Parliamentarian Rules “Dreamers” Fix Can’t Be Done Through Reconciliation: Read It For Yourself

Andrew Donaldson

Born and raised in West Virginia, Andrew has since lived and traveled around the world several times over. Though frequently writing about politics out of a sense of duty and love of country, most of the time he would prefer discussions on history, culture, occasionally nerding on aviation, and his amateur foodie tendencies. He can usually be found misspelling/misusing words on Twitter @four4thefire and his writing website Yonder and Home. Andrew is the host of Heard Tell podcast.

Related Post Roulette

145 Responses

  1. Philip H
    Ignored
    says:

    While disappointing, its entirely unsurprising. And all the more reason to trash the fillibuster.Report

    • Marchmaine in reply to Philip H
      Ignored
      says:

      From a pure governance perspective… the evolution of the filibuster should be unwound… or trashed.

      1. Go back to single legislative thread (can’t remember technical term) for Senate.
      2. Filibuster is only delay/awareness issue – a’la requirement to hold the floor because, see #1
      3. If neither 1 nor 2 are possible, then cloture is already dead and I submit the filibuster is too owing to unintended consequence of ending 1 & 2. A sort of Chesterton’s gate parable in action.

      I’m not advocating this for any particular agenda, but because we’ve doinked our self-governance… and sometimes the only remedy to legislative constipation is an enema and what follows.Report

      • Koz in reply to Marchmaine
        Ignored
        says:

        I’m not advocating this for any particular agenda, but because we’ve doinked our self-governance… and sometimes the only remedy to legislative constipation is an enema and what follows.

        Not really. Voting Republican is our self-governance, and we can still do that.Report

        • Marchmaine in reply to Koz
          Ignored
          says:

          At some point I think Koz is just playing a Product Placement game… like if he just says vote republican without any reason or context it might just work. Koz being Koz. I’ve been Kozzed.Report

          • Koz in reply to Marchmaine
            Ignored
            says:

            Sort of but not really. It’s more about an important level of obliviousness as to the real nature of our parties and how they have changed over the past say, 30 years.

            And the summary of it is basically what I just wrote above: voting Republican is fundamentally the self-expression of being an American.

            If we vote Republican consistently enough we can dial down the theatrics and antagonism which devalues our politics. It is the Republican party which, in its soul carries at least the theoretical possibility that we as Americans, specifically it, can act meaningfully for the better in the name of all of us because it can represent the interest of all of us.

            Whereas the Democrats are spiritually corrupted to the point where they can’t do that. This is why there’s a certain style of contemporary Right politics, “own the libs” that rubs me the wrong way, probably in the same way for me as it does for other commenters here. But even if I share that opinion, for me the consequences of it are much different.

            As conservatives and Republicans we need to take care of our own business, which is to increase and demonstrate our commitment, solidarity and affection for America. To that end, the libs are less important than a lot of people think, and we need to quit entertaining ourselves with WWE style theatrics.

            I’d say, over the next say, 3-20 years there’s going to be some fairly important considerations coming due as to how we want to live: housing, climate, immigration, fiscal responsibility. And here’s the thing. Even if, especially if we make good policy choices in those circumstances there’s going to be losers. Big losers. Of course people can see this in advance and so they politically organize themselves to prevent that from happening. And because Washington is has been in gridlock for a while this works.

            The point is, the way around that isn’t by splitting hairs of the parliamentarian’s ruling, as others on this thread would have you believe. It is to build up our stores of solidarity and citizenship so that the losers can see that certain things are in the best interest of America and can accept them on those terms even if they themselves don’t benefit.

            And to _that_ end, the Republican Party is essential. The Democrats just don’t count. A lot of them want to recoil upon hearing that. But recoil or not, that’s just the way it is.Report

            • Philip H in reply to Koz
              Ignored
              says:

              81 Million people who voted for President Biden would like a word about how they don’t count bro.

              And that aside – as I’ve told you and a good many other before – its really hard to build up stores of solidarity with people who view me as a traitor. You may think them performative. They are not. When given the opportunity they will happily try to string me up. You, currently, have no such worry.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                Now witness the firepower of this fully armed and operational Six Point Plan as it overturns your 81 millon votes and crushes your pitiful rebellion!Report

              • Koz in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                I’m tempted to say a number of things in response to this, but for now let’s just leave it at this:

                Those 81 million people are not going to be there for you in general, maybe even never again. President Trump showed us, the GOP, where the votes were that we weren’t getting enough of in the Obama era. But, he also pulled a pulled a whole lot of obnoxious, inflammatory stuff. And what’s worse, he created the perception and the reality that he would be continuing the cheap theatrics for as long as he was around.

                Now Trump is gone, we’re keeping all the votes we gained in the Trump era, and we’re reclaiming the ones we lost because Trump pissed them off. 2022 is not a good year to be a Demo.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Koz
                Ignored
                says:

                Now Trump is gone, we’re keeping all the votes we gained in the Trump era, and we’re reclaiming the ones we lost because Trump pissed them off.

                I see no reason to believe this.

                Trump inspired voters.

                I haven’t seen anybody capable of pulling Trumpism without Trump.

                To pick a Republican out of a hat, if the Republicans brought back Romney in 2024 (truly the scariest Republican nominee since Trump!), I don’t see the Obama-Trump-Biden voter going Romney.

                I could see them *STAYING HOME*, sure… but I don’t see the Republicans keeping that vote by Returning To Their Roots.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Koz
                Ignored
                says:

                Now Trump is gone …

                You may wish him to be, but he’s very much in charge of the Party. Its why Kevin McCarthy keeps going to Mar-A-Lago to plot House reelection strategy. Its why Desantis and Abbot, and even my own governor keep trippling down on so many of the things that trump started, which are literally killing Americans. Its why Lindsey Graham keeps saying that Republicans can’t win without Trump. Until the man is in Jail, or dead, he’s running the show, and no one will run against him for President in 2024 from the right. No one.Report

          • Michael Cain in reply to Marchmaine
            Ignored
            says:

            A few years ago, Koz asked interesting questions. He made concrete suggestions for things that might be an improvement over what the two principle parties were suggesting. He’s a whole lot less interesting since he’s become “Dems BAD!!”Report

            • Chip Daniels in reply to Michael Cain
              Ignored
              says:

              So, the Platonic ideal of Republicanism?Report

            • Koz in reply to Michael Cain
              Ignored
              says:

              I’m not sure exactly what the timeframe is supposed to refer to. That said, surprising (or maybe not), I have quite a bit of sympathy for Michael’s complaint.

              Unfortunately the problem is that the Democrats _are_ bad. In terms of politics, people who are talking about other things might be either oblivious to, or trying to hide this reality.

