THE HILL: NOLAN SAYS THAT ANY DREAMER LEGISLATION MUST BE “FULLY VETTED!”

http://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/367744-democrats-out-of-order-on-dream-act?rnd=1515255525

 

Family Pictures

Nolan writes (in part):

“. . . .

If the DREAM Act is passed without going through the checks and balances that are provided by regular order, it will represent little more than the partisan views of those who wrote it.

. . . .

It seems somewhat hypocritical for Schumer and Pelosi to be urging the passage of a DREAM Act without going through the regular order: They have expressed outrage in the past when the Republicans have resorted to such tactics.

For instance, when Republicans tried to rush the Graham-Cassidy healthcare bill through the Senate to repeal the Affordable Care Actwithout going through the regular order, Schumer made the following statement on the floor of the Senate:

There is no regular order here. There are no bipartisan, public hearings on the Graham-Cassidy bill. … [I]t’s the same backroom, one-party sham of a legislative process that ultimately brought the other bill down. A contrived, 11th hour hearing on block grants in the Homeland Security Committee — a committee with such limited jurisdiction over healthcare matters — does not even come close to suggesting regular order.

And when House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) abandoned the pledge he had made to return to regular order, Pelosi responded with an angry press statement claiming that, “It has long been clear that regular order is not as important to republicans as protecting their special interest agenda.”

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Officeestimates the DREAM Act would make legal status available to 3.4 million undocumented aliens and would increase national budget deficits by $25.9 billion over the 2018-2027 period.

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 established the largest legalization program we have ever had, and it only legalized 2.7 million aliens.

The extreme generosity of the DREAM Act of 2017 is unfair to the American citizens and Lawful Permanent Residents who have unconscionably long waits to be reunited with alien family members. As of November 2017, there were 4 million aliens with approved family-based visa petitions on the visa waiting list.

. . . .

Congress needs to pass a bill to help alien children who were brought here illegally by their parents, but it should be a bill that has gone through the checks and balances of the legislative process.”

*****************************************

Go on over to The Hill at the link to get the full detail about Nolan’s objections to the current draft of the “Dream Act.”

The parallel between “Graham-Cassidy,” which was in fact a GOP backroom effort that totally excluded Dems from the process, and the Dream Act appears strained. Nonpartisan Dream Act negotiations are currently going on and have been for some time. Indeed, since the Dems are in the minority in both Houses, they will need some bipartisan GOP support to pass Dreamer relief. Moreover, unlike Graham-Cassidy, various versions of the Dream Act have been around and debated for years. Indeed, various bills at one time had majority support in both Houses, but GOP restrictionist maneuvering blocked them from becoming law.

The Dems had to face down some “rebellions’ from their base for going back on their word and voting to temporarily fund the USG over the Holidays. I don’t see how they can “kick the can” on the Dreamers down the road any more without some serious backlash from their own base. That’s particularly true now that the unnecessary and unwise termination of TPS for El Salvador has sowed yet more fear and unease in the immigrant and Hispanic communities.

As I’ve pointed out before, because of the “Bakuninist Wing” of the GOP, Trump isn’t going to get any type of budget without some Democratic support. Once he gets a budget, that need for “bipartisanship” might well disappear overnight. So, now is the time for the Dems to use their “leverage.”

As other commentators have noted, at one time additional border fencing was basically a “nonpartisan no-brainer.” But, by turning “The Wall” into a White Nationalist racist anti-Hispanic symbol, Trump basically has “poisoned the well” for the Democrats. Nevertheless, there might be room for some additional fencing that the Dems could characterize as “less than The Wall” while Trump could claim victory to his base. The Dems also could give on border equipment and technology as well as more administrative and legal personnel for DHS. Beyond that, the pickings are slim.

But, the GOP leaders and Trump don’t have lots of options either. They will be hard pressed to come up with a budget that satisfies Trump while still gaining sufficient support from the Bakuninists. Then, there is the problem that the budget apparently will require 60 votes in the Senate. That means that the GOP has to do at least something akin to a bipartisan deal. I’ve certainly been wrong before, but I don’t see Nolan’s idea as something the Dems can buy at this time.

I have no problem with also giving relief to family members waiting in line to immigrate. It’s not a “zero sum game” as the restrictions try to portray it. We could clearly take in more legal immigrants now and in the future; clearly we should have been doing so in the past, in which case we wouldn’t have approximately 10 million productive residents living here without legal status. But, that probably will have to await some type of overall Immigration Reform that’s unlikely to be accomplished as long as guys like Jeff Sessions, Steven Miller, and Sen. Tom Cotton are “driving the train” for the GOP on immigration.

So, stay tuned, we’ll see how this all plays out.

 

PWS 01-08-18

 

 

 

10 thoughts on “THE HILL: NOLAN SAYS THAT ANY DREAMER LEGISLATION MUST BE “FULLY VETTED!””

  1. I said that the DREAM Act should not be passed without putting it through the legislative process, i.e., regular order. Negotiations between members of the two parties are not a substitute for hearings and markups and the rest of the legislative process.

    The dems will need more than some GOP support to pass the DREAM Act without going through the regular order if their extortion attempt fails. They will have to wait until they control congress and the White House.

    Why aren’t you discussing the reasons I give for saying that the DREAM Act needs to go through regular order? That’s what my article is about.

    Incidentally, do you really want the minority to be able to force the majority to pass its bills with a threat to shut the government down?

    Look beyond the fact that the dems are the minority now and that you like the bill they are trying to force congress to pass without going through the regular order, and consider how the democrats screwed themselves by doing away with the filibuster to get Obama’s appointments through the Senate. They haven’t been able to block Trump’s appointments.

    I explain in my article, “Will the filibuster save the Democrats from an onslaught of Republican legislation?”
    http://blogs.ilw.com/entry.php?9554-Will-the-filibuster-save-the-Democrats-from-an-onslaught-of-Republican-legislation-By-Nolan-Rappaport

  2. They do get credit for trying, but I don’t think they understand the history of republican objections to legalization programs; and as I said in my article, the DREAM Act legalization program would be substantially larger than IRCA, which is the largest one we have ever had.

    They also seem to be unaware of what happened with SBInet, or with the Jordon Commission report on chain migration. They wanted family based immigration limited to minor children, spouses, and parents.

  3. With all due respect, when Republican lawmakers care about “what Nolan says”, I would surmise they would reach out to him for his opinions…

    In the meantime, Democrats – including me – will organize to have our voices heard.

    Judge Schmidt – thank you for all of your posts and commentaries on the current, albeit sad, state of affairs on this topic. When are you coming back to Richmond :)??? Shalin and Oscar both want to hear from you again!

    Saludos!
    Roxanne

  4. Roxanne says, “With all due respect, when Republican lawmakers care about “what Nolan says”, I would surmise they would reach out to him for his opinions…”

    Not much respect in that sentence, notwithstanding her introductory phrase.

    Actually, the Republicans are reading my articles. In fact, the Chairman of the Immigration Subcommittee, Raul Labrador, introduced several of them into the record at the markup of one of his bills.
    https://judiciary.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/5.18.17-Markup-Transcript.pdf at page 146

    I worked with the Republicans on immigration issues for seven years when I was the immigration counsel for the Democrats on the Immigration Subcommittee. I encouraged cooperation between the two parties then, and I am still doing it.

  5. Dear Nolan:
    I totally understand that you dislike my comments on your comments here on Judge Schmidt’s blog. I would guess you would prefer I comment here, as opposed to commenting directly on your op-ed pieces at The Hill. I do apologize if you are offended, yet am sure you will agree when one puts an opinion “out there” one expects and is actually soliciting comments. Otherwise, what is the point?

    I only humbly ask that you please start encouraging the Republicans to stop “cooperation” with the Democrats. Unless you can convince them (since you believe they are listening) that the cost of immigration isn’t purely financial, and that there is a moral duty to invite other races and cultures to the table here in the USA. Until that happens, there will be no compromise between the two parties. At least not in the party that I belong to….

    Your invitation to Richmond stands; I do hope to meet you one day in person and we can discuss these things openly and civilly over coffee. And perhaps I can introduce you to a few of those pesky immigrants as well……

    Until the next time,
    Roxanne Fantl

  6. Roxanne says, “I totally understand that you dislike my comments on your comments here on Judge Schmidt’s blog. I would guess you would prefer I comment here, as opposed to commenting directly on your op-ed pieces at The Hill.”

    But you didn’t comment on my comments. You belittled me. You said that if the Republican lawmakers cared about what I have to say, they would ask me for my opinions.

    And, it isn’t just you doing this. The democrats use ad hominem attacks when someone says something they don’t like instead of responding to what he is saying, and it didn’t start with Trump. They were doing it to other people before Trump became a politician. It has just gotten nastier with him, much nastier.

    I had to prepare a position for the democrats on every bill, amendment, and hearing topic for seven years; and I didn’t resort to character assaults a single time. For that matter, I don’t remember others doing it then either.

    Roxane says, “I do apologize if you are offended, yet am sure you will agree when one puts an opinion “out there” one expects and is actually soliciting comments. Otherwise, what is the point?”

    I wasn’t offended, just annoyed.

    Roxanne says, “I only humbly ask that you please start encouraging the Republicans to stop “cooperation” with the Democrats. Unless you can convince them (since you believe they are listening) that the cost of immigration isn’t purely financial, and that there is a moral duty to invite other races and cultures to the table here in the USA. Until that happens, there will be no compromise between the two parties. At least not in the party that I belong to….”

    That approach doesn’t work. Congressmen represent the people who voted for them. You might think that doesn’t matter, but congressmen have to please their constituents if they want to be elected again. If you want to persuade them to do something, you have to see the issue from their perspective and either explain how your position would help them with their constituents or offer something in trade that their constituents want.

    Of course, that is an over simplification. Members also have to deal with Committee chairmen, party leadership, the party whip, their fellow members, and so on. But the approach is sound.

    On DACA, the key is to ask for something Trump can give without totally alienating his base. They think DACA participants should be deported, not helped; and nothing the Democrats say will change that. But give them a wall and get rid of the Diversity Visa Program…..

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *