Trump call for immigration legislation sparks Republican interest

[webfact]

Trump call for immigration legislation sparks Republican interest

By Richard Cowan

 

U.S. President Donald Trump delivers a speech on tax reform during an event with workers at the Andeavor Refinery in Mandan, North Dakota, U.S., September 6, 2017. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Donald Trump’s call to the U.S. Congress to pass protections for some undocumented immigrants is stirring interest among his fellow Republicans in Congress, despite the party's longstanding divisions over immigration that were on display on Wednesday.

 

Trump, who fashioned his 2016 presidential campaign around a pledge to clamp down on illegal immigration, has now turned the political landscape on its head.

 

On Tuesday, he angered business groups and Democrats with his announcement that he was terminating former President Barack Obama's executive order protecting from deportation nearly 800,000 immigrants, known as Dreamers, who were illegally brought to the United States as children.

 

But he also urged legislative efforts to permanently protect those youth, despite long-held opposition from some of the most conservative members of the Republican Party who comprise his base of supporters.

 

Democrats have long been united around major elements of a comprehensive immigration bill, while Republicans have been divided over whether to embrace anything beyond narrow tweaks of current law.

 

"My challenge to the president," said Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, is to help Congress get legislation passed within Trump's six-month deadline. "Work the phones, try to find a consensus."

 

Republican lawmakers on Wednesday touted a slew of competing ideas on immigration that could lure votes from many pockets of the party but might doom any bill by alienating Democrats or conservative Republicans.

 

One of Trump's most vocal supporters in Congress, Republican Representative Chris Collins, wasted no time in introducing legislation on Tuesday to protect Dreamers.

 

In an interview on Wednesday he went further, calling for comprehensive moves to put the 11 million undocumented people living in the United States on a pathway to citizenship if they qualify.

 

"Our dairy farmers need it, our crop farmers, the hoteliers, the restaurateurs, the families need it, the kids need it," Collins said of firms that employ foreign workers and the millions of undocumented.

 

CAN CONSENSUS BE BUILT?

 

Representative Pete Sessions, a senior Republican who chairs the powerful House Rules Committee, said he favours allowing undocumented immigrants to apply for a "guest worker" program.

 

But he said he would not support legislation that ultimately grants them citizenship - a major stumbling block for immigration advocacy groups, Democrats and some Republicans.

 

Attorney General Jeff Sessions also said Republicans are not fully on board yet with effort. Upon leaving a closed-door meeting of House Republicans, he was asked whether immigration legislation might emerge in early 2018. "I think that there's no decision. We listened carefully," he said.

 

Indeed, conservative Republican Representative Mike Burgess quipped, "We've got other things that are probably more pressing" than addressing the Dreamers now.

 

The immigration issue has vexed Congress for years, raising doubts about whether Trump and a Republican Congress could build a consensus around legislation.

 

"It may be difficult for Republicans to address the DACA (Obama's executive order) issue within the six-month time frame, because that's exactly when many of them are entering primary season, where candidates could outflank them on the right calling them weak on immigration," said Ron Bonjean, a political strategist who previously worked for House and Senate Republican leaders.

 

Meanwhile, Senator Tom Cotton wants to reduce the number of legal immigrants allowed into the United States, a move that Democratic Senator Dick Durbin called "problematic," especially amid some Republican opposition.

 

In the meantime, lawmakers are expected to fine-tune proposals to help farmers get easier access to temporary foreign workers, just as others work to help their home-state high-tech industries get more visas for skilled immigrants. More border security steps are likely too, although there is only weak support for Trump's southwestern border wall.

 

Those measures could help House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell patch together the votes that would be needed - if they are so inclined.

 

If the effort sputters, as it has so many times in the past, Republican Representative Mike Coffman has a Plan B at the ready: a three-year pause in deporting qualified Dreamers to give Congress yet more time to come up with a permanent fix.

 

(Reporting by Richard Cowan; additional reporting by Yeganeh Torbati; Editing by Cynthia Osterman)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-09-07

[iReason]

Russians Flock to Trump Properties to Give Birth to U.S. Citizens

 

"American citizenship for the newborn girl was the goal of Kuzmin and his Instagram-celebrity wife, who sought the help of birth tourism services in Florida for the birth of their first child."

 

"They are among the estimated hundreds of Russian parents who flock to the U.S. annually for warm weather, excellent medical care, and, more importantly, birthright American citizenship."