              The one thing I could say that maybe could help the situation is to resist the sense of fatalism that we might otherwise be susceptible to. The Democrats are _not_ a force of nature. Leaving aside for the moment the remaining terms of office that they have been elected to, we absolutely can take them out like yesterday’s garbage, and there’s a quite good chance that we will.

              The upshot of that is we actually can, if we choose, think wider and better on how can express our solidarity for America.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Koz
                Ignored
                says:

                Koz, I’m down with “Democrats bad”, but, believe me, I don’t see how the Republicans are offering a real alternative.

                Trump? Golly! He was an alternative! But, of course, he was also Trump.

                The Republican party as it exists is “Dems but not as bad as the Dems”.

                Standing athwart history shouting “slower!”

                Seriously: What have Conservatives conserved? The *ONLY* thing that I can think of is that they haven’t entirely given away the store on is guns.

                That’s it.

                Trump was the one guy who came out and said “The Republicans have screwed up and screwed up a lot. I WILL FIX!” and he won.

                Of course, he didn’t… but there is enough elbow room to blame “the deep state” and “fake news” and whatnot for that. “The Blob”.

                But what do the Republicans (the *REAL* ones, anyway) have to offer other than guns?Report

              • Koz in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Seriously: What have Conservatives conserved? The *ONLY* thing that I can think of is that they haven’t entirely given away the store on is guns.

                This is what I was trying to get at in my long response to March above (which I hope was comprehensible).

                Because the legislatures and the Presidential elections are finely balanced, politics is mostly about defense and playing between the 40-yard lines. Alternatively, every once in a while there’s a small opening that the other side can’t readily block, in which case there’s a mad scramble to grab as much as you can as fast as you can like a mostly peaceful protestor looting a Target.

                In that world, the GOP has done what it can, which is to advocate in solidarity with the voters. Most notably, the GOP has had no interest in entitlement reform for at least 5 years. President Trump explicitly repudiated it.

                Now, the fiscal motive for entitlement reform is still as strong as ever. Though the need to address that isn’t imminent now as it was ten years ago when they did the sequesters.

                But even that is secondary. What is more important is that the people who are getting Social Security and Medicare benefits don’t want those benefits cut. Even if they could afford to have them cut or aren’t really using them or the Treasury really needs the money, they simply aren’t willing to entertain any of it. They figure, if my benefits are cut, all that’s going to happen is some hedge fund guys in suspenders are going to get an extra $10 million in carried interest. Fcukem, I’ll keep the money thank you very much.

                They could be right even.

                The point being, this dynamic dominates many or most or all of our important issues. We don’t deal apples-to-apples among ourselves because we don’t trust each other when we talk, which is itself less often than it was.

                Ie, not just entitlements but guns, leaving Afghanistan, climate, immigration, vaccines against the virus, land development, etc etc.

                To that end, it is important to emphasize that value proposition of the GOP is not that it is epsilon better than the Demos. I mean, it is but that’s not the point.

                The point is, that under the stable, consistent substantially immovable leadership of the Republican Party, we have the possibility to unwind this pervasive sludge of alienation among ourselves.

                That’s the point.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Koz
                Ignored
                says:

                under the stable, consistent substantially immovable leadership of the Republican Party

                This is coming from a different universe than the one in which I live.

                The one in which I live has two flavors of Republican:

                Romneyism
                Trumpism

                And that’s it. That’s what you got.

                I don’t see a third way forward. Cruzism? Rubioism?

                Cruz proved to be a hollow man and Rubio proved to be far, far too young to be playing at the level he made his way to. Maybe in the 2030s he’ll stop being so callow.

                Hey, Maybe Chris Christie will make a comeback!Report

              • Koz in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Cruz proved to be a hollow man and Rubio proved to be far, far too young to be playing at the level he made his way to. Maybe in the 2030s he’ll stop being so callow.

                This really isn’t responsive to the earlier comment, but as far the current GOP goes, the most important Republican currently in office is McConnell. The most important Republican as far as the political and cultural future of the party, it’s Ron DeSantis, by a lot. And that includes Trump btw. After that it’s Tom Cotton, Josh Hawley, maybe Marco Rubio, Mike Lee and some other GOP governors.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Koz
                Ignored
                says:

                It was to the part that said “stable, consistent substantially immovable leadership of the Republican Party”.

                It’s that where I look around like that John Travolta gif.

                McConnell has been an excellent roadblock and where he has not been a roadblock he has managed to be a speedbump. So I’ll grant that he has done a good job playing defense.

                DeSantis has his hands full with covid. While I don’t know that it’ll be a millstone around his neck, I don’t know that it won’t be. (Both parties seem to be having a race to the bottom there.)

                And, after that… well, there’s a lot of room between Trump (who played offense) and McConnell (who didn’t) and then again between McConnell and the next guy.

                And after that, you’ve got various flavors of Romney.

                I don’t see anyone particularly inspirational.Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                RE: I don’t see anyone particularly inspirational.

                I didn’t see Trump at this point in the election cycle last time.

                However to be fair, the way to bet right now is Trump makes another run and is crushed.

                I’m basing that on one data point, i.e. that I can’t vote for him.Report

              • Koz in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                It was to the part that said “stable, consistent substantially immovable leadership of the Republican Party”.

                That’s right, so what I was talking about in that last comment was the about the way to get from here to there, and in that context I think you’ve got the timing wrong.

                First of all, the biggest political shoe to drop from the GOP isn’t who our Presidential candidate ought to be, frankly we’ve got a bunch of candidates who are good enough to win with if we nominate them. It’s about what happens in 2022.

                GOP is going to win the House for sure and probably, maybe, the Senate. This is what everybody is talking about but what’s really important is the GOP winning ~240 House seats. That’s the make or break for success. GOP will “control” the House with ~225 seats but if that’s what the GOP has all that means is Kevin McCarthy is Nancy Pelosi without a dress.

                And, what’s the message fallout from 2022 leading into 2024? And assuming that we get what we need in 2022 (and I think we will), that’s where the rubber is really going to meet the road.

                My guess is, 2022 is going to be a really bad message environment for the Demos, and the voters are going to bite their pound of flesh out of the Demos’ ass. But, after 2022, there will be some unspoken catharsis. After the Demos have taken their punishment, the voters will be in a more favorable frame of mind to listen. If the Demos have anything at all, that’s when we’ll see it.

                By comparison right now the 2024 Presidential candidates (of either party) are much less important.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Koz
                Ignored
                says:

                Here’s a thought – Start by admitting that Democrats actually do love America too. Just that. Repeatedly. In public. And see what happens.

                The Republican Party – at least through its media and politicians. Won’t. Not Can’t. Won’t. so why should we care?

