US: GOP leader offers immigration vote to try to resolve impasse

[webfact]

GOP leader offers immigration vote to try to resolve impasse
By ERICA WERNER

WASHINGTON (AP) — Days from a Homeland Security Department shutdown, Senate Republicans sought a way out Monday by splitting President Barack Obama's contested immigration measures from the agency's funding bill.

It was not clear whether the gambit by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell would succeed ahead of Friday's midnight deadline to fund the department or see it shut down. It was far from certain whether it would win any Democratic support, and House conservatives remain firmly opposed to any funding bill for the Homeland Security Department that does not also overturn Obama's executive actions on immigration.

But with Senate Democrats united against a House-passed bill that funds the agency while blocking the president on immigration, McConnell said it was time for another approach.

"It's another way to get the Senate unstuck from a Democrat filibuster and move the debate forward," McConnell said on the Senate floor after a vote to advance the House-passed bill failed 47-46, short of the 60 votes needed. Three previous attempts earlier in the month had yielded similar results.

"This is our colleagues' chance to do exactly what they led their constituents to believe they'd do: defend the rule of law, without more excuses," McConnell said in a jab at the handful of Senate Democrats who have voiced opposition to Obama's executive actions offering work permits and deportation deferrals for millions in the country illegally.

A spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, welcomed McConnell's move, though without predicting its chances of success in the House.

"This vote will highlight the irresponsible hypocrisy of any Senate Democrat who claims to oppose President Obama's executive overreach on immigration, but refuses to vote to stop it," said Boehner spokesman Michael Steel.

McConnell left unclear whether a vote overturning Obama's immigration moves would be followed by a stand-alone vote to fund the Homeland Security Department — an omission not lost on Senate Democrats.

"This proposal doesn't bring us any closer to actually funding DHS, and Republicans still have no real plan to achieve that goal," said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. "It's a disgrace that ISIS and al-Shabab are fully funded, but thanks to Republican game-playing, the Department of Homeland Security might not be." ISIS in one acronym for the Islamic State militant group that has taken over much of Iraq and Syria. Over the weekend, a video purported to be released by Somalia's al-Qaida-linked rebel group al-Shabab urged Muslims to attack shopping malls in Western countries.

McConnell's move came after Obama warned the nation's governors that states would feel the economic pain of a Homeland Security shutdown, with tens of thousands of workers in line to be furloughed if the agency shuts down at midnight Friday, and many more forced to work without pay.

"It will have a direct impact on your economy, and it will have a direct impact on America's national security," Obama told governors as they visited the White House as part of their annual conference.

Within hours of Republicans securing the Senate majority last November, McConnell vowed there would be no government shutdowns, but the immigration fight threatened to shut down the Homeland Security Department and undermine GOP promises that they would show the nation they could govern.

McConnell's move seemed aimed at dividing Senate Democrats who have been united against the $39.7 billion House-passed legislation that funds the Homeland Security Department through the Sept. 30 end of the budget year, while also rolling back Obama's executive actions granting work permits to millions of immigrants in this country illegally.

Aides said McConnell's bill would target only the executive actions Obama announced in November, not an earlier directive from 2012 that provided protections to hundreds of thousands of immigrants brought illegally to the country as youths.

That could make it more difficult for the handful of moderate Democrats who opposed Obama's executive actions when he announced them in November to vote against the legislation.

The move came as growing numbers of Senate Republicans called for Congress to jettison the immigration fight and pass a "clean" Homeland Security spending bill without immigration language. In wake of a federal court's ruling last week stating that Obama had exceeded his authority and putting his immigration policies on hold, several Senate Republicans said the courts were the best place to fight that battle.

"Leave it to the courts. I think we have an excellent case before the Supreme Court," Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said Monday night.

The Obama administration on Monday asked U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen in Brownsville, Texas, to put his ruling on hold and filed a notice of appeal of his ruling to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans.

House conservatives, by contrast, said the court developments only strengthened their resolve to use the Homeland Security budget to fight Obama on immigration.

