U.S. Senate rejects immigration bills, leaves Dreamers in limbo

[webfact]

U.S. Senate rejects immigration bills, leaves Dreamers in limbo

By Richard Cowan and Susan Cornwell

 

Activists and DACA recipients march up Broadway during the start of their 'Walk to Stay Home,' a five-day 250-mile walk from New York to Washington D.C., to demand that Congress pass a Clean Dream Act, in Manhattan, New York, U.S., February 15, 2018. REUTERS/Shannon Stapleton

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Senate rejected a series of bills to protect "Dreamer" immigrants on Thursday, leaving in limbo the future of 1.8 million young adults brought to the United States illegally as children.

 

The Senate failed to get the 60 votes needed to move forward on four separate proposals, including one backed by President Donald Trump and a bipartisan bill that had been considered the most likely to survive the deeply divided Senate.

 

But Trump slammed the bipartisan measure as "a total catastrophe" and backed a Republican plan that garnered only 39 votes, the fewest of all four plans. That led Democrats to complain the president's uncompromising approach was sinking bipartisan efforts in Congress.

 

"This vote is proof that President Trump’s plan will never become law. If he would stop torpedoing bipartisan efforts, a good bill would pass,” Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer said.

 

The Senate votes were the latest in a series of failures in Congress in recent years to pass a comprehensive immigration plan, and they left lawmakers and immigration advocates searching for a way forward for the young Dreamer immigrants.

 

Although the protections under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program are due to start expiring on March 5, federal judges have blocked that from taking effect amid ongoing litigation.

 

Republican Senator Bob Corker told reporters there could now be debate on attaching a short-term extension of protections for Dreamers on a government funding bill that Congress must pass by March 23 to avoid a shutdown.

 

"This does not have to be the end of our efforts to resolve these matters," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said after the vote. "I would encourage members to put away the talking points to get serious about finding a solution that can actually become law."

 

Trump had insisted that any immigration bill to protect Dreamers should also include funds to build a border wall with Mexico, end the visa lottery program and impose curbs on visas for the families of legal immigrants.

 

REPUBLICAN OPPOSITION

 

The White House pushed Trump's preferred bill, introduced by Republican Senator Chuck Grassley, but 14 Senate Republicans voted against Trump’s plan. That included Senators John Thune and John Barrasso, members of the Senate Republican leadership, and conservatives such as Ted Cruz and Rand Paul.

 

The leading bipartisan measure, crafted by a group led by Republican Senator Susan Collins, would have protected the Dreamers and also included a $25 billion fund to strengthen border security and possibly even build segments of Trump's long-promised border wall with Mexico.

 

But the White House threatened a veto, saying it would weaken enforcement of current law and produce a flood of illegal immigration. The Department of Homeland Security and Attorney General Jeff Sessions also blasted it. The measure fell short on a 54-45 vote.

 

A narrow bill focusing just on Dreamers and border security, by Republican John McCain and Democrat Chris Coons, failed on a 52-47 vote. A fourth measure, focused on punishing "sanctuary cities" that do not cooperate with federal immigration enforcement efforts, also fell short of 60 votes.

 

"It looks like demagogues on the left and the right win again on immigration," Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, who backed all four proposals, said in a statement.

 

McConnell had set a deadline for the Senate to pass an immigration measure by the end of this week.

 

Frank Sharry, executive director of the immigration advocacy group America’s Voice, noted an overwhelming majority of Americans support protections for Dreamers.

 

"It is noteworthy that the only vote to reach a supermajority of 60 votes was the resounding defeat of Trump’s racist and radical immigration plan," he said.

 

Senator Mike Rounds, a leading Republican sponsor of the failed bipartisan proposal, said senators would keep trying.

 

"We’ll have a chance to regroup, and take a look at what we can do to take a bipartisan approach, modify some of those things where there are questions," he said.

 

"The issues are not going to go away. We’ve still got DACA kids that are going to have to be addressed. We’ve still got a border security system that the president says is a priority. We want to give him an opportunity to make that a success," he said.

 

(Additional reporting by Susan Heavey, Katanga Johnson and Makini Brice; Writing by John Whitesides; Editing by Frances Kerry and Cynthia Osterman)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-02-16

[Samui Bodoh]

6 minutes ago, webfact said:

But Trump slammed the bipartisan measure as "a total catastrophe" and backed a Republican plan that garnered only 39 votes, the fewest of all four plans. That led Democrats to complain the president's uncompromising approach was sinking bipartisan efforts in Congress.

Dealing with the 'Dreamers' makes sense from an economic point of view, a social point of view, and a humanitarian point of view.