                Remember the ACA? Republicans voted 74 times in the House to repeal it? and replaced it with? They couldn’t really do anything because its bones, and most of its guts, were Heritage Foundation ideas. The ACA WAS the Republican plan for a decade. Then a Democrat handed them the chance to get their ideas made law, they spent 13 months playing him with meetings, summits and 72 amendments in the Senate, and then they ALL voted against it. Their own ideas. Just to deny a democrat a victory. On a program that is now here to stay. Full of their ideas.

                America has many, many problems. Democrats have some solutions. Republicans would rather torpedo their own ideas then let Democrats get any traction. Because then Republicans would have to admit that democrats love their country too.

                So, start there. See what happens. Or keep retrenching and retreating into authoritarianism. I know which side I’ll be fighting on when that battle breaks out. And it won’t be yours.Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                There is a disconnect between “Love the country” and “want to transform the country”.

                It’s like how the fundamentalist anti-gay “activists” claim they love gays. Love the sinner but hate the sin.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Dark Matter
                Ignored
                says:

                Koz and others are quite sure that Democrats DON’T LOVE AMERICA. Koz is also quite strident – as are many Republicans – that his ideas of transformation (and yes, he’s positing transformational ideas) are thus the ONLY CORRECT ONES because, again DEMOCRATS DON’T Love America.

                The thing is – America is transforming whether anyone likes it or not. Demographically we are a different country then when I was born 50 years ago. Our population keeps growing, our industrial base has shifted to industries that didn’t exist 30 years ago. Where we live is changing. All these things require new and different policies and governance approaches. democrats recognize and embrace this change, and seek to guide it for the greatest good. Republicans want to stuff it back in a bottle because it means they might not be in charge anymore.Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                Demographics don’t scare me. I just moved my youngest into a majority minority school.

                I do think there is a disconnect between “fighting authoritarianism” and “there’s a problem, let’s give more power to the government to fight it”.Report

              • Mike Schilling in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                Republicans love America. They just hate most of the people who live here,Report

              • Pinky in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                “Republicans voted 74 times in the House to repeal it?”

                I’m pretty sure that’s not true.Report

              • Michael Cain in reply to Pinky
                Ignored
                says:

                By mid-2017, Newsweek reported “more than 70” attempts to repeal the ACA in whole or part. I believe that counted both the infrequent Senate votes and the much more common House votes. Also, included procedural votes on the floor but not committee votes.

                I recall that at one point Paul Ryan was holding floor votes to repeal the ACA almost weekly, apparently for entertainment.Report

              • Pinky in reply to Michael Cain
                Ignored
                says:

                “In whole or in part” covers a lot of territory, including amendments and measures that were signed into law by Obama. The number also appears to include committee votes that never made it to the floor, which may be called attempts, but really shouldn’t be called House votes. I just don’t think that Philip is trying to give a true impression here. The way he does that with “Remember?” as his intro particularly bugs me.Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to Michael Cain
                Ignored
                says:

                RE: apparently for entertainment.

                Virtue signaling. Letting the voters know that they’re serious about sharing their feelings. IMHO this was more about feelings than reality.

                Of course they have a point in Obamacare didn’t really reform HC, nor bring the prices down, nor were you allowed to keep your insurance, nor was it understandable since it was more than a thousand pages of “the powers that be will do something”.

                The big concept was something about the gov taking your HC. The big alternative was doing nothing (which to be very fair, was a reasonable concept for the bulk of the country).

                There was more sound and fury than an underlying reality. BSDI. On the Left we have “the rich don’t pay taxes”, “colleges are rape camps”, some of what comes out of BLM, the concept that women never lie about sex, and so on.Report

              • Pinky in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                Not votes.Report

              • Koz in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                Here’s a thought – Start by admitting that Democrats actually do love America too. Just that. Repeatedly. In public. And see what happens.

                Well no, I don’t admit to that. It’s not an ironclad rule of American politics. It’s not even a reliable generality with just a few small exceptions. In fact, it’s a much much more complicated question than you’re allowing for.

                Luckily, there’s a perfect example of this particular problem with libs going on right now. That is, we’re in the middle of a debt limit drama as we speak, ie not the reconciliation or the highway bill, but the debt limit. Now, push comes to shove this will probably amount to nothing, but that’s not completely guaranteed.

                As Senator McConnell has pointed out, Demos have the capability to resolve this issue themselves. He has also said that there won’t be any Republican votes for a debt limit increase or suspension. So for Dems, they desperately want GOP buy-in for whatever they do. The problem being, is that if they raise the debt limit unilaterally they are going to take a political hit. This is compounded by a quirk of reconciliation, in that the Demos can’t eliminate or suspend the debt limit. They can only raise it to a higher number. And whatever number they pick, a year from now there’s going to be ads against every House Democrat in America, “Angie Craig voted to authorize increasing the national debt by 20 trillion dollars” or whatever. There’s a good chance this punch will land, at least to some extent, and there very well might be a few House Demos who lose their seat behind this.

                Like I said before, push comes to shove, Demos in Congress are probably just stuck. But at the very least, they’re going to bitch and squirm for a while before they give in. This where the “own the libs” thing has actual purpose. By putting some ritual humiliation on the libs, we reinforce the reality that whatever political power the libs do get, is contingent on and to be exercised for the best interest of America as a whole.

                Or your own point about ACA is useful as well. Truth be told, you oversold the idea that ACA “really” was a Republican idea. But the rest of the story was right. GOP doing this or that is not at all equivalent to the Demos doing the same thing. The voters especially get that. It occurs in a different context, it has a different purpose and meaning.

                This is why libs’ assertions of good faith ring hollow so often: for me, for conservatives in general, for voters in general. Libs capacity for political action is and ought to be subordinate to the best interest of all America. Instead libs have a strong tendency to think that the national interest is just one piece in the game that’s there for them to move around and manipulate.Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to Koz
                Ignored
                says:

                My impression is Sanders, Warren, and AOC really think it’s in the national interest to fight inequality, and the best way to do that is enact a bunch of central planning and/or wealth destroying and/or culture war policies.

                The ability of our political class to be smarter than all of us is probably nil, and their ability to be unselfish is slight. They see problems, they have control over the gov, ergo gov must be the solution.Report

              • Koz in reply to Dark Matter
                Ignored
                says:

                My impression is Sanders, Warren, and AOC really think it’s in the national interest to fight inequality, and the best way to do that is enact a bunch of central planning and/or wealth destroying and/or culture war policies.

                Yeah, that’s exactly right. The point being, the libs are getting out in front of their skis.

                The can try to persuade us that we should empower them to solve inequality, and they do try but that’s not really the point. Whether we agree or not, they’re just going to steam ahead with whatever means are available.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Koz
                Ignored
                says:

                You have an interesting bent toward projection.