"A federal judge has confirmed that what we've done is the right thing," conservative Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio said Monday. "I hope that the U.S. Senate can see the light and do the right thing."

A short-term extension of current funding levels remained possible, but lawmakers have only a few days to come up with even that partial solution before the agency's funding expires.

A Homeland Security shutdown would result in some 30,000 administrative and other workers getting furloughed. Some 200,000 others would fall into essential categories and stay on the job at agencies like the Border Patrol, Secret Service and Transportation Security Administration, though mostly without drawing a paycheck until the situation is resolved.
___

Associated Press writers Andrew Taylor and Charles Babington contributed to this report.

-- (c) Associated Press 2015-02-24

[Ulysses G.]

Abolish the fillibuster!

The Republican Senate majority should kill the Senate’s traditional 60-vote filibuster, and gain a huge advantage over the rule-breaking, lawless Democratic Party, says syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer.

“I’ve been radicalized. By Harry Reid and Barack Obama. Goodbye moderation and sweet reason,” he wrote in his weekly column.

“In the fourth quarter of his presidency, Obama unbound is abusing presidential authority at will to secure a legacy on everything from environmental regulation to immigration, the laws of which he would unilaterally suspend,” Krauthammer wrote.

And the 46 Senate Democrats are using the filibuster rules to block the GOP’s 54-seat majority to paralyze the GOP’s pushback.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/02/22/krauthammer-end-filibuster-to-block-obamas-amnesty-grab/

[wwest5829]

Abolish the fillibuster!

The Republican Senate majority should kill the Senates traditional 60-vote filibuster, and gain a huge advantage over the rule-breaking, lawless Democratic Party, says syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer.

Ive been radicalized. By Harry Reid and Barack Obama. Goodbye moderation and sweet reason, he wrote in his weekly column.

In the fourth quarter of his presidency, Obama unbound is abusing presidential authority at will to secure a legacy on everything from environmental regulation to immigration, the laws of which he would unilaterally suspend, Krauthammer wrote.

And the 46 Senate Democrats are using the filibuster rules to block the GOPs 54-seat majority to paralyze the GOPs pushback.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/02/22/krauthammer-end-filibuster-to-block-obamas-amnesty-grab/

You mean ban the filibuster that the Republicans used successfully so many times before the 2014 by term elections when they were in the minority? Ha! Be careful, I remember when Republicans acted against having a 4 term elected Democrat as President. They passed the Amendment limiting any President to only 2 terms. The next President that stood a good chance of being elected to a 3rd term was Dwight David Eisenhower, sorry Ike, your party pushed the term limits. While I agree that a 2 term limit was a good idea, sometimes you need to think things out.

Clean bill for Homeland Security funding. Then address immigration in a clean bill. Don't make me remind folks that the Congress had several years already to address this issue. Cut the BS politics and get on with arguing, debating the merits of each issue in separately addressed legislation proposals.

[chuckd]

Abolish the fillibuster!

The Republican Senate majority should kill the Senates traditional 60-vote filibuster, and gain a huge advantage over the rule-breaking, lawless Democratic Party, says syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer.

Ive been radicalized. By Harry Reid and Barack Obama. Goodbye moderation and sweet reason, he wrote in his weekly column.

In the fourth quarter of his presidency, Obama unbound is abusing presidential authority at will to secure a legacy on everything from environmental regulation to immigration, the laws of which he would unilaterally suspend, Krauthammer wrote.

And the 46 Senate Democrats are using the filibuster rules to block the GOPs 54-seat majority to paralyze the GOPs pushback.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/02/22/krauthammer-end-filibuster-to-block-obamas-amnesty-grab/

You mean ban the filibuster that the Republicans used successfully so many times before the 2014 by term elections when they were in the minority? Ha! Be careful, I remember when Republicans acted against having a 4 term elected Democrat as President. They passed the Amendment limiting any President to only 2 terms. The next President that stood a good chance of being elected to a 3rd term was Dwight David Eisenhower, sorry Ike, your party pushed the term limits. While I agree that a 2 term limit was a good idea, sometimes you need to think things out.