 

Unfortunately, Trump only sees a narrow point of view; pander to his white nationalist base and the hell with everything else.

 

There are a lot of people (like me) who have had respect for the US for a long time. That respect is fading more and more everyday...

 

 

Edited February 15, 2018 by Samui Bodoh
Lack of coffee

[Roelf]

3 hours ago, Samui Bodoh said:

Dealing with the 'Dreamers' makes sense from an economic point of view, a social point of view, and a humanitarian point of view.

 

Unfortunately, Trump only sees a narrow point of view; pander to his white nationalist base and the hell with everything else.

 

There are a lot of people (like me) who have had respect for the US for a long time. That respect is fading more and more everyday...

 

 

I have lived is the US for 50 years. America is a GREAT country, despite the Americans. For 49 years my respect for the country has slowly been fading. The greatness of the republic is based on a system of laws and respect for the laws.  Which self-respecting demography makes laws and then ignores the laws if they don't like them or if they don't fit their particular philosophy or goals.

During the 50th of my US  years the "respect fading process" has considerably slowed down. It appeares that there are indeed many citizens that actually respect the laws, including the man in White House.....

Unfortunately,  too many of the law makers do not "represent" the people they are supposed to "represent".  The voice of the people is clearly expressed by the various polls, liberal as well as conservative polls. The PEOPLE want the DACA issue solved in a humanitarian way.  But the people also want to change the ridiculous ways that are the reasons of the illegal immigration mess.

Look at the polls..... three quarter of the PEOPLE want a REALISTIC SOLUTION,!

[JKfarang]

Due to the fact that my great-great-grandparents immigrated to the US in search of a better life, I find it difficult to criticize others for trying to do the same.  That said, it is interesting (but not in a good way) that I hear little if any discussion from those against "illegal" immigration about penalizing employers who hire illegal immigrants.  Why insist on spending taxpayer money to build a wall, etc. and not even consider efforts which could both generate revenue and reduce the incentives?  Seems more than a little bit hypocritical to me.

 

[Thaidream]

A realistic solution is as follows:

 

1. Scratch off a border wall that will cost $20 Billion and instead increase electronic means of control; hire more border agents; and immediately deport anyone committing a felony.

 

2. Immediately amnesty the dreamers- with a path to citizenship

 

3. Establish a category for guest workers so foreign labor can be utilized legally rather than people sneaking across the border to work.

 

4. Establish an amnesty program for current illegals with strict guidelines to legality including payment of taxes and no criminal records other than misdemeanors. 

 

5. Continue the Diversity Lottery held each year but with a limit of 100,000.

 

6.  Continue chain migration but only for those legally in the country and if someone has entered illegally and gives birth to a child- that child is NOT a US citizen but a citizen of the mother's native country.

 

 

 

[Srikcir]

6 hours ago, webfact said:

"I would encourage members to put away the talking points to get serious about finding a solution that can actually become law."

I suggest that McConnell say the same to his party's leader Trump.

But Republican congressmen are no longer part of the check & balance to presidential abuse.

[meechai]

Tell the dreamers wake up & use the front door like everyone else.

There is a legal path for them which is better odds than say Thailand

[thaibeachlovers]

2 hours ago, Roelf said:

I have lived is the US for 50 years. America is a GREAT country, despite the Americans. For 49 years my respect for the country has slowly been fading. The greatness of the republic is based on a system of laws and respect for the laws.  Which self-respecting demography makes laws and then ignores the laws if they don't like them or if they don't fit their particular philosophy or goals.

During the 50th of my US  years the "respect fading process" has considerably slowed down. It appeares that there are indeed many citizens that actually respect the laws, including the man in White House.....

Unfortunately,  too many of the law makers do not "represent" the people they are supposed to "represent".  The voice of the people is clearly expressed by the various polls, liberal as well as conservative polls. The PEOPLE want the DACA issue solved in a humanitarian way.  But the people also want to change the ridiculous ways that are the reasons of the illegal immigration mess.

Look at the polls..... three quarter of the PEOPLE want a REALISTIC SOLUTION,!

Unfortunately,  too many of the law makers do not "represent" the people they are supposed to "represent".

Seems to me that US lawmakers only represent the lobbyists that pay for their election campaigns. A few well known individuals have become excessively rich while in congress most of their lives.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, Thaidream said:

A realistic solution is as follows:

 

1. Scratch off a border wall that will cost $20 Billion and instead increase electronic means of control; hire more border agents; and immediately deport anyone committing a felony.

