Advertisement

We need your help now

Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.

You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.

If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.

Senator Dick Durbin and Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer J. Scott Applewhite via AP

US Senate rejects immigration bills following White House veto threat

The Senate rejected both a bipartisan immigration plan and a more restrictive proposal by Trump.

THE US SENATE has rejected both a bipartisan immigration plan and a more restrictive proposal by President Donald Trump this evening, suggesting the latest election-year debate on an issue that fires up both parties’ voters will produce a familiar outcome – stalemate.

Facing a White House veto threat and opposition from the Senate’s GOP leaders, the chamber derailed a plan by bipartisan senators that would have helped 1.8 million young immigrant Dreamers achieve citizenship.

It also would have doled out $25 billion (€20 billion) for Trump’s coveted wall with Mexico and for other border security measures, but it didn’t go as far as Trump wanted in curbing legal immigration.

It lost 54-45, six short of the 60 votes that were needed for passage. That scuttled what had seemed the likeliest chance for sweeping immigration legislation to make it through the Senate this year.

Trump’s own plan fared even worse as 60 senators voted no and just 39 voted for it – 21 shy of the 60 needed.

Top Democrats had held out faint hopes that the bipartisan package would prevail, or at least force Trump to negotiate further. But he proved unwilling to fold on his demands for a tougher bill, reflecting the hard-line immigration stance that was a cornerstone of his 2016 presidential run.

‘A dangerous policy’ 

In a written statement earlier today, the White House labelled the bipartisan proposal “dangerous policy that will harm the nation”.

It singled out a provision that directed the government to prioritise enforcement efforts against immigrants who arrive illegally beginning in July. Trump and GOP leaders said he had already shown flexibility by offering a 10 to 12-year path to citizenship for so many Dreamers, a key demand for Democrats and some Republicans.

Minutes later, the chamber voted against Trump’s proposal. Besides helping Dreamers achieve citizenship, the president’s measure would have provided wall funding in one burst, rather than doling it out over 10 years as the bipartisan plan proposed.

In addition, Trump’s bill would have prevented legal immigrants from sponsoring parents and siblings for citizenship and would have ended a visa lottery aimed at allowing more diverse immigrants into the US. The compromise bill would have left that lottery intact but barred Dreamers who obtain citizenship from sponsoring their parents.

Dreamers

“Dreamers” are immigrants brought to the US illegally as children who risk deportation because they lack permanent authorisation to stay.

Trump annulled the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA, that President Barack Obama created that’s protected the Dreamers. He’s given Congress until 5 March to restore the program, though federal courts have blocked him temporarily from dismantling it.

Senate leaders opened the day’s debate by trading blame. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell assailed Democrats for failing to offer “a single proposal that gives us a realistic chance to make law”. Instead, he said, Democrats should back Trump’s “extremely generous” proposal.

Instead, Democratic leaders rallied behind the bipartisan plan. Eight Republicans joined most Democrats in backing that compromise, while three Democrats joined most GOP senators in opposing it.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said Trump has “stood in the way of every single proposal that has had a chance of becoming law”.

He added: “The American people will blame President Trump and no one else for the failure to protect Dreamers.”

Overnight, the Department of Homeland Security said in an emailed statement that the bipartisan proposal would be “the end of immigration enforcement in America”.

That drew fire from Senator Lindsey Graham one of eight GOP co-sponsors of the bipartisan plan. “Instead of offering thoughts and advice — or even constructive criticism — they are acting more like a political organisation intent on poisoning the well,” Graham said in a statement.

Bipartisan compromise

The bipartisan compromise was announced today by 16 senators with centrist views on the issue and was winning support from many Democrats, but it faced an uncertain fate.

Besides opposition by the administration and leading Republicans, the bipartisan plan prompted qualms among Democrats. The party’s second Senate leader, Dick Durbin of Illinois, said some Democrats had “serious issues” with parts of the plan. Those concerns focused on its spending for Trump’s wall and its prohibition against Dreamers sponsoring their parents for legal residency.

The bipartisan measure’s sponsors included eight GOP senators. It was produced by a group led by Senators Susan Collins and Joe Manchin, who spent weeks seeking middle ground.

The moderates’ measure would not have altered a lottery that distributes about 55,000 visas annually to people from diverse countries. Trump has proposed ending it and redistributing visas to other immigrants, including some who are admitted based on job skills, not family ties.

Also rejected was a more modest plan by McCain and Senator Chris Coons. It would have let many Dreamers qualify for permanent residency and directed federal agencies to more effectively control the border by 2020. But it didn’t offer a special citizenship pathway for Dreamers, raise border security funds or make sweeping changes in legal immigration rules.

Read: Trump wants border wall and green card reform or he’ll end protection for young immigrants

More: Nancy Pelosi gave an eight-hour long speech defending immigrants in Congress yesterday

Readers like you are keeping these stories free for everyone...
A mix of advertising and supporting contributions helps keep paywalls away from valuable information like this article. Over 5,000 readers like you have already stepped up and support us with a monthly payment or a once-off donation.

Close
21 Comments
This is YOUR comments community. Stay civil, stay constructive, stay on topic. Please familiarise yourself with our comments policy here before taking part.
Leave a Comment
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute DAVID DOH
    Favourite DAVID DOH
    Report
    Feb 15th 2018, 10:46 PM

    TRUMP is doing what the people voted him to-do…

    The spineless two faced democrats should be rounded up and sent to mars !!! GO TRUMP.. GO !!!

    133
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Scott Crossfield
    Favourite Scott Crossfield
    Report
    Feb 15th 2018, 11:47 PM

    @DAVID DOH: that’s the democrats that had more votes in the popular vote and are sticking to their wishes too on voting against him?

    54
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute David Dickson
    Favourite David Dickson
    Report
    Feb 16th 2018, 3:56 AM

    @DAVID DOH: please ask him how many people were injured and maimed for life to go with the 17 killed in his utopia society in the Frorida school massacre as this cover up is disgusting.

    21
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Stevie Doran
    Favourite Stevie Doran
    Report
    Feb 15th 2018, 10:26 PM

    Looooosseerr Donnie, now do the right thing and resign.

    54
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Dave O Keeffe
    Favourite Dave O Keeffe
    Report
    Feb 15th 2018, 10:44 PM

    “if it gets the votes I’ll sign it” to “this is the only thing I’ll sign” flip flop Donny. Part of me thinks he did it so he’d have someone else to blame when I’m his wonderful, real, physical border wall that Mexico paid for doesn’t happen. Even though there was 25 billion for that in the deal he said he’d veto.

    30
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Untriggered Non-Snowflake
    Favourite Untriggered Non-Snowflake
    Report
    Feb 15th 2018, 11:43 PM

    There is only one deal that will pass the House of Representatives and be signed by Trump. Unfortunately, it can’t get support in the Senate.

    Trump created a win-win situation for himself concerning immigration. The Democrats have been extremely weak.

    29
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Dave O Keeffe
    Favourite Dave O Keeffe
    Report
    Feb 16th 2018, 2:58 AM

    @Untriggered: not necessarily true,the only one deal part that is, Democrats being weak you got spot on. A straight up or down vote on DACA would pass both but get vetoed. The actual voters are 80% in favour of a path to citizenship for DACA recipients. Family reunification? Fu(K it, give to them or the reunions will be happening in war zones. Visa lottery? Should have been gone last time someone tried to get rid of it. 25 billion for the wall? That’ll be the Democrats trophy. But at this point If Democrats were told Obamacare would be fully funded expanded and improved in exchange for the wall being built in the next two years it’d be a hard sell. If Republicans were told that they could get rid of Obamacare for once and for all but never get the wall it’d be hard to convince them.

    7
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Untriggered Non-Snowflake
    Favourite Untriggered Non-Snowflake
    Report
    Feb 16th 2018, 3:33 AM

    @Dave O Keeffe:

    Paul Ryan would not even attempt to bring a straight up or down vote on a standalone DACA bill to the House. He’d be gone as House Speaker by the end of the month. The key rule in this instance is the Hasert Rule. The speaker only brings up legislation for a vote that has the support of the “majority of the majority.”

    Secondly, Cotton and co. have an explicit agreement with Trump that he will not sign any agreement that they disagree with. Of course, Cotton and co. also have an agreement with Ryan that he will whip votes for a conservative immigration bill. A standalone DACA bill would be dead on arrival in the House.

    Ryan and Trump are the real key holders on immigration in the US now. And both are in the hard line conservatives pockets.

    Simple solution: The Democrats need to accept the hard line deal. It provides a pathway to citizenship for 1.8 million people. If they wanted to negotiate further, they should insist they will only allow the changes to legal immigration Trump wants if these places are transferred to the half a million or more TPS people whose protections are also ending. I think Trump would accept that.

    6
    See 9 more replies ▾
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Dave O Keeffe
    Favourite Dave O Keeffe
    Report
    Feb 16th 2018, 4:12 AM

    @Untriggered Non-Snowflake: can’t take any of them at their word. Ryan doesn’t really have any power at all, he is owned 100%. It’s all good though. Republicans should keep shitting on the centrists. Keep playing to the fringe and they’ll eventually join them in the sidelines. Also, Trump wouldn’t accept that. He won’t accept anything that isn’t what he proposed. Remember how we got here? “I’ll sign any deal that has bipartisan support.” He has since rejected two bipartisan deals.

    7
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Untriggered Non-Snowflake
    Favourite Untriggered Non-Snowflake
    Report
    Feb 16th 2018, 4:26 AM

    @Dave O Keeffe: Unfortunately, there are very few real centrists left in US politics now. And the upcoming primary season for the mid-terms will actually exacerbate that. For both parties. The ironic thing about it all is that Trump will possibly be closer to the the center than many Democrats and Republicans in Congress after the mid-term elections.

    6
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Dave O Keeffe
    Favourite Dave O Keeffe
    Report
    Feb 16th 2018, 8:50 AM

    @Untriggered Non-Snowflake: you may be good at writing long paragraphs but your comprehension needs work. I was referring to centrist voters. The centre, where most people are. By playing to the fringes every time that’s who Republicans are going to lose. It’s amusing that you think you know what way Trump will be at a given time. He doesn’t even know that.

    6
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Untriggered Non-Snowflake
    Favourite Untriggered Non-Snowflake
    Report
    Feb 16th 2018, 11:04 AM

    @Dave O Keeffe:

    Thanks for the nice compliment regarding writing long paragraphs. Here’s some more for you.

    Let’s assume that the centre represents the establishment consensus leading up to the 2008 financial crash. We will also assume that it includes 100% of voters. Now assume that 35% of voters move to the right fringes and an equal 35% move to the left fringes. Both by the same “political distance”. What now is the centre? Is it the place where most people are?

    That’s what my reply was suggesting. The centre in politics for the last 1/4 of a century related to the establishment consensus i.e. the centre ground we have come to know.

    Now while your suggestion that the centre ground contains most voters is not necessarily true, rational choice theory suggests that a political party that positions itself where the median/centre voter is will win an election, assuming of course that the other party positions itself on anywhere left or right of centre. Game theory and the median voter theorem suggest that result anyway. But does that hold in real life like you seem to be suggesting?

    I’ll clarify my previous point: Voters from both parties are fleeing from the established centre ground of the last 25 years to the fringes.

    All my other points still stand too.

    1
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Dave O Keeffe
    Favourite Dave O Keeffe
    Report
    Feb 16th 2018, 11:31 AM

    Untriggered: The fringes will not vote for the other side. They are the decideds. The centre could vote either way if persuaded. They are the voters that will decide it. Not only are Republicans losing the centre they’re losing the centre right as well. Smart Democrats will run on fiscal responsibility, path to citizenship, scrapping the lottery, and limiting family reunification and they’ll win. Each of your assumptions are not exactly worth considering as none of them are remotely close to plausible. 46% (31% registered) are Democrat or Democrat leaning and 39% (24% registered) are Republican or Republican leaning while. Ir would be fair to say that up to 15% of the population exists in the centre right position. Democrats only need about a third of them.

    2
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Untriggered Non-Snowflake
    Favourite Untriggered Non-Snowflake
    Report
    Feb 16th 2018, 12:02 PM

    @Dave O Keeffe:

    Unfortunately, you are falling into the old Schumer/Clinton trap from the 2016 election.

    “For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin.” Schumer on Democrat strategy.

    They assumed that failing to address a major part of their traditional base didn’t matter, as a centre position would win over moderate republicans in the centre or the centre right….We saw how that turned out when the candidate with the worst approval rating in US history in the week leading up to the election won.

    As I said, the theory that a centre/median position(median voter theorem) will always beat a fringe position may not hold up in reality.

    2
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Dave O Keeffe
    Favourite Dave O Keeffe
    Report
    Feb 16th 2018, 12:30 PM

    @Untriggered Non-Snowflake: the numbers back it up. The problem in the last election was the candidate. While it doesn’t count for anything in the election it does back up my point, they did win the popular vote. A better candidate and that’s the ballgame. The fact you keep ignoring is that there are more people that will switch from voting Republican than will ditch Democrats this time out. Democrats haven’t lost many votes. Republicans very definitely have lost votes and candidates. Candidates replacing them have a choice, appeal to the masses or appeal to the fringes and get support from Bannon and Trump

    3
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Untriggered Non-Snowflake
    Favourite Untriggered Non-Snowflake
    Report
    Feb 16th 2018, 1:01 PM

    @Dave O Keeffe: The fact is that the Democrats also believed that there was more people who would switch to them from the Republican side than would ditch the Democrats in 2016. Reread the Schumer quote. That clearly didn’t happen then.

    I don’t buy the idea that Clinton was a bad candidate. It’s a Democrat cop-out. Everyone said she was one of the most qualified people ever to run for the presidency. On approval ratings, she was the second most popular candidate ever to run in the week leading up to the election. She received the second highest votes in US electoral history. She was facing a candidate that had the worst approval rating in history. Trump also had no political experience. The candidate reason just doesn’t do it for me…clearly strategic issues with the campaign.

    2
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Dave O Keeffe
    Favourite Dave O Keeffe
    Report
    Feb 16th 2018, 1:37 PM

    @Untriggered Non-Snowflake: like the strategy of running a Clinton. Of course strategy comes into it but you can’t ignore the fact that she has more skeletons than the public will allow. The reopening of the investigation (rightly or wrong y) days before the election cannot be ignored either. Approval ratings mean very little when there’s a candidate people may not be willing to admit to supporting (Bradley Effect)

    1
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Alois Irlmaier
    Favourite Alois Irlmaier
    Report
    Feb 16th 2018, 12:01 AM

    Yes but what did the NRA say…. Sarcasm.

    4
Submit a report
Please help us understand how this comment violates our community guidelines.
Thank you for the feedback
Your feedback has been sent to our team for review.

Leave a commentcancel

 
JournalTv
News in 60 seconds