shaft his mother.

[Anonymous]

Ask yourself why 800k ‘kids’ have this much power. Your answer lies there

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ask yourself why 800k ‘kids’ have this much power. Your answer lies there

Because people have a moral conscience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ask yourself why 800k ‘kids’ have this much power. Your answer lies there

They only have this much "power" because Trump and the hard-line immigrant crowd made an example of them, even though a large majority of Americans think they should be allowed to stay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We shouldn't have to interpret what McConnell means. If it's this unclear to us, I have to imagine that it's unclear to Congress as well. I don't understand why Schumer didn't nail McConnell down.

Why assume that he hasn’t?