 

2. Immediately amnesty the dreamers- with a path to citizenship

 

3. Establish a category for guest workers so foreign labor can be utilized legally rather than people sneaking across the border to work.

 

4. Establish an amnesty program for current illegals with strict guidelines to legality including payment of taxes and no criminal records other than misdemeanors. 

 

5. Continue the Diversity Lottery held each year but with a limit of 100,000.

 

6.  Continue chain migration but only for those legally in the country and if someone has entered illegally and gives birth to a child- that child is NOT a US citizen but a citizen of the mother's native country.

 

 

 

Agree with 3.

The powers that be don't want that as they would have to pay them proper wages, instead of exploiting illegals.

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, Thaidream said:

A realistic solution is as follows:

 

1. Scratch off a border wall that will cost $20 Billion and instead increase electronic means of control; hire more border agents; and immediately deport anyone committing a felony.

 

2. Immediately amnesty the dreamers- with a path to citizenship

 

3. Establish a category for guest workers so foreign labor can be utilized legally rather than people sneaking across the border to work.

 

4. Establish an amnesty program for current illegals with strict guidelines to legality including payment of taxes and no criminal records other than misdemeanors. 

 

5. Continue the Diversity Lottery held each year but with a limit of 100,000.

 

6.  Continue chain migration but only for those legally in the country and if someone has entered illegally and gives birth to a child- that child is NOT a US citizen but a citizen of the mother's native country.

 

I was with you up until the last one.  A child should not be made to pay for the crimes of the parent.

[heybruce]

48 minutes ago, meechai said:

Tell the dreamers wake up & use the front door like everyone else.

There is a legal path for them which is better odds than say Thailand

Someone else who wants to make the child pay for the crimes of the parents.

[thaibeachlovers]

6 hours ago, webfact said:

Although the protections under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program are due to start expiring on March 5, federal judges have blocked that from taking effect amid ongoing litigation.

I don't see how the judges can block it as Trump only said he will not renew a regulation. It was never a law. If Trump does not renew it, it automatically expires.

 

Congress had 5 months to sort this and that they have not done so is on them.

I'm guessing the Dems don't want to solve the problem so they can use it as a stick to beat the GOP with in the mid terms.

[meechai]

5 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Someone else who wants to make the child pay for the crimes of the parents.

No but if the Parent did not have a drivers license does that mean we here in the USA now need to let their kids drive without one too?

Sorry to melt snowflakes but the answer is NO

 

There is a LEGAL path for them same as my wife followed to enter

Edited February 16, 2018 by meechai

[meechai]

[heybruce]

26 minutes ago, meechai said:

No but if the Parent did not have a drivers license does that mean we here in the USA now need to let their kids drive without one too?

Sorry to melt snowflakes but the answer is NO

Polls say the majority of Americans are more interested in practical concerns and fairness to the individual dreamers than strict adherence to illegal acts the children were not responsible for committing.  These are children and young adults who only know the US, and most people agree it is wrong to send them to often dangerous countries that they don't know.

[heybruce]

31 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I don't see how the judges can block it as Trump only said he will not renew a regulation. It was never a law. If Trump does not renew it, it automatically expires.

 

Congress had 5 months to sort this and that they have not done so is on them.

I'm guessing the Dems don't want to solve the problem so they can use it as a stick to beat the GOP with in the mid terms.

Dems want to solve this problem by voting on a "clean" bill addressing only the dreamers.  The Republicans want to throw in a lot of unpopular, and in the case of the wall, expensive and ineffective add-ons. 

 

The Republican add-ons would stand no chance of passing on their own, so the Republicans want to piggy-back on a popular Dreamers bill so they can tout anti-immigration "accomplishments" during the 2018 elections.

[thaibeachlovers]

2 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Polls say the majority of Americans are more interested in practical concerns and fairness to the individual dreamers than strict adherence to illegal acts the children were not responsible for committing.  These are children and young adults who only know the US, and most people agree it is wrong to send them to often dangerous countries that they don't know.

Don't they have parents back home to live with?

If those countries are too dangerous to send the dreamers back to, why doesn't the US just let them all immigrate to the US? Isn't it the responsibility of the US to take anyone who wants to move there?

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, heybruce said:

Dems want to solve this problem by voting on a "clean" bill addressing only the dreamers.  The Republicans want to throw in a lot of unpopular, and in the case of the wall, expensive and ineffective add-ons. 

 

The Republican add-ons would stand no chance of passing on their own, so the Republicans want to piggy-back on a popular Dreamers bill so they can tout anti-immigration "accomplishments" during the 2018 elections.

You are describing business as usual in congress.