                Republican Senators are happy to imperil the economy of the US – to say nothing of the larger world – in the vain hope that they can score enough political points to take back the House and Senate next year and maybe the White House two years after that. Call me nuts but that’s about naked power, not love of country. I also don’t know of a single person to loose a house or senate seat voting for a debt limit increase.

                The Democrats do what they do because they still believe in rules and process and precedent. They also represent more Americans then Republicans (41,549,808 more people in the Senate at the moment). Which means they have convinced a majority of the American population that their plan is a good one.

                Republicans don’t care about anyone or anything but power.Report

              • Mike Schilling in reply to Koz
                Ignored
                says:

                In that world, the GOP has done what it can, which is to advocate in solidarity with the voters.

                By trying to stop them from voting.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Mike Schilling
                Ignored
                says:

                Exactly. If Republican ideas were as Koz believes they would not need restrictive voting laws or gerrymandering to keep power.Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Moats has done quite well. Whether or not the Dreamers will be a thing, the rest of them are being deported.

                The Supremes look solid and will probably toss out Roe.

                The GOP had a very big loss with Gays but no one is going to care.

                We still haven’t eaten the rich. The economy has done well for letting Bezos and his kin live.Report

  2. LeeEsq
    Ignored
    says:

    This ruling by the Senate Parliamentarian is good example of the asymmetrical war between the parties. The Democratic Party will follow this ruling. If the Senate Parliamentarian told an even slightly Republican dominated Senate that they couldn’t do something they really wanted to through reconciliation than the Senate Republicans would find a more amenable Senate Parliamentarian or do what they wanted to do any way. The Democratic Senate should just go for it. This is a political decision to be made by politicians.Report

    • Philip H in reply to LeeEsq
      Ignored
      says:

      Yep. this more then anything – the Democrats unwillingness to go where Republican clearly will – is a major threat to the nation.Report

      • LeeEsq in reply to Philip H
        Ignored
        says:

        North just illustrates the big issue below. We might see Democratic unwillingness to play constitutional hardball as a threat to the nation but there are many other reliable Democratic voters that believe passionately that going where the Republicans would go will lead to a bad place even if the goals are more just. Goo-gooism is still a thing.Report

        • North in reply to LeeEsq
          Ignored
          says:

          Constitutional hardball, nothing. It isn’t budgetary, it can’t be put in a reconciliation bill. What are you looking for? The Dems to say that up is down? And I will cop to thinking that the Democratic Party succumbing to the same kind of brain rot thinking the GOP indulges in is a bad idea, even if the cause in question is righteous.Report

          • LeeEsq in reply to North
            Ignored
            says:

            This is a political decision to be made by politicians. Since the amnesty generates revenue by stating the fee is $1500 for a green card plus the usual fees for adjusting status, this is by definition budgetary.Report

            • North in reply to LeeEsq
              Ignored
              says:

              If we’re going to zap our green lantern ring and magically make 50 Senators agree to something, Lee, then we would be better off to will them to tank the filibuster in general- not accept some nonsense fig leaf to let this issue get smuggled into reconciliation.Report

            • Michael Cain in reply to LeeEsq
              Ignored
              says:

              Under reconciliation rules, the Parliamentarian makes a decision based on the primary purpose of the legislation. There is no question but what the primary purpose here is to create a new category of persons who were not previously eligible for a green card. Slapping a fee on it doesn’t bring it under the rules.

              The same thing happened to the Republicans when they made their run at “overturning” the ACA. Even though there were revenues and expenditures running through all the insurance company regulation part, the Parliamentarian ruled that the primary purpose was to regulate health insurance company behavior, not raise revenues or make expenditures.

              But you’re right that it’s a political decision. 50 Democratic Senators plus the VP can declare that the Parliamentarian is wrong about the rules. There are some thousands of precedents, kept by the Parliamentarian and not visible to the public, about exceptions where the rule as written doesn’t apply. Apparently none of the existing exceptions match this situation closely enough.Report

          • Saul Degraw in reply to North
            Ignored
            says:

            Eh, we also have Manchin declaring that he comfortable not doing anything for the rest of the year today. Senator Sinema and Representative Rice also sunk a provision that they campaign on in 2018. Namely, letting the Federal Government negotiate drug prices with pharmaceutical companies.

            So being the “not-insane” party sometimes seems like quite the suicide pact. I’m not really a fan of people declaring that both parties are the same and that voting Democratic is a futile gesture but “voter harder” next time is something that can only be repeated so many times. Arizona is trending blue and Mark Kelly seems to have no problems going along with Democratic Party standards. Same with Ossoff and Warnock who are more precarious than Sinema. Rice is from a fairly safe Democratic district.

            Yet conserva Dems have no problem saying fuck it for reasons which are often inexplicable. Rice doesn’t even receive that much pharma money like Sinema.Report

            • North in reply to Saul Degraw
              Ignored
              says:

              So then the solution is probably for left wing liberals to accomplish two things. First, primary and unseat as many of the centrists who’re in D +5 locations as they can. Second, and even more importantly, nominate and WIN in some D+4 or lower regions to demonstrate that they’re something other than a niche boutique ideology to make tingles run down lefties legs.

              As for Manchin? What can we do about Manchin except curse the voters in Maine for returning Collins. Or curse ourselves for not managing to put someone up who could unseat Collins. Or maybe burn fishin’ Cunningham in effigy for fishing up North Carolina. Sinema, though, should probably be primaried and replaced.Report

    • Brent F in reply to LeeEsq
      Ignored
      says:

      Its worse than that. The Democrats are apparently fine with a system where the GOP’s highest priorities (judges and tax cuts) can be done with 50 votes, but most of their top priorities require 60. They’ve rigged the game against themselves. Lack of procedural aggression will be their undoing.Report

      • Philip H in reply to Brent F
        Ignored
        says:

        Tl:DR – The Democrats aren’t Fighters.Report

        • LeeEsq in reply to Philip H
          Ignored
          says:

          Being more fair, the Democratic Party is a broad coalition party that consists of the entirety of the non-insane people in the United States. This means it includes everybody from conservatives who aren’t willing to abandon small-l democratic liberalism to progressive fighters like AOC. It’s like the SDP, Center Party, and German Democratic Party being in one party against the Nazis and no faction has enough people to totally dominate the party. Your Democratic fighter is an arsonist to millions of other loyal Democratic voters. Manchin and Sinema plus a few others truly believe that abolishing the filibuster to pass liberal reform is not how things are done.Report

          • Philip H in reply to LeeEsq
            Ignored
            says:

            They can believe all they want – and watch democracy burn. Or they can deal with what is, and save it. There’s no grey area here.

