Image 01 Image 03

Senate Scraps Two Immigration Proposals, Amendments

Senate Scraps Two Immigration Proposals, Amendments

Back to square one…

Welp, that didn’t last very long. The Senate has ended its debate on immigration as the lawmakers have rejected BOTH proposals in front of them: one from President Donald Trump and the other from the bipartisan clique, the Common Sense Coalition.

The lawmakers rejected amendments from Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Chris Coons (D-DL) and another one from Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA).

The Votes

The Senate GOP devoted this whole week to immigration and really wanted to get something out there before they leave for President’s Day recess next week.

From The Wall Street Journal:

The final tally on the bipartisan plan, seen as the proposal with the best chances in the Senate, was 54 in favor, and 45 opposed. The bill needed 60 votes to proceed.

Next up was a vote on a bill reflecting Mr. Trump’s plan. That proposal garnered just 39 votes in favor, and 60 against. Votes on two other immigration amendments failed earlier.

McCain and Coons had a small deal that did not include border wall funding, but that failed 52-47. Toomey’s amendment was a security cities measure and that lost 54-45.

Trump’s plan, which found approval from the GOP leadership among others, had four pillars: citizenship for the 1.8 million illegal immigrants brought to America at a young age by their parents, border security, ending the diversity visa lottery, and ending chain migration. Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) sponsored Trump’s measure:

The Grassley bill would provide a path to citizenship for 1.8 million young immigrants, end the visa lottery program, build a border wall and severely limit what he calls “chain migration,” which is family-based immigration. It would also increase the use of radar and tower-based surveillance, sensors and drones mostly along the Southwest border, increase the number of border patrol officers and deploy the National Guard to help construct border fencing and operate some of the surveillance equipment.

Mr. Grassley said that in offering the young immigrants, known as Dreamers, a chance to become citizens, Mr. Trump had been “much more compassionate on a compromise than anybody thought.”

Trump pushed senators to oppose any proposal that did not contain those four points. The proposal from the bipartisan group only had two out of the four. From The New York Times:

The bipartisan measure, sponsored by eight Democrats, eight Republicans and one independent, would appropriate $25 billion for border security, including construction of the president’s proposed wall at the Mexican border, over a 10-year period — not immediately, as Mr. Trump demands.

It would also offer an eventual path to citizenship, over 10 to 12 years, for 1.8 million of the young undocumented immigrants, but would preclude them from sponsoring their parents to become citizens. It would make no changes to the diversity visa lottery system, which Mr. Trump wants to end.

Now What?

Bloomberg reported that Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-TX) did not see these votes at the end of the road. He believes the lawmakers “will have another opportunity to address dreamers, perhaps in a massive spending bill that must be passed by March 23.” He thinks they may extend protections for DACA members (remember, the DACA is set to expire on March 5) and include border security measures with it.

But in all honesty, who knows? If anything, these votes opened wounds in the GOP because they went after each other. A White House official chided Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), one of the main people involved in the bipartisan proposal, calling him “an obstacle for those reforms.”

I don’t know which official this was, but Graham decided to lash out at White House aide Stephen Miller, claiming that as long as Trump allows Miller “and others to run the show down there, we’re never going to get anywhere.”

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) warned GOP lawmakers that voted on the bipartisan proposal that they “should be concerned for the electoral futures.”

Cotton has also fired back at Graham for going after Miller. (I must remind you, this is the Senate, not junior high).


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Surprise! Surprise! Surprise!

Look, most of the citizens of this nation want the immigration laws strengthened and border security, in the form of a wall, increased. Yet a majority of their representatives seem to want just the opposite. If the Dems keep “fighting” for open borders, they will keep their support going into the midterms. If the Republicans fail to pass any legislation which grants amnesty to 1 million + illegal immigrants, they keep their current constituency in their corner. After all, the only option to a RINO is a Democrat, at the moment.

    alaskabob in reply to Mac45. | February 15, 2018 at 8:26 pm

    While the next governor of California will be Democrat there is an interesting issue at hand. The Urine Colored State will have an Anglo and Hispanic as the two choices. The padding of the elections in the past with predominately Hispanic voters will be the test of how “racist” the Democrats are. Will this be “Keep California White Again” or “Return California Hispanic Again”? As Latinos replace more Anglos in California and around the country, the Anglo Dems will lose their control of the party… that will be interesting to see. The Democrat Party now may get what they want nationwide (and GOPe) but they will not want what they get since no assimilation. They should pause and think… but won’t.

      pwaldoch in reply to alaskabob. | February 16, 2018 at 1:04 pm

      They aren’t worried. They will make sure to turn them into second class citizens by treating them the same way they treat blacks in cities. Break up nuclear family structure, get them dependent on government, the like. By importing illegals they get a head start on the process.

    JusticeDelivered in reply to Mac45. | February 15, 2018 at 8:26 pm

    Promotion of illegals, parading America’s worst mothers, mothers who produced offspring which contributed nothing of merit to society, promotion of resettling troublemaking refugees and many other issues only served to alienate many traditional Democrats.
    Are Democrats really holding on to their broader base, or committing political suicide?
    For some reason, they failed to hear the message delivered during the last election.

    There are two parties that favor immigration reform: businesses for profit and Democrats to gerrymander the vote.

    Most Americans favor emigration reform (e.g. refugee crises, illegal immigration, mass emigration), and immigration that does not exceed the rate of assimilation and integration before Planned Parenthood.

      YellowSnake in reply to n.n. | February 16, 2018 at 9:48 am

      1st of all, you don’t understand what gerrymandering is.

      2nd, I doubt you know what ‘Most Americans’ want. Most Americans, including a plurality of those who voted in the last election, did not want Trump or a republican controlled Congress. The value of their vote was diminished by ‘gerrymandering’. IN the case of the president, their votes were diminished by the Electoral College.

      It is clear that it is not important that you (n.n) actually know anything to offer a comment and that in your fevered mind everything always ties back to abortion. You should consider carefully before offering ignorant comments lest people see your ignorance as representative of the anti-choice movement.

      For a start, why don’t you look up gerrymandering. The concept isn’t that hard. Assuming you reached 10th grade and have some grasp of arithmetic, you might be able to pack some knowledge into you cracked brain. If you don’t get the double meaning, you are an embarrassment to your cause.

      For the rest of you, why don’t you let n.n figure this out for itself; unless you are convinced that it can’t.

        paracelsus in reply to YellowSnake. | February 16, 2018 at 10:19 am

        ad hominems are unnecessary

        The Electoral College exists for a reason. The first was allow the states, through their legislatures or governors to control who is elected President of the USA. The office was never supposed to be a popularity contest. The federal government was set up to be controlled by the member states.

        The second reason for the College was to reduce the potential for two or three high population states to control the election of the President of the USA. In today’s society, with urban areas having populations as large as, or larger than some states, basing the election of President can effectively disenfranchise whole state populations. Metropolitan Miami Fl has a larger population than 21 states and NYC has a higher population than 40 states.

        As for gerrymandering, it is alive and well in the US. Anytime a representative district is drawn to benefit any single group of people, it is gerrymandered. Now, in the US, the courts have ruled that there is legal and illegal gerrymandering. If a district is gerrymandered to specifically allow for the election of a minority candidate, this is now legal. If the gerrymandered district does not directly benefit a minority, then it is illegal. To be truly representative of the total population, all districts should be nearly identical in population with very regular boundaries. It is interesting that most districts, gerrymandered to benefit a minority, seem to benefit the Democrat party.

          Mac45 in reply to Mac45. | February 16, 2018 at 12:36 pm

          ” In today’s society, with urban areas having populations as large as, or larger than some states, basing the election of President can effectively disenfranchise whole state populations.” should read, ” In today’s society, with urban areas having populations as large as, or larger than, some states, basing the election of President on the popular vote alone can effectively disenfranchise whole state populations.”

          I apologize for the error. – Mac

Senator Graham along with the rest of his RINO buddies haven’t listened to the “We the People” for as long as he has been a member of the US Congress. President Trump was elected because he did listen. Once again the Senate has missed the boat. President Trump wants to clean up the immigration problem NOW. Quit kicking the can down the road and get a bill that takes care of everything on the table and keep working it until it gets passed!

    Aarradin in reply to AZTEJAS. | February 16, 2018 at 2:32 am

    Amazes me that he keeps getting re-elected.

    SC can do FAR better.

    Graham has been a RINO on many, many issues – in conflict with the positions of his constituents.

    If he were Senator from some blue state like IL or MD, I’d suck it up and deal with the fact that he’s not on our team on half the issues that matter. But, there’s no excuse to have someone like him representing a State like SC.

Top. Men.

Two proposals? I thought the whole notion of the much hyped “debate week” was to explore our border and immigration options? And at the end of the week? The first thing Graham does is to rush to the microphone stand to denounce Trump/Miller? And Cotton denounces Graham? What a frak’n farce. The whole thing is sickening.

Graham, McConnell and McCain. Our best and brighest. OMFG.

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to Tiki. | February 15, 2018 at 8:30 pm

    Graham Nasty!!!!!!

    Many reasons he is named that!

    Aarradin in reply to Tiki. | February 16, 2018 at 2:51 am

    No, that wasn’t the point of it at all.

    It was done to fulfill a promise to the D’s that shouldn’t have been made.

    From the D’s perspective, the ENTIRE point was to posture for their base, to help their electoral chances in 2018.

    The D’s were never going to compromise at all, and everyone knew this in advance, so the whole exercise was a farce from start to finish. Their position is: Amnesty in exchange for a few promises of enforcement that will never be allowed to actually happen. They FAR prefer the status quo to a compromise that includes any change to chain-migration, legal immigration limits, e-verify, sanctuary cities, visa lottery, etc, etc, etc.

    They just get far too much benefit from the annual 1-3 million foreigners coming here to risk reducing that in exchange for amnesty for those already here. Their problem is they can’t afford, politically, to be seen screwing illegals out of their promised Amnesty. Which, of course, is what they are actually doing – because R’s really are offering Amnesty, but as part of a deal that includes a few of the items their base actually wants.

President Trump has already offered a compromise package. Fortunately, none of the rinos want it. He should take his offer off the table, imho.

Mar 5 is the deadline (hopefully final), which begins to set the law free to rid our land of the lawbreakers.

It is my hope that President Trump will veto ANY bill that tries to undermine our border security, especially if it is attached to a “massive spending bill.”

Besides whining, the activist courts have no recourse.

    Close The Fed in reply to bear. | February 16, 2018 at 9:00 am

    Grotesquely, Trump tweeted some time ago, that if Congress didn’t deal with it by March 5th, he would “revisit” the issue.

    So, I think Trump will do something to pull the DACA recipients’ bacon out of the fire. I disapprove wholeheartedly, but that’s what he tweeted.

Whatever happens to my family will happen to their family.

    JusticeDelivered in reply to Fen. | February 15, 2018 at 8:16 pm

    Fen, your comment lacks context, what are you saying, that your family is made up of illegals? If so, how would their deportation impact citizens families?

      No. I’m saying that if an illegal alien these politicians have shielded harms a member of my family, they will suffer in equal measure. That includes local officials of sanctuary cities.

      If your neighbor harbors a fugitive, say an escaped convict, and that convict jumps the fence and murders your wife, your neighbor is just as guilty as the convict.

        JusticeDelivered in reply to Fen. | February 16, 2018 at 8:31 am

        I agree, when I first read your post, it sounded like you might have been an illegal sympathizer, glad that is not the case.

Going into the elections, only one person offered a path to citizenship. I’m sure he will mention it.

Emigration reform. Immigration that does not exceed the rate of assimilation and integration before Planned Parenthood.

notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital | February 15, 2018 at 8:29 pm

“Back to Square One” never looked so good!

Hurry up March 6th, 2018.

As long as the GOP allows idiots like Graham or McCain to ‘negotiate’ for them nothing is going to get done.

We seriously need to stop with this ‘bipartisan’ bullshit when it they just bribe one or two idiots from the other side to go along with them and claim its ‘bipartisan’.

    Frank G in reply to Olinser. | February 15, 2018 at 8:52 pm

    Graham, McCain, et al are self-appointed…because of how they won POTUS
    pinnacles of self-important RINO douchebags who can’t get actual, ya know, Republican support

    Rick the Curmudgeon in reply to Olinser. | February 15, 2018 at 10:24 pm

    As George Carlin said, “The word bipartisan usually means some larger-than-usual deception is being carried out.”

Guys, they are not idiots, any more than Trump is.

This is deliberate and intentional. They are not idiots. They are not spineless.

They are traitors.

Start loading up the busses with illegals and sending them back. After a million or so are repatriated, I’m sure the Dems will scramble back to the negotiation table.

Paul In Sweden | February 16, 2018 at 6:06 am

Gee, Trump making such a magnanimous immigration offer that neither the GOPe nor the Dems can accept certainly makes him look good. What an accident…yeah right.

2nd week in March I am going to be royally pissed off if Sessions is told by Trump not to immediately round up the DACA illegals and delay action further. With no new immigration law the old ignored laws must be enforced. Do it now. I still want The Wall but the wall is just one part of border security. Prosecute the employers of illegal labor and prosecute the H-1b fraudsters throughout the tech industry. Order FEMA to construct detention centers in the desert. Roll convoys of buses to open borders demonstrations. The illegals are not hiding, round them up bus them to the detention centers. I really do not see this as rocket science.

Bucky Barkingham | February 16, 2018 at 7:52 am

Thanks for reminding us that this is the U.S. Senate and not junior high. With antics like these it’s easy to confuse the two institutions.

Now What?
End DACA,Start Deportations and Build The Wall Now !

Fair fix:
-Dreamers have choice:
-legally remain with no chance of citizenship
-return to homeland and apply for entry and citizenship.

-Chain migration ends.
-immigration is severly curtailed for at least 25 years until those here assimilate.
-the so called “lottery” is reduced to most extreme cases.
-none of the above happens until a wall is FINISHED.

One can say it is becoming increasingly clear that the March 5 deadline for granting DACA relief will expire with no legislative fix. But, now we know the fix is already in.

You see our black robed Jedi masters of the highest order of federal judiciary have stopped Trump, for now, from rescinding former president Obama’s DACA