 

"And many, like Kuzmin and his wife, stay at President Donald Trump’s properties in Florida."

http://www.thedailybeast.com/russians-flock-to-trump-properties-to-give-birth-to-us-citizens

[DogNo1]

10 hours ago, webfact said:

"My challenge to the president," said Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, is to help Congress get legislation passed within Trump's six-month deadline. "Work the phones, try to find a consensus."

Right.  Immigration laws are the responsibility of the President, not the Congress.  

[ilostmypassword]

7 minutes ago, DogNo1 said:

Right.  Immigration laws are the responsibility of the President, not the Congress.  

It's odd. When Obama was in power, the right wing blamed him for not providing leadership in getting legislation passed. And this was with a congress that was at least partially controlled by Republicans for 6 years. Now that the Republicans control both houses, the right wing wants to exempt Trump from any responsibility for getting legislation passed.

Edited September 7, 2017 by ilostmypassword

[DogNo1]

Where does the responsibility for drafting bills and enacting legislation lie?  The president has clearly said that he wants the congress to act on this issue.  LBJ got the civil rights bill passed but Trump is no LBJ.

[ilostmypassword]

4 minutes ago, DogNo1 said:

Where does the responsibility for drafting bills and enacting legislation lie?  The president has clearly said that he wants the congress to act on this issue.  LBJ got the civil rights bill passed but Trump is no LBJ.

Now, let just imagine that a President has the power to veto bills he doesn't like. If that were the case, then it would be pretty clear that the President wields a lot of power in shaping legislation.. But I'm too tired to google if, in fact, the US President can do that.  Do you have any idea if that is the case?

[DogNo1]

Trump has already intimated that he would sign a bill that would legitimate the status of the "dreamers."  Despite a presidential veto, the will of the people can prevail if the bill is again passed by the congress with a vote of two-thirds or more of the senators and representatives.  In the case of the "dreamers," the will of the American people should rule via a bill passed or not passed by the congress.  If the "dreamers" are granted a path to permanent residence and citizenship, it will be another of the many amnesties granted to illegal immigrants.  After this instance, the borders of the USA should be strictly controlled and the immigration laws enforced.  All of the countries in Asia do no less.  I could hit the streets and demand that Thailand grant me permanent residence with no requirement to report my whereabouts every ninety days.  What do you think would happen to me?  Do you think that Prayut will issue a decree that all of us presently in Thailand will be granted the right to stay indefinitely?

 

The power of the president to veto bills does not mean that he has the main responsibility of initiating bills and getting them passed.  That responsibility lies mainly with the people through their elected representatives.  Remember the words from the Bill of Rights " a government of the people, by the people and for the people?"

[ilostmypassword]

3 minutes ago, DogNo1 said:

Trump has already intimated that he would sign a bill that would legitimate the status of the "dreamers."  Despite a presidential veto, the will of the people can prevail if the bill is again passed by the congress with a vote of two-thirds or more of the senators and representatives.  In the case of the "dreamers," the will of the American people should rule via a bill passed or not passed by the congress.  If the "dreamers" are granted a path to permanent residence and citizenship, it will be another of the many amnesties granted to illegal immigrants.  After this instance, the borders of the USA should be strictly controlled and the immigration laws enforced.  All of the countries in Asia do no less.  I could hit the streets and demand that Thailand grant me permanent residence with no requirement to report my whereabouts every ninety days.  What do you think would happen to me?  Do you think that Prayut will issue a decree that all of us presently in Thailand will be granted the right to stay indefinitely?

 

The power of the president to veto bills does not mean that he has the main responsibility of initiating bills and getting them passed.  That responsibility lies mainly with the people through their elected representatives.  Remember the words from the Bill of Rights " a government of the people, by the people and for the people?"

 I notice you write that Trump has "intimated" he would support a bill that would legitimate the dreamers. But he hasn't come out and said it. So he's leaving himself plenty of room to do as he pleases. He also said he would revisit the issue if Congress didn't deal with it. So what does that mean? How can anybody trust Trump about anything?

And the thing is, illegal immigration exists because in fact, businesses depend on it. If the government was serious about abolishing it, or at least drastically reducing it, all that would need to be done was to make it a criminal offense to hire undocumented workers. I don't see that happening.

And whoever told you that " a government of the people, by the people and for the people?" comes from the Bill of Rights has sold you a bill of goods.

[DogNo1]

Of course Trump is leaving himself some leeway on whatever bill is passed.  You need to study up on the senators and representatives who are taking various positions concerning what should be done to the "dreamers" and what other elements are being proposed to include in the prospective bill.  Without this knowledge you can't talk about the issue authoritatively.  It's not a simple issue.  Who knows that Trump was about to be taken to court by the attorneys general of some states to challenge the legality of DACA?   Do you?

[DogNo1]

Right. The words came from the Gettysburg Address.

[Jingthing]

Legalizing the DACA people is not amnesty. They are innocent. You have to commit a crime to possibly get amnesty. trump just attempted to shift the blame game. Congress ain't gonna pass sheit and everyone knows it. 

Edited September 7, 2017 by Jingthing

[Grumpy Duck]

5 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

Now, let just imagine that a President has the power to veto bills he doesn't like. If that were the case, then it would be pretty clear that the President wields a lot of power in shaping legislation.. But I'm too tired to google if, in fact, the US President can do that.  Do you have any idea if that is the case?

Yes the president has veto power of bills passed by both houses of congress. And in more recent years the president was granted the "line item" veto meaning he can veto certain portions of a bill. 

Now, they have been crying for immigration reform not only with Obama but also with Bush II. Of course obstructionist republicans in congress would not accept any bill from Obama, which is why he resorted to an executive order. 

Bush was unable to get any immigration reform either. The last immigration "reform" passed was Reagan granting amnesty as a final fix all which was supposed to be followed with tighter immigration enforcement, that never happened as many businesses relying on illegals for cheap labor were big donors to republican causes. 

[Jingthing]

Presidents can veto but vetoes can be overruled with a larger majority. So far, trump has not vetoed anything.

[DogNo1]

Amnesty has been granted previously to millions of people who were in the country illegally.  Their crime was being in the country illegally.  Making their status legal was called amnesty.   Check your history.

[ilostmypassword]

15 hours ago, Grumpy Duck said:

Yes the president has veto power of bills passed by both houses of congress. And in more recent years the president was granted the "line item" veto meaning he can veto certain portions of a bill. 

Now, they have been crying for immigration reform not only with Obama but also with Bush II. Of course obstructionist republicans in congress would not accept any bill from Obama, which is why he resorted to an executive order. 

Bush was unable to get any immigration reform either. The last immigration "reform" passed was Reagan granting amnesty as a final fix all which was supposed to be followed with tighter immigration enforcement, that never happened as many businesses relying on illegals for cheap labor were big donors to republican causes. 

The President does not have right to exercise a line item veto. It's all or nothing.

[Jingthing]

Some trump apologists have been trying to promote a big lie that people on DACA are just lazy and irresponsible, and wouldn't be in this mess now if they had only worked hard on a path to citizenship. So wrong! There is no path to citizenship for people on DACA. Now trump is setting up a path to DEPORTATION though.

Quote

 

Why DACA recipients can't apply for citizenship

But without the DACA program that would be nearly impossible because DACA recipients cannot apply to become the U.S. citizens and can't become residents despite what many people think. 

"Since we were brought here illegally we don't really have that option," says Arcos. "With the permit that we have we can't leave the country, we can't apply for residency and we don't have that path."

 

 

http://www.wptv.com/news/national/why-daca-recipients-cant-apply-for-citizenship

 

 

[DogNo1]

Exactly.  That's why the congress should act.

[thehelmsman]

23 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

It's odd. When Obama was in power, the right wing blamed him for not providing leadership in getting legislation passed. And this was with a congress that was at least partially controlled by Republicans for 6 years. Now that the Republicans control both houses, the right wing wants to exempt Trump from any responsibility for getting legislation passed.

I thought we were supposed to leave Obama out of things. What happened??

[ilostmypassword]

45 minutes ago, thehelmsman said:

I thought we were supposed to leave Obama out of things. What happened??

This is not whataboutism. The target here is the hypocrisy of Trump supporters.

 

[Scott]

3 hours ago, thehelmsman said:

I thought we were supposed to leave Obama out of things. What happened??

 

2 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

This is not whataboutism. The target here is the hypocrisy of Trump supporters.

 

The topic is about immigration legislation.  

[Grumpy Duck]

On 9/8/2017 at 4:57 PM, ilostmypassword said:

The President does not have right to exercise a line item veto. It's all or nothing.

My mistake, I recall congress promising Reagan a line item veto, it was created during Clinton, however, the law was overturned by the supreme court. 

[Jingthing]

I think some state governors have that.