            Republicans have been up front about who they are and what they will do for most of my life. When given the chance they have done what they said they would, toward the aims they lay out. Just as believing foreign terrorists allows you to fight appropriately, believing Republicans allows you to fight appropriately. Manchin and Sinema may prefer a more congenial collaborative Senate, but that hasn’t existed for a decade. Republicans were neither collegial nor collaborative when they packed the Supreme Court after denying Obama Merrick Garland, and they have zero drivers to be collegial and collaborative now. They have already said they will continue gerrymandering to keep state control, and they have said they will resist voting rights legislation in the Senate.

            Believe them,. and act accordingly.Report

  3. LeeEsq
    Ignored
    says:

    The proposal was basically an amnesty bill in all but name. A true amnesty bill would have covered every non-citizen present in the United States but three million non-citizens were left out in order to get it into a budget bill. I have friends who would have gotten a green card through this message because they are essential workers.Report

  4. North
    Ignored
    says:

    Makes sense. Reconciliation is a budgetary procedure and immigration policy isn’t budgetary.Report

  5. InMD
    Ignored
    says:

    I actually think this is a big win for the Democrats. It removes a major policy landmine the country is torn on from the larger (and still Herculean) task at hand and nobody in the coalition can be accused of tanking the agenda over, or of compromising on, a principle.Report

    • North in reply to InMD
      Ignored
      says:

      I agree which is why I suspect that leadership didn’t pressure the Parliamentarian very hard on the issue.Report

      • Marchmaine in reply to North
        Ignored
        says:

        So you think the Left’s bluff that 49 Reps will tank the $1.5T infrastructure bill will be called and won?Report

        • North in reply to Marchmaine
          Ignored
          says:

          I subscribe to Chaits’ position which is that all this heat is being generated by Manchins inexplicable refusal to indicate what spending level he’s willing to accept. Everything else is just the respective sides jockeying for position and trying to signal how resolute they are. It’s entirely possible, even probable that if the moderates force the matter the liberals will make it fail on the first vote-through. They can always vote on it again.

          I’m far from sanguine about the whole matter though. It was a really ambitious plan for Biden and leadership to go for and it certainly doesn’t look like things are going great over all. Still, I have confidence enough in Pelosi to expect that the infrastructure bill, in the longer run, will ultimately be passed even if it looks imperiled in the House from time to time.

          I’m mightily disgusted with the some of the “moderate” (aka the wealthy fan service contingent) side of the Dems who’re just nakedly pursuing advantage for their plutocratic backers. It sucks. But the Dems have to encompass, basically, the whole political gamut of policy right now. Such is life driving the ship of state with only one functional political party.Report

          • Michael Cain in reply to North
            Ignored
            says:

            At least some of the speculation is that Manchin isn’t so much concerned with the total level of spending as he is about removing all of the climate change stuff that makes life harder for the fossil fuel companies. But he can’t say that in public because it’s anathema to a very large majority of his party. So much so that if he said it, one can easily imagine Biden demanding that he be yanked from the chair of the Energy Committee.Report

            • North in reply to Michael Cain
              Ignored
              says:

              I get it. But he’s still the 50th vote. I don’t know how they’re going to square this circle.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to North
                Ignored
                says:

                Maybe they could kick him out of the party? Do a Ben Nighthorse Campbell to him?Report

              • North in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Sacrificing their majority and the appointments, agenda setting and judicial nomination powers that come with said majority would be a high cost to pay for the dubious benefit of, what, making Joe Manchin feel bad for the five minutes it’d take before Mitch popped out of his shell and offered Joe every seniority position he’d like if he’d just caucus with the GOP?

                BUT almost all the “moderate” house Dems causing trouble are from safe districts. They absolutely should be facing primary challengers.Report

              • Michael Cain in reply to North
                Ignored
                says:

                BUT almost all the “moderate” house Dems causing trouble are from safe districts.

                Pedantic, but no member of the House knows what their district boundaries are for 2022. 12 states will have a different number of districts. Several have redistricting commissions. If the commission here in Colorado is indicative, no one has a good idea what might happen.Report

              • North in reply to Michael Cain
                Ignored
                says:

                Heh, true, all the more reason for them to be on the party’s good side since the further east you go the less likely it is your district is being drawn by an impartial committee.Report

              • Michael Cain in reply to North
                Ignored
                says:

                538’s list of the nine moderates, and the lean of their current districts, has two that are almost certainly safe. The other seven range from D+5 to R+11. Of those seven, four are from states where the Republicans will draw the districts and three where the Democrats will draw them. You also know my peculiar theories about geography and the national Democrats — there are only a couple of the nine from states where I think they would welcome active support from the national party.Report

              • North in reply to Michael Cain
                Ignored
                says:

                I mustn’t have been paying attention as it shifted. If I were King o’ the Democratic Party I’d encourage primarying everything D+5 and safer.Report

              • Michael Cain in reply to North
                Ignored
                says:

                I’ve been thinking about this comment. The two that are more than D+5 are from California and Hawaii. Can you imagine the national party trying to come into either of those states and successfully primarying the incumbent?Report

          • Koz in reply to North
            Ignored
            says:

            I subscribe to Chaits’ position which is that all this heat is being generated by Manchins inexplicable refusal to indicate what spending level he’s willing to accept. Everything else is just the respective sides jockeying for position and trying to signal how resolute they are.

            This is only half right. Chait is either ignorant or playing dumb characterizing Manchin as inexplicable. Manchin has actually been very consistent the whole cycle. As far the spending level goes, Manchin wants to know where the money is coming from, whatever the dollar figure. If he’s okay with that (he might or might not be), then he’ll consider the expenditure side. At least that’s what he wants before he’s willing to support final passage.

            Libs don’t have to like it but it’s ridiculous to say it’s inexplicable.

            I’ve actually been very impressed with Manchin these last six months or go, quite a bit more than I expected to be in fact.Report

            • Dark Matter in reply to Koz
              Ignored
              says:

              Manchin has said he’d like to see 1.5T as the upper limit. Bernie has said 3.5T and not a penny less.Report

              • Koz in reply to Dark Matter
                Ignored
                says:

                Yeah, he hasn’t exactly said that but that’s the best guess considering the payfors he and the other Demos are willing to sign off on.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Koz
                Ignored
                says:

                Great. Republicans get a tax cut over ten years of $1.8 Trillion – which has yet to pay for itself (cause they never do), but Manchin and the Republicans aren’t willing to spend more then $300 M LESS then what was cut. And people wonder why I cling to my dead horse that Democrats aren’t fighters.Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                The argument is over how much further to permanently expand the government. For a group that’s “not fighters”, they seem to be constantly winning.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Dark Matter
                Ignored
                says:

                see, thats where you missed the mark – Democrats are not perceived as fighters, especially in Red states. Which have a particular myopia in that they happily receive the expansion of government paid for largely by blue states. Mitch McConnell’s Kentucky is a glaring example but they aren’t the only ones.