For some reason, the Dems seem to think the dreamer bill should be the only clean bill ever made.

BTW, Trump probably knows this is his only chance to get funding for the wall, so fat chance of him agreeing to not include it.

If the Dems hate Trump so much they'll let the dreamers get sent home rather than give him the wall, so be it. The people they will hurt are the dreamers. Trump will find something else to hang his wall funding on, but the dreamers will be gone.

[heybruce]

11 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

You are describing business as usual in congress.

For some reason, the Dems seem to think the dreamer bill should be the only clean bill ever made.

BTW, Trump probably knows this is his only chance to get funding for the wall, so fat chance of him agreeing to not include it.

If the Dems hate Trump so much they'll let the dreamers get sent home rather than give him the wall, so be it. The people they will hurt are the dreamers. Trump will find something else to hang his wall funding on, but the dreamers will be gone.

This "business as usual" is good for special interests and bad for the country.  When bills can be voted on separately, they should be.

 

When the military wants a new weapons system, it must clearly show a need for, and effectiveness of, the proposed weapon before getting funding approved.  Why not impose the same constraints on this $20+ billion dollar wall and then submit a clean bill on the wall?

 

We know the answer, the wall is a ridiculously expensive symbol that will not put a dent in immigration.  To paraphrase General Patton:  It will be a $25 billion monument to the stupidity of man.

[heybruce]

26 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Don't they have parents back home to live with?

If those countries are too dangerous to send the dreamers back to, why doesn't the US just let them all immigrate to the US? Isn't it the responsibility of the US to take anyone who wants to move there?

Maybe they have families in those countries, maybe they don't.

 

Nobody is proposing opening the borders to everyone from dangerous countries.  We are discussing people who grew up in the US through no fault of their own and don't know any other country. 

 

The Republicans should stop playing politics with the dreamers and submit a clean bill for a vote in Congress.

[Jingthing]

"trump" is "negotiating" in very bad faith. He's basically insisting on ALL his demands for what he imagines is a concession, a legalization path for the dreamers. But it isn't a real concession because polls show about 85 percent of the American public supports that anyway!

 

I'm past predicting outcomes, but the democrats are definitely NOT going to give "trump" all he wants on immigration which is basically Miller's disgusting racist "Make American White Again" evil agenda. So if "trump" is really going to push for all of his "four pillars" or most of them, the dreamers will be in real trouble. 

 

In that case where nothing can pass, I think there are two general probable paths. The mass deportations start in earnest and that becomes a main political issue for the midterms with the democrats blaming "trump" and the republicans blaming the democrats. I think that's a losing gambit politically for the republicans but they might arrogantly think otherwise. OR ... perhaps they will pass a temporary bridge bill to keep the mass deportations of dreamer in low volume until AFTER the midterms.

 

What a farce. 

Edited February 16, 2018 by Jingthing

[farcanell]

1 hour ago, meechai said:

No but if the Parent did not have a drivers license does that mean we here in the USA now need to let their kids drive without one too?

Sorry to melt snowflakes but the answer is NO

 

There is a LEGAL path for them same as my wife followed to enter

Is that an analogy to children not having to pay for their fathers sins?

 

cant be... stupid concept... can you clarify what you mean, because it reads like your asking “if parents sin, we should let the child sin in the same fashion”.... which is quite obviously no where near the concept of “ not holding a child responsible for the parents sin”

 

anyway... legal path...

so mum and dad sneak in with a one year old... the one year old is now a dreamer, with no connections to the homeland of its parents...

 

yeah... confused again. Your saying that the one year old should have... what... crawled off to immigration and goo gooed about being dragged into America by its parents, and made a legal application?

 

thats my take away from your post... it’s to stupid to be a correct take away, so can you please explain where my reasoning is flawed, such that I can better understand your post... but more importantly, the issue as a whole

[Thaidream]

The dreamers need to be 'legalized'- most can't even speak any language but English.  The problem is how do you stop more from coming and build up in numbers and 20 years from now there is the same problem.

 

There has to be rational; legal; and humanitarian Immigration policy that is developed and then enforced. Frankly, all of the illegals now in the Us have to be made legal- actual deportation would make America look worse in the eyes of the World than it already is. In fact, deportation would cost billions.  However, anyone convicted of  a serious felony would need to go unless there are mitigating situations.

 

As someone mentioned- time to crack down on the employers who are using H1 Visas to bring in people with HI Tech skills and paying them 50% less than what an American would be paid. This is completely against the law and must be enforced.  In addition- there needs to be a guest worker program as wealthy farming combines keep hiring illegals and pay them below minimum wage.

there also needs to be a crackdown on illegals coming into America for the sole purpose of getting pregnant- delivering the child in America to get citizenship and then using chain migration to get out family members in legally.  I would hold up citizenship on the child until  an Immigration investigation is concluded.  It is currently automatic.

 

America was built on the backs of Immigrants and I mean literally. Trump's 4 pillars tied to the Dreamers is simple blackmail. However, If I were the Dems- to save the Dreamers- I would give Trump his damn $20 Billion Wall. He may well back off the other nonsense he is spouting.  Let him go down to the Mexican border and look over his 20 Foot high monstrosity and throw the bill over the wall .  He won't get a cent back.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

Maybe they have families in those countries, maybe they don't.

 

Nobody is proposing opening the borders to everyone from dangerous countries.  We are discussing people who grew up in the US through no fault of their own and don't know any other country. 

 

The Republicans should stop playing politics with the dreamers and submit a clean bill for a vote in Congress.

At the moment it's the Dems playing politics.

[heybruce]

Scare-mongers are intentionally mis-representing chain migration:

 

" Under the family unification model, U.S. citizens and some legal residents can bring their spouses and minor children relatively easily. But other categories of family members take far longer. An American citizen trying to sponsor a brother or sister from Mexico or the Philippines faces wait times of 20 years or more, because the number of visas that can be issued in the sibling category has an annual cap."    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/how-chain-migration-became-a-target-in-trumps-immigration-agenda/2018/01/02/dd30e034-efdb-11e7-90ed-77167c6861f2_story.html?utm_term=.15d9cf9d9be7

 

" Trump wasn’t specific about what he meant by “distant relatives” — those who are supposedly streaming into the country in unlimited numbers — but if he was referring to grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, nieces, nephews, or in-law relatives, he was simply wrong. None of them are eligible for family-based sponsorship"    https://www.snopes.com/2018/02/01/what-is-chain-migration/

 

I recommend reading the entire snopes link for people who want a rational explanation of chain migration.

Edited February 16, 2018 by heybruce

[thaibeachlovers]

31 minutes ago, Thaidream said:

However, If I were the Dems- to save the Dreamers- I would give Trump his damn $20 Billion Wall.

So why don't they? Trump will probably sign anything that gives him his wall. IMO the other stuff is just part of the "negotiation".

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, farcanell said:

Is that an analogy to children not having to pay for their fathers sins?

 

cant be... stupid concept... can you clarify what you mean, because it reads like your asking “if parents sin, we should let the child sin in the same fashion”.... which is quite obviously no where near the concept of “ not holding a child responsible for the parents sin”

 

anyway... legal path...

so mum and dad sneak in with a one year old... the one year old is now a dreamer, with no connections to the homeland of its parents...

 

yeah... confused again. Your saying that the one year old should have... what... crawled off to immigration and goo gooed about being dragged into America by its parents, and made a legal application?

 

thats my take away from your post... it’s to stupid to be a correct take away, so can you please explain where my reasoning is flawed, such that I can better understand your post... but more importantly, the issue as a whole

What I don't understand is why the dreamers were left behind when their parents were deported. Surely parents that loved their kids would have taken them with them? If the parents are still in the US, then they can all be deported together. None of them have a legal right to stay in the US as the child isn't an anchor baby.

[thaibeachlovers]

2 hours ago, heybruce said:

This "business as usual" is good for special interests and bad for the country.  When bills can be voted on separately, they should be.

 

When the military wants a new weapons system, it must clearly show a need for, and effectiveness of, the proposed weapon before getting funding approved.  Why not impose the same constraints on this $20+ billion dollar wall and then submit a clean bill on the wall?

 

We know the answer, the wall is a ridiculously expensive symbol that will not put a dent in immigration.  To paraphrase General Patton:  It will be a $25 billion monument to the stupidity of man.

Really. No other bills are clean, but you think this one should be, why?

Of course all bills should be clean but that's not the reality. Should be changed but probably never going to happen.

Doesn't matter if the wall is needed or not, it was a campaign promise and the centerpiece of Trump's campaign. The military waste more than the entire cost of the wall every year, so clean them up to pay for the wall.

[thaibeachlovers]

44 minutes ago, Thaidream said:

The dreamers need to be 'legalized'- most can't even speak any language but English. 

Haha. I think you will find they speak Spanish pretty well. A recent study apparently found a lot of people can only speak Spanish.

[heybruce]

22 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

At the moment it's the Dems playing politics.

A clean bill for a simple up or down vote on the DACA issue is playing politics?  Only if you insist politics should be dirty and misleading.