"Within hours and days", as Senator Durbin (D-IL) on the Senate Floor announced, of being blocked by the Parliamentarian in their efforts to implement immigration reform (especially legalization for undocumented immigrants) the democratic leadership has begun to draft a "Plan B" for consideration. And as per Senator Durbin, in their pockets also rest Plan C, D, etc.
There are also lukewarm calls to fire the parliamentarian or at the very least overrule her decision, both of which seem unlikely for reasons not in the scope of this article. The most feasible path for any kind of immigration reform is to "convince" the parliamentarian to approve the revised proposals.
In order for us to understand how the parliamentarian WILL rule on the revised proposals, it is imperative for us (and more importantly for the Democrats) to understand why the original plan was rejected. So, let's use the privilege of having access to the ruling in writing to dissect it and understand objections of the Senate referee.
Observation # 1: Excerpt from the ruling: "While a portion of that 8 million has one form or another of temporary legal status under statute or Presidential order, the vast majority (nearly 7 million by CBO’s estimate) are unlawfully present and generally ineligible for adjustment of status under current law (as are some of the temporary status holders)."
The parliamentarian clearly differentiates a subset of eligible immigrants with temporary legal status (such as DACA and TPS recipients) from those who are "unlawfully present". Her stress is on the latter group of "nearly 7 million" people and the fact that the proposal would create a new class of immigrants eligible for adjustment of status.
Parliamentarian's Objection # 1: The proposal creates a NEW class of immigrants applicable for permanent residency (differentiated from classes that already exist such as DACA and TPS).
Observation # 2: Excerpt from the ruling: "Broadly speaking, as most of the beneficiaries of this policy change are not in status, there will be other [than social safety net programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, etc.], life-changing federal, state and societal benefits to having LPR status... LPR status would give these persons freedom to work, freedom to travel, freedom to live openly in our society... and to reunite with their families and... to apply for citizenship – things for which there is no federal fiscal equivalent."
The parliamentarian details the benefits of having permanent residency as effecting MORE THAN just the financials of the recipient (in the form of opportunities) and budgetary (in terms of outlays for the governments in the form of safety net programs). "The value of having the security of LPR status [green cards]..." is immense with no "... fiscal equivalence."
Lastly, again the Parliamentarian cleaves out people with some form of temporary legal status (like DACA and TPS recipients) from this objection by stating that "MOST of the beneficiaries of this policy change are not in status". To state the corollary, SOME of the beneficiaries of this policy change ARE in status and as a result MAY already have many of the benefits outlined.
Parliamentarian's Objection # 2: The proposal will grant benefits, by opening a pathway to residency, for a NEW class of immigrants that are FAR BEYOND just fiscal and hence outweigh the budgetary implications.
Observation # 3: Excerpt from the ruling: "Each provision [from several previous reconciliation bills] can be distinguished from the current proposal. "
The Parliamentarian essentially works through all the previous provisions in reconciliation bills and dismantles them as legitimate precedence for immigration reform.
Parliamentarian's Objection # 3: The proposal has no true previous precedence to grant legal status to a new class of immigrants with no status.
Observation # 4: Excerpt from the ruling: "Finally, it is important to note that an obvious corollary of a finding that this proposal is appropriate for inclusion in reconciliation would be that it could be repealed by simple majority vote in a subsequent reconciliation measure."
This is self-explanatory.
Parliamentarian's Objection # 4: The proposal can just as easily be reversed in future [that is green cards granted now can be "taken away"] as part of future reconciliation bills.
If the democratic party is earnest in getting at least some immigration provision passed within reconciliation, they will heed to at least the first three objections and create proposals that are shielded from them. The last objection can be debated. It is not as easy to "take away" legal status, given the "reliance interest" clause (just ask President Trump who exhausted his presidency to repeal DACA, which was not even a Congress act but merely a presidential memo. It was, in fact, not even an executive order.)
No comments:
Post a Comment