Clean bill for Homeland Security funding. Then address immigration in a clean bill. Don't make me remind folks that the Congress had several years already to address this issue. Cut the BS politics and get on with arguing, debating the merits of each issue in separately addressed legislation proposals.

You do recall that Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) changed the filibuster rules in the last Senatorial session on Obama's appointments?

Reid reduced it to a simple majority to invoke closure on Presidential appointments, other than for the Supreme Court.

I agree with UG. Invoke the nuclear option on filibusters relating to budgetary items. It certainly won't be breaking new ground.

[Srikcir]

Republicans argue that national security is not at stake with failure to fund Homeland Security because 200,000 employees will be forced to work without pay.

Can you imagine just how diligently those employees are going to work? Probably not much at all. And they will be resentful for having to take loans and credit card advances at their own expense so that Republicans can playout this political power game. For some of the employees this will be a repeat of their financial troubles they had when the Republicans shut down the whole government in 2013.

I hope employees remember this mistreatment in the 2016 elections.

[up-country_sinclair]

Although some might prefer to keep their heads buried in the sand, there is a better than even chance that the Democrats will retake the US Senate in 2016. Why is that you might ask? Firstly, Republicans will have to defend 24 seats and Democrats only 10. Secondly, turnout for Democrats is much higher in presidential elections than midterm elections.

The Hill published a list of the ten most vulnerable Senators in the 2016, and 8 of them are Republicans.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/senate-races/228020-10-senators-who-could-lose-in-2016

I don't know if the Democrats will retake the Senate, but I know I don't want to take the risk of being in the minority 18 months from now without the protection of the filibuster. Can you imagine what would have happened over the last 6 years if the filibuster didn't exist?

Abolishing the filibuster over an issue that is currently being addressed by the courts would be foolhardy and shortsighted.

[snarky66]

Actually they did have a vote on this yesterday. 47-46. Democrats want to shut down the Department of Homeland Security. C'est la vie.

[sdanielmcev]

Abolish the fillibuster!

The Republican Senate majority should kill the Senates traditional 60-vote filibuster, and gain a huge advantage over the rule-breaking, lawless Democratic Party, says syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer.

Ive been radicalized. By Harry Reid and Barack Obama. Goodbye moderation and sweet reason, he wrote in his weekly column.

In the fourth quarter of his presidency, Obama unbound is abusing presidential authority at will to secure a legacy on everything from environmental regulation to immigration, the laws of which he would unilaterally suspend, Krauthammer wrote.

And the 46 Senate Democrats are using the filibuster rules to block the GOPs 54-seat majority to paralyze the GOPs pushback.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/02/22/krauthammer-end-filibuster-to-block-obamas-amnesty-grab/

You mean ban the filibuster that the Republicans used successfully so many times before the 2014 by term elections when they were in the minority? Ha! Be careful, I remember when Republicans acted against having a 4 term elected Democrat as President. They passed the Amendment limiting any President to only 2 terms. The next President that stood a good chance of being elected to a 3rd term was Dwight David Eisenhower, sorry Ike, your party pushed the term limits. While I agree that a 2 term limit was a good idea, sometimes you need to think things out.

Clean bill for Homeland Security funding. Then address immigration in a clean bill. Don't make me remind folks that the Congress had several years already to address this issue. Cut the BS politics and get on with arguing, debating the merits of each issue in separately addressed legislation proposals.

" acted against having a 4 term elected Democrat as President. They passed the Amendment limiting any President to only 2 terms."? Since when are amendments passed by Congress? They're ratified by the states.

[casualbiker]

Why do you even have two totally separate bills linked if not to force a point. What's Homeland security funding to do with a Presidential decree. Nothing the Republican's are holding America's security Establishment to ransom... Ridiculous!

[chuckd]

Why do you even have two totally separate bills linked if not to force a point. What's Homeland security funding to do with a Presidential decree. Nothing the Republican's are holding America's security Establishment to ransom... Ridiculous!

Google is your friend. Seek and ye shall find.

[casualbiker]

Why do you even have two totally separate bills linked if not to force a point. What's Homeland security funding to do with a Presidential decree. Nothing the Republican's are holding America's security Establishment to ransom... Ridiculous!

Google is your friend. Seek and ye shall find.

So you're either to lazy to answer or you don't actually know the answer... !

[snarky66]

You heard it here first. Homeland Security will not be funded on Friday. One can hardly wait to see the hissy fit Barry throws. Barry has gotten his own way for 6 years. And like a spoiled little brat he is not going to like this one bit. Does anyone want to see what petulance looks like? Hahaha 5000 smiley faces. Get over it left wing radicals.

Edited February 25, 2015 by snarky66

[stoli]

Republicans argue that national security is not at stake with failure to fund Homeland Security because 200,000 employees will be forced to work without pay.

Can you imagine just how diligently those employees are going to work? Probably not much at all. And they will be resentful for having to take loans and credit card advances at their own expense so that Republicans can playout this political power game. For some of the employees this will be a repeat of their financial troubles they had when the Republicans shut down the whole government in 2013.

I hope employees remember this mistreatment in the 2016 elections.

Hogwash. You know that ALL of these employees will be PAID IN FULL once this is resolved. Stick to the facts, instead of scare tactics.

[snarky66]

It appears that they repugnant little troll Harry Reid is still in charge of the Senate. He is a despicable little cretin.

[casualbiker]

Republicans argue that national security is not at stake with failure to fund Homeland Security because 200,000 employees will be forced to work without pay.

Can you imagine just how diligently those employees are going to work? Probably not much at all. And they will be resentful for having to take loans and credit card advances at their own expense so that Republicans can playout this political power game. For some of the employees this will be a repeat of their financial troubles they had when the Republicans shut down the whole government in 2013.

I hope employees remember this mistreatment in the 2016 elections.

Hogwash. You know that ALL of these employees will be PAID IN FULL once this is resolved. Stick to the facts, instead of scare tactics.

But the politicians are STILL prepared to let them work unpaid for the duration. The employees still have bills to pay food to buy. They are facts!

Why don't the Republican politicians show solidarity and also take a pay freeze or better still a daily cut in salary while it's ongoing?

(Not that they would notice a few days or weeks of salary cut. And even if they did I'm sure the brothers would top them up)

[Ulysses G.]

But the politicians are STILL prepared to let them work unpaid for the duration.

Well worth it to stop Obama's unconstitutional grab for power. They will use their savings and get it all back.

[casualbiker]

But the politicians are STILL prepared to let them work unpaid for the duration.

Well worth it to stop Obama's unconstitutional grab for power. They will use their savings and get it all back.

Explain. What unconstitutional grab for power?

[chuckd]

Why do you even have two totally separate bills linked if not to force a point. What's Homeland security funding to do with a Presidential decree. Nothing the Republican's are holding America's security Establishment to ransom... Ridiculous!

Google is your friend. Seek and ye shall find.

So you're either to lazy to answer or you don't actually know the answer... !

None of the above.

Your questions have already been answered on this forum multiple times in various threads.

Why do you expect others to do your work for you? If you have questions, look them up and then come back with a post that contributes to the conversation..

[up-country_sinclair]

Hey, I thought this was supposed to be resolved "simply" and "without a problem".

[Ulysses G.]

But the politicians are STILL prepared to let them work unpaid for the duration.

Well worth it to stop Obama's unconstitutional grab for power. They will use their savings and get it all back.

Explain. What unconstitutional grab for power?

This has been answered over and over again. Go back and read the forum.

[casualbiker]

But the politicians are STILL prepared to let them work unpaid for the duration.

Well worth it to stop Obama's unconstitutional grab for power. They will use their savings and get it all back.

Explain. What unconstitutional grab for power?

This has been answered over and over again. Go back and read the forum.

You lot are extremely lazy debaters!

[casualbiker]

Excellent

Senator Boxer Speaks on Republican Threat to Shut…:

Edited February 26, 2015 by casualbiker

[up-country_sinclair]

But the politicians are STILL prepared to let them work unpaid for the duration.

Well worth it to stop Obama's unconstitutional grab for power. They will use their savings and get it all back.

Explain. What unconstitutional grab for power?

On another thread a few of our resident Constitutional scholars enlightened us as to which specific articles and amendments of the Constitution that President Obama had clearly violated. Never mind that the President taught Constitutional law at the University of Chicago and has a team of experienced Constitutional law experts at his disposal. And by the way, of course our boys being rabid, hyperpartisans (who aren't quite sure whether or not the president hates America) had nothing to do with their conclusion.

[Ulysses G.]

On another thread a few of our resident Constitutional scholars enlightened us as to which specific articles and amendments of the Constitution that President Obama had clearly violated.

Not just posters on Thai Visa. A federal judge blocked the Obama administration’s executive actions on immigration, because he felt that the states had a good chance of ultimately prevailing on the merits of the case.

No law gave the administration the power “to give 4.3 million removable aliens what the Department of Homeland Security itself labels as ‘legal presence,’” the judge said in a memorandum opinion. “In fact the law mandates that these illegally-present individuals be removed.” The Department of Homeland Security “has adopted a new rule that substantially changes both the status and employability of millions.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/02/17/federal-judge-in-texas-blocks-obama-immigration-orders/

[casualbiker]

So Republicans should put a separate bill forward to remove those 4.3 million removable aliens with the idea to REMOVE them NOT threaten the US national security. Yes - No ?

Obviously they would need to actually work out the cost both financially and socially of such an act.. But no problem for Republicans as Latinos etc don't vote for them.. Do they ?

[JAG]

I don't know, but I would imagine, given the Republicans stance on immigration, that not many of them will next time.

I might add, and I am sure that this will enrage many, that as an outsider observing the current US political scene, the Republican Party seem hell bent on destroying many of the things which I admire about the USA.

None of my business you might well say, but the USA remains the effective leader of the free world. If it becomes a less tolerant and open society that has implications for us all.

Edited February 26, 2015 by JAG

[Chicog]

Let the GOP block Obama's temporary relief order.

The voters will remember their spite.

[chuckd]

So Republicans should put a separate bill forward to remove those 4.3 million removable aliens with the idea to REMOVE them NOT threaten the US national security. Yes - No ?

Obviously they would need to actually work out the cost both financially and socially of such an act.. But no problem for Republicans as Latinos etc don't vote for them.. Do they ?

If they are illegal aliens they are not supposed to vote at all...Chicago politics not withstanding.

Why should separate legislation be required when the laws are already on the books?

Enforcing the immigration law is the responsibility of the Executive branch, not Congress.

[casualbiker]

So Republicans should put a separate bill forward to remove those 4.3 million removable aliens with the idea to REMOVE them NOT threaten the US national security. Yes - No ?

Obviously they would need to actually work out the cost both financially and socially of such an act.. But no problem for Republicans as Latinos etc don't vote for them.. Do they ?

If they are illegal aliens they are not supposed to vote at all...Chicago politics not withstanding.

Why should separate legislation be required when the laws are already on the books?

Enforcing the immigration law is the responsibility of the Executive branch, not Congress.

So why link these two and force the point especially as it in court.. Just crazy that it may effect your nations security at a time like this.. Patriots should defend a nation not hobble it !

[up-country_sinclair]

Just crazy that it may effect your nations security at a time like this.. Patriots should defend a nation not hobble it !

Yes, of course it's crazy. But rabid, hyperpartisans are unable to see the forest for the trees.

ISIS has explicitly threatened an imminent attack on shopping malls in the US, yet these knuckleheads feel they "need to make a point".

Rudy Giuliani should be questioning whether or not they love America because it is they who are putting America is harms way for no reason whatsoever as the issue is already being addressed by the courts.