                And given Republican’s unwillingness to actually cut government spending every time they cut taxes, this is definitely a BSDI situation.

                And yes I’m aware of the Two Santa Clauses plan. That is the reason the debt ceiling keeps needing to be raised incidently.Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                Perceptions deceive and aren’t the way to judge who is winning a basketball game.Report

        • Dark Matter in reply to Marchmaine
          Ignored
          says:

          GOP claims only 7% of the bill is real infrastructure.

          CNN “fact check” claims the GOP is wrong and it’s about 30%.

          https://www.cnn.com/factsfirst/politics/factcheck_621624db-b99a-452d-b798-559a9e857582

          CNN has a point about including Water/Digital/Power infrastructure. They have less of a point about “housing units”, public schools, and colleges.Report

          • Chip Daniels in reply to Dark Matter
            Ignored
            says:

            In a world where there was a second non-insane political party, there would be a counter-proposal and horsetrading and eventually a compromise.

            But we don’t live in such a world.Report

            • Dark Matter in reply to Chip Daniels
              Ignored
              says:

              This assumes the GOP is better at spending money wisely. I’m not sure our current processes can work for this sort of thing.

              Congress gets a bucket of money to spend on “X”.
              Lobbyists swarm and we have a feeding frenzy.
              The decisions on what to fund are made over… how long? A few months? We have the ability to vet and plan this sort of thing in that amount of time?

              There is a vast difference between an inch or two of rain every week for a year and 80 inches of rain over the course of a day.Report

          • Marchmaine in reply to Dark Matter
            Ignored
            says:

            Sure… but that only makes the Left’s bluff more interesting.

            Are they really willing to tank 70% of $1.5T ‘bird-in-the-hand’ non-infrastructure goodies for the other $3.5T Legislative-Agenda-Masquerading-as-Budget-Reconciliation?

            Prob no… but I’d be impressed if they did.

            … in that sort of ‘sunova… they did shoot the goose after all’ sort of way.Report

            • Jaybird in reply to Marchmaine
              Ignored
              says:

              The Ultimatum Game is also iterated.Report

            • Dark Matter in reply to Marchmaine
              Ignored
              says:

              I find it very, VERY, hard to believe that Washington has $5 Trillion dollars worth of “good” spending proposals, much less “great” ones. “Great” would be “expands the economy”.

              The reason I’m dubious about Infrastructure, which we actually need, is I’m not sure the legislative process is capable of delivering what is promised.

              I still remember Obama’s “stimulus” package which was advertised as having infrastructure and create jobs.Report

              • Marchmaine in reply to Dark Matter
                Ignored
                says:

                Sir, some of my very best friends are Fed Consulting Contractors… and your insinuation that their power points are not worth the millions they cost is a little bit off-putting.

                I haven’t committed to really digging in to the $3.5T one until Kyrsten Sinema tells me I should… so no idea what its all about.Report

      • InMD in reply to North
        Ignored
        says:

        Yea, I know I wouldn’t have. The historical trends are what they are for the midterms and I doubt they’ll be bucked. But the best way to mitigate it is to run up the score on the broadly popular shit and create as few wedge issues as possible.

        Also, to the mods, I accidentally reported North’s comment, it was not intended. Sorry!Report

      • Pinky in reply to North
        Ignored
        says:

        Saddest sentence I’ve seen in a while. How much pressure do you think parliamentarians should receive?Report

        • North in reply to Pinky
          Ignored
          says:

          It’s politics, not beanbag, Parliamentarians always get pressured and, if the majority feels strongly enough on something, flat out overruled.Report

          • Pinky in reply to North
            Ignored
            says:

            The way you describe it sounds casual. It must happen a lot, then. When was the last time a Senate Pariamentarian was overruled?Report

            • Michael Cain in reply to Pinky
              Ignored
              says:

              There are some thousands of exceptions to the Senate’s written rules. Every one of them required that the Parliamentarian be overruled.Report

              • Pinky in reply to Michael Cain
                Ignored
                says:

                That doesn’t appear to be true. From what I see, the last overruling of the Pariamentarian was in 1975, and it was almost immediately abandoned as both parties didn’t want it as a precedent. The fact that they feared a precedent indicates that it had hardly or never happened before, and I haven’t found any documentation that it had.Report

              • North in reply to Pinky
                Ignored
                says:

                Uh huh and the Parliamentarian wasn’t overruled this time either. I’m puzzled by what is causing your malaise.Report

              • Pinky in reply to North
                Ignored
                says:

                My general starting point in any conversation is that both sides are occasionally-dirty fighters who try to portray themselves as the clean one. Usually they’ll have a complaint or two about the other guy (right or wrong) and be ignoring things on their own side. Definitely the theme on this thread is that Democrats fail to use the most common and benign levers of power.

                Honestly, I thought you were lying, pretending that pressuring or overruling the Parliamentarian is a common experience, because it took me a matter of seconds to find that there hadn’t been an overruling since 1975. I still think you’re exceeding the weight limit for “pressuring”, but I’m going to assume there was no malice.Report

              • North in reply to Pinky
                Ignored
                says:

                I’ve read the odd article about the ruling party jostling with their Parliamentarian (and let us keep in mind that the Parliamentarian is always a member of the majority party) in, basically, every cycle I’ve been politically aware of for the last twenty-ish years. It seems entirely and utterly routine.Report

              • Pinky in reply to North
                Ignored
                says:

                From what I can find, the Parliamentarian is appointed by the majority leadership, but I don’t see any indication that they’re members of that party. I can only find information on the most recent three, and they have no party affiliation noted and no previous partisan positions, having previously worked in the office of the Parilamentarian.Report

              • North in reply to Pinky
                Ignored
                says:

                I went hunting and looks like you’re right. They’re appointed by a majority party but serve basically until a new majority leader replaces them. The current one has been in place since ’12. She has fought with the Dems, well, currently. She fought with the GOP during Trumps term about what could be done in their reconciliation bills- especially around the ACA recall question. And she definitely clashed with the Dems periodically during Obama’s term.Report

              • Michael Cain in reply to Pinky
                Ignored
                says:

                Concede that the Parliamentarian is seldom overruled publicly. But there are literally thousands of precedents for ignoring the written rules (and prior precedents). At least implicitly, each of those overruled what the Parliamentarian would have said if asked, and everyone knows it.

                As to the number, the most recent set published in 1992 ran to over 10,000 and some 1,600 pages.Report

      • Dark Matter in reply to LeeEsq
        Ignored
        says:

        Joe is up for reelection in 2022.

        The American Conservative Union gave him a 25% lifetime conservative rating and the progressive PAC Americans for Democratic Action gave him a 35% liberal quotient in 2016.[56] In February 2018, a Congressional Quarterly study found that Manchin had voted with Trump’s position 71% of the time.[57] In 2013, the National Journal gave Manchin an overall score of 55% conservative and 46% liberal.[58]

        There are more Republicans (38%) than Dems (35%)in West Virginia as of July of 2021.

        West Virginia voted for Trump in 2020 by 39 points! (Wow!)

        If this is the guy you’re depending on to ensure the Progressive takeover of America, I think there’s a problem. I can easily see why he doesn’t want to run on a $5 Trillion dollar liberal wish list.Report

  6. Saul Degraw
    Ignored
    says:

    In other immigration news, Biden is going to increase the refugee cap to 125,000 in October and the Federalist society campaign to impose Trump-Miller immigration policies by fiat is not going so well: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/09/trump-biden-mexico-border-migrants-judges.htmlReport

    • InMD in reply to Saul Degraw
      Ignored
      says:

      They can always repatriate themselves to their own countries if they’re tired of waiting. They aren’t refugees by any rational definition.Report

      • LeeEsq in reply to InMD
        Ignored
        says:

        The INA is pretty clear that any non-citizen can apply for asylum at a US border or within in the United States itself from any country in the world.Report

        • InMD in reply to LeeEsq
          Ignored
          says:

          They aren’t asylum seekers. They’re economic migrants.Report

          • LeeEsq in reply to InMD
            Ignored
            says:

            Bull. The people in Central America and the Caribbean are fleeing political chaos created by decades of bad American foreign policy towards those countries. The Southern border is also how many people fleeing persecution in other countries from Asia and Africa manage to get to the United States.Report

            • InMD in reply to LeeEsq
              Ignored
              says:

              Yea, this definition of asylum seeker as anyone fleeing ‘political chaos,’ whatever that means, is so broad as to be meaningless. Better to craft policy based on what’s really happening, people from poorer, badly governed countries attempting to enter our labor force, illegally if they have to and can get away with it.

              What’s bull IMO is this game of trying to redefine one thing into something totally different via word games and broad, vague assertions about US foreign policy.Report

              • Marchmaine in reply to InMD
                Ignored
                says:

                Right… this is one of those things where a solid definition with broad support would be a step in building some trust in the process.

                To be sure there would be a contingent whose definition would be too narrow, but at the moment the definitions are mostly managed by people who are vested in a broad definition of asylum.

                Ideally we’d have a policy of asylum that is neither too broad nor to narrow… just like we should have an immigration policy that is neither too broad nor too narrow – which changes according to circumstances, etc.

                Alas, there are no incentives for prudence, only for maximizing your interests and minimizing the interests of the opposition.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Marchmaine
                Ignored
                says:

                How does that definition account for the around 11 Million already here?

                How do we change the incentives so American companies will not hire them without legal status?Report

              • LeeEsq in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                People should be allowed to work in the United States regardless of legal status. Many of the non-citizens do back breaking work that most citizens don’t want to do like picking produce for the field, being a day laborer or house cleaner/nanny, and other grunt work. Most big companies outside of agriculture do not hire undocumented non-citizens without valid EADs.

                Attempts to crack down on the issue of non-documented non-citizens working or being here have backfired. Take IRAIRA. It created something called unlawful physical presence. Previously, if a non-citizen entered without inspection but visa became available they could just take a flight to their home country, have the consulate interview, and then be back in the United States. IRAIRA created three and ten year bans based on the length of unlawful physical presence. Rather than causing less undocumented immigration, it increased it. People didn’t want to separated from their USC spouses and children, so rather than have their spouse apply for them and do a quick return trip, they just stayed in the United States without documentation.

                The idea of tough but fair immigration enforcement is ultimately illusory. We either have a liberal, broad-minded immigration policy or a narrow and exclusionary immigration policy. Those are the choices. Attempts to be tough but fair have always failed.Report

              • Philip H in reply to LeeEsq
                Ignored
                says:

                I want to be clear that the 11 million I referred to – who are generally believed to be undocumented – are CRITICAL to our economy. We need to keep them here. And grant them a path to remaining legally and permanently since they are – again – INTEGRAL to our economy because of the work they do.

                I’m trying to get March and InMD and others to wrestle with what is. You and I have little white space between us on this.Report

              • InMD in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                I will happily wrestle with this as an economic issue. I think that’s exactly how we need to look at it, just with all of the stakeholders represented (including labor) via the democratic process. The failure to do that is about 98% of my beef on this issue.

                Keep in mind this thread started based on the assertion that they are asylum seekers and should be approached as such.Report

              • Marchmaine in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                Not really sure where that stat is coming from… State Dept. says:

                “Since the passage of the Refugee Act in 1980, which incorporated this definition of refugee into the INA, the United States has admitted more than 3.1 million refugees.”

                If there are indeed 11M additional who are un-admitted/processed then definitionally asylum means immigration.

                But either way, I’m not sure this is much of a gotcha… so much as a reason why we’re operating under a bureaucratic regime that sees asylum as an Immigration+ regime. And my position is that Immigration+ muddies the water for asylum.

                Further, fixing a system always requires accounting for the ‘facts on the ground’ as part of the fix. Like, first, stop digging… then look to get out of the hole… then fill the hole. No need to bury the workers.Report

              • North in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                Going after the companies and individuals that employ illegal immigrants would work extremely well. Problem is that both parties absolutely hate the idea. Dems, for reasons Lee laid out (and also because it’d gouge some of their own midrange wealthy constituents), and Republicans because it’d work, it’d fish over their plutocratic paymasters and because it’d resolve the immigration issue.Report

              • InMD in reply to North
                Ignored
                says:

                For the record, I would sign up for this approach in a heartbeat.Report

              • North in reply to InMD
                Ignored
                says:

                So would I. Sure the cost of a lot of food types would potentially skyrocket but it’d still be good policy. Heck maybe we’d start importing more of that stuff from South and Central America. What a concept.

                You and I are, however, not indicative of the standard liberal, let alone the standard Republican.Report

              • InMD in reply to North
                Ignored
                says:

                I see it as fundamentally a pro-labor position, which is apparently the least popular stance there is in the halls of power. And you’re right there’d be some painful adjustments here and there but I think we’d end up in a much better place in the long run. Hopefully the same is true for those with whom we share a hemisphere.

                At the very least the opposition strikes me as coming more from ideology and self-interest than getting the policy right.Report

              • Marchmaine in reply to North
                Ignored
                says:

                Exactly.

                And the fascinating blind-spot on ‘gruelling’ farm work no-one will do is the weird Liberal/Conservative policy blend that quite openly seeks to exploit labor, collude on processing, and explicitly pay corporations $Bs to keep competition out by artificially lowering food prices.

                Cheap food is the policy goal… exploiting immigrants by lying about artificially deflated labor costs is the strangest liberal blindspot there ever has been.Report

              • InMD in reply to Marchmaine
                Ignored
                says:

                You make the fairly obvious observation that first world workers won’t work in dangerous conditions for slave wages without the protections won over the last 100 years and get two total non sequitur responses. A progressive scowls and says you’re a heartless racist, a conservative laughs and says the free market just works in mysterious ways.Report

              • InMD in reply to InMD
                Ignored
                says:

                And to clarify I mean this observation is treated as a self-evident explanation as to why everything is just fine, as opposed to what it actually is, which is the encapsulation of the issue.Report

              • North in reply to Marchmaine
                Ignored
                says:

                Eh, the reality is that from humanitarian borderless world ideals on the liberal left to low food/service prices in the center left to profit motive on the center right to cynical anti-labor rules ideals and idealistic free movement of labor on the libertarian right the whole gamut of the existing political spectrum considers the existing status quos either ideal or at least “good enough”.

                Only the populists and nativists want an immigration regime that is genuinely more restrictive. They’re a potent force on the right but they aren’t enough by themselves to produce a genuine tightening. Thus their fury.Report

              • LeeEsq in reply to InMD
                Ignored
                says:

                I do this for a living. Under the INA, asylee status may be granted to non-citizens if they experienced past persecution and/or have a well-founded fear of persecution on account of their political opinion, religion, nationality, race, or membership in a particular social group. It is legally a broad standard.

                Your definition of asylum turns into nothing more than a special treat that wealthy nations can use to get high status immigrants like Salman Rushdie while leaving behind millions of other persecuted people because they are ordinary and not special enough. Just define all those ordinary persecuted people like the Uighurs as economic migrants. Mass refugee situations exist. They are a real thing. They aren’t going to go away because we decide to get tough and close shop.Report

              • Philip H in reply to LeeEsq
                Ignored
                says:

                And they will get worse as climate change gets worse. heating up the equator means all the agriculture there will be substantially harder to do, if not outright collapse.Report

              • InMD in reply to LeeEsq
                Ignored
                says:

                I don’t care what you do for a living. The position you’re taking lacks any limiting principle and therefore isn’t a rule at all.

                Even the example you’re using hides the ball by equating an apparent ethnic cleansing campaign on the other side of the planet with high crime rates and crappy governments in El Salvador and Guatemala. These things are not the same and it’s disingenuous to assert that they are.Report

              • Philip H in reply to InMD
                Ignored
                says:

                Those high crime rates and crappy government can be directly traced to US involvement in a 40 year proxy war in south and central America against the USSR. We largely set the stage, and to pretend otherwise is, frankly insulting. We broke it. We own this.Report

              • InMD in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                No, ‘we’ don’t. As I said before, I’m all good with doing what we can to support good governance and economic improvement in those countries, to the extent we can. I’m also pretty anti-intervention and don’t think the American citizenry owes anything for the short-sighted, decades old, idiotic decisions of our foreign policy elite.

                Lastly, people in those places have agency. They have the ability to fix their problems. The American people don’t owe every one of them a job, which again, is what is really going on here.Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                The 40 year proxy war ended 30 years ago. Arguably things got a lot worse for Haiti (although probably better for other countries).

                What has happened in the last 30 years has WAY more impact that what happened before then. Arguing the reverse is like claiming that what happened to my grand-parents has more impact on my kids than I do.Report

              • LeeEsq in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                Here, here. America also made the the gang problem a lot worse in El Salvador by basically deporting El Salvadoreans with criminal records back there in record numbers to a government that could not handle it.Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to LeeEsq
                Ignored
                says:

                Under the INA, asylee status may be granted to non-citizens if they experienced past persecution and/or have a well-founded fear of persecution on account of their political opinion, religion, nationality, race, or membership in a particular social group. It is legally a broad standard.

                I don’t see how that definition applies to the Haitians in Texas without it also applying to everyone who is in Haiti.

                Haiti is close to a failed state but it doesn’t have a civil war, or genocide, or anything similar going on. The problem they’re running away from isn’t “persecution”.

                The Uighurs are facing a slow motion ethnic cleansing and we can point to who is oppressing them and why. The equiv in Haiti would be the earthquake and economic collapse.

                Having said that: IMHO there are strong arguments for allowing a LOT more “economic immigration”, yes, even from the bottom of the labor pool. They want jobs and we have jobs to give them.Report

            • Pinky in reply to LeeEsq
              Ignored
              says:

              If so, couldn’t asylum seekers apply in Mexico, or whatever the first country is they land in?Report

              • InMD in reply to Pinky
                Ignored
                says:

                One of the handful of decent outcomes of the Trump years was forcing Mexico to do something other than shout ‘Norte! Norte!’ at everyone crossing their territory.Report

              • LeeEsq in reply to InMD
                Ignored
                says:

                Trump’s attempt to force Mexico to do something went deliberately against the INA as passed by Congress and was deliberately cruel. Family separations, concentration camps at the borders and inside the United States, and endless bureaucratic pettiness while lives and families were at stake. This is not decent policy. This is not good policy. Trump and Miller should be heavily criticized for this.Report

              • Philip H in reply to InMD
                Ignored
                says:

                Its not Mexico’s job to screen asylum seekers for the US. That’s all on us.Report

              • InMD in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                If they were really asylum seekers they would be presenting themselves to the Mexican authorities. The fact that they don’t shows that they are something else.Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to InMD
                Ignored
                says:

                Probably not Mexican authorities. Some news channel was claiming most of them fled Haiti’s 2010 earthquake to a country in South America (which country varied), and now are trying to get into the US (via Mexico).Report

          • Dark Matter in reply to InMD
            Ignored
            says:

            True. Their gov isn’t oppressing them nor persecuting them.

            If things suck in general for everyone then that’s a different problem.Report

            • InMD in reply to Dark Matter
              Ignored
              says:

              Well yes, and one of the best things we could do beyond fixing our own schizophrenic domestic policy would be, to the extent we can, supporting economic stability and good governance in Central America. Not something we have a great track record on but also not something that justifies the entire population decamping to the US.

              But by Lee’s definition half of the population of Baltimore could seek asylum in Canada.Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to InMD
                Ignored
                says:

                I think Haiti is one of the countries where we’ve tried to encourage “economic stability and good governance”. I think we’ve basically tried everything there, including taking it over.Report

              • InMD in reply to Dark Matter
                Ignored
                says:

                There are limitations to what we can accomplish and the history of Haiti goes well beyond just our interventions. I’m pretty sure Haiti v. Dominican Republic got a whole section in Collapse by Jared Diamond.Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *