Are Democrats On The Right Side Of The Immigration Issue?

jayem said:

...S.744 being passed by the Senate, which still had a Republican majority. (These were the pre-Trump days when the D and R Senate leaders could work together. And were at least ostensibly concerned about what was good for the country as a whole. Not just what their contemptible bases wanted.) If the Republican House had passed it, Pres. O would have signed it. And maybe the shameful immigration chaos of the last 2 years would have been avoided.

S.744 was a sensible bill 6 years ago, and it still is today. Now if only our Congress and President were sensible...

Click to expand...

Absolutely agree and have said so in the past on these forums.
fwiw, one of our state's Republican Senators is on record in favor of bringing S.744 back.
otoh the freshman senator from our state is a toadie to trumpism.

jayem said:

Not exactly. Pres. O never had veto-proof majorities. He had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate for his first 2 years in office. And a smaller Democratic majority in the House. But the issue of the day was health insurance, not immigration. The result was ACA. Which the Democrats badly mishandled, and which led to them losing both the House and Senate in the 2010 midterms. Although, immigration was addressed early in his 2nd term. With S.744 being passed by the Senate, which still had a Republican majority. (These were the pre-Trump days when the D and R Senate leaders could work together. And were at least ostensibly concerned about what was good for the country as a whole. Not just what their contemptible bases wanted.) If the Republican House had passed it, Pres. O would have signed it. And maybe the shameful immigration chaos of the last 2 years would have been avoided.

S.744 was a sensible bill 6 years ago, and it still is today. Now if only our Congress and President were sensible...

Click to expand...

mark46 said:

You are correct. Obama had over 60 votes in the Senate for a 2 year window. I think it wrong to suggest that Obama only had enough Democratic members to focus on one issue: ACA (actually 2: stimulus and ACA). Why couldn't Obama pass ANY immigration legislation. We blame Trump for not doing anything for his 2 years, but Obama bears no blame for not passing immigration reform in his first two years.

Click to expand...

Actually, it is incorrect about Obama having a filibuster proof Senate for 2 years. Instead, he had a filibuster proof Senate for a few months: from July 7 to Aug 25, 2009 and from Sep 25, 2009 to Feb 4, 2010. The reasons for this:

1) Al Franken was not seated in the Senate until July 7, 2009; it took that long for the Minnesota Senate results to be certified -- this began the first period where Obama had 58 Democrats and 2 Independents. This lasted until Ted Kennedy died on Aug 25 -- though in many ways Obama didn't have a filibuster proof majority for that month and a half, as Kennedy was too sick to make it in for most Senate votes.

2) Ted Kennedy was replaced, on an interim basis, by Paul Kirk -- and this is the only period when Obama had a filibuster proof majority -- on Sep 24, 2009 where there were 58 Democrats and 2 Independents that caucused with the Democrats. This filibuster proof majority ended on Feb 4, when Scott Brown was seated to fill the remainder of Kennedy's term, and he replaced Kirk.

Though 4 months when Obama had a veto proof majority that he could depend on, is when he finally passed Obamacare -- that was his legislative priority -- and it was passed in the Senate in December, 2009; before Brown was elected in Massachusetts.

The majority of that 111th Congress the Republicans could (and did) successfully filibuster much of what Obama attempted to do.

mark46 said:

You are correct. Obama had over 60 votes in the Senate for a 2 year window. I think it wrong to suggest that Obama only had enough Democratic members to focus on one issue: ACA (actually 2: stimulus and ACA). Why couldn't Obama pass ANY immigration legislation. We blame Trump for not doing anything for his 2 years, but Obama bears no blame for not passing immigration reform in his first two years.

Click to expand...

A President needs to decide where to spend his political capital during the first two years. Health care was the priority. Both issues are divisive and I can understand not wanting to take on both at the same time.

Having said, the 2013 legislation was a good bill, and had the GOP not towed the line of the NO AMNESTY! blowhards, illegal immigration would be less of a problem today.

However, today's immediate issue is not illegal immigration. Rather - a failed U.S. foreign policy in Central America....and on that count, I hold all administrations accountable going to back to Ronald Reagan.

mark46 said:

You are correct. Obama had over 60 votes in the Senate for a 2 year window. I think it wrong to suggest that Obama only had enough Democratic members to focus on one issue: ACA (actually 2: stimulus and ACA). Why couldn't Obama pass ANY immigration legislation. We blame Trump for not doing anything for his 2 years, but Obama bears no blame for not passing immigration reform in his first two years

Click to expand...

Immigration wasn't on the radar in 2008. But as we've been discussing, S.744 was supported by Obama and was passed by the Senate early in his second term.

What you should be asking is why the Republican House wouldn't even vote on it. If this bill had been enacted as written, we would now have over 700 miles of border wall/fencing, 38,000+ more border guards, enhanced E-verify, and a fair, sensible, humane way to deal with the undocumented immigrants who are already here. Donald Trump wouldn't have had an issue. And maybe we would have been spared his megalomania and demagoguery.

BTW: I honestly don't give a flip about immigration. It's a totally trumped up distraction. (Pun intended.) Health care and health insurance cost is by far the most pressing domestic issue, which directly affects our entire economy, and nearly everybody in the country. And our feckless President and his peanut gallery haven't a clue about what to do.

mark46 said:

OK, then you should have zero criticism for Trump not passing immigration legislation. He passed the tax cut and appointed justices, including Kavanaugh. Healthcare was a 3rd priority which failed by one vote (McCain's). As an aside, he also passed criminal justice reform.

Click to expand...

I have no idea how you reached that conclusion. Trump has obviously made immigration a priority....

mark46 said:

Please post when the Democratic led House passes immigration legislation which is bi-partisan enough to get a hearing in the Senate.

Click to expand...

the Democratic led House won't get a bill debated in the Senate until Mitch McConnell leaves.

mark46 said:

OK, then you should have zero criticism for Trump not passing immigration legislation. He passed the tax cut and appointed justices, including Kavanaugh. Healthcare was a 3rd priority which failed by one vote (McCain's). As an aside, he also passed criminal justice reform.

Click to expand...

What healthcare legislation has Trump actually proposed? All I really recall is his statement about "who knew" that health care was that complicated. He has claimed, both during his campaign and again recently, to have an actual plan but don't recall anything ever being released.

The only thing that "failed by one vote (McCain's)" was a repeal of ObamaCare, which would have done nothing to help solve our health care issues, but rather would have likely made them worse (removed protections for those with pre-existing conditions).

mark46 said:

It still was healthcare legislation.

Click to expand...

repealing isn't healthcare legislation.

mark46 said:

You are hung up in semantics.

Yes, you refuse to consider Republican heath care legislation as being healthcare legislation because it wouldn't have improved health care. ???? It still was healthcare legislation.

An analogous situation would be to say that the tax legislation wasn't really tax legislation because you didn't like its effect on taxes.

Click to expand...

As was pointed out, it was a repeal of legislation. A better analogy -- there is a house and you attempt to knock down a wall, without any type of plan to do any further work on the house, just remove the wall. You would have me believe that is building/improving the house.

hedrick said:

For me the major objection to the wall is that it doesn't seem the most cost-effective way of getting border security. Putting a wall in desert just seems odd; surely there are better ways of doing monitoring there. In some areas, sure.

Click to expand...

I trust those who actually do the work to have the best understanding of what works and what doesn't.

But it's interesting that the current uptick is occurring under Trump. His policies don't seem to be working in reality, though they're working just fine politically. Politically, having a border crisis is great for him.

Click to expand...

Well, the truth is that the families and unaccompanied children have been steadily increasing since 2014. It seems directly related to our policy of turning them loose and just asking nicely for them to show up for court.

Illegal immigrant men sneak children into U.S. to exploit ‘family loophole’

If they're coming across with children they aren't the parents of....it's logical to assume there's a reason. Even the cartels smuggling them are advising them to exploit our compassion in regards to family units.

Clearly, this isn't what asylum was intended for.

That doesn't mean I know what will work. However I would think better staffing of immigration courts and border police a higher priority than a wall. I'd also see if there's anything we can do to help the situation in Central American countries.

Click to expand...

I can't think of any solutions to the problems of these nations that wouldn't involve dumping billions upon billions of dollars on a "solution" that's less likely to be effective than a wall. The fact is, these nations are overpopulated and falling apart.

The current "zero tolerance" policy and threats to prosecute people don't seem to be working. Separating children from parents without keeping track of them seems immoral. This issue is not new with Trump, but zero tolerance has made it worse. But in some ways the most serious objection is that hasn't met its objective of discouraging immigration.

Click to expand...

The funny part? We're still separating families. Those cases of fraud in the article I linked will result in those children being separated from adults (whether they are uncles or aunts or just older siblings). It's still happening...just not on the same scale as before.

I think we should make asylum requirements known. Streamline the process so that those who don't have valid claims or proof of persecution are sent back immediately. I think they should be cut off from public funds entirely. If you cannot prove your child is a US citizen....they can't even go to school. If you aren't a USC...hospitals don't have to treat you....and if they choose to, they do so without shifting those costs to citizens.

Businesses hiring illegals should face serious penalties for doing so. These are some changes I would make...but sadly, I think it's going to take some tragedies before it happens.

Albion said:

First, $100 million is a very conservative estimate; many sources put it much higher. In addition, the figure for illegal immigrants now stands at approximately 26,000,000.

Click to expand...

You wrote 100 billion originally...just fyi.

TheBear said:

Click to expand...

What's your point?
Senator Schumer put action to those words and sponsored a comprehensive immigration bill in 2013, just as he lays out in the video. The Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013 (S.744)
The bill passed, with bi-partisan support, in the Senate with 68 votes. There were even 4 GOP co-sponsors of the legislation.
It was Republicans in the Boehner led House that refused to even bring it up for debate.

mark46 said:

OK, then you should have zero criticism for Trump not passing immigration legislation.

Click to expand...

I don't think the complaint is that he hasn't passed anything. I think the issue is that what he's trying to do is a dumb stunt to waste taxpayer money to pander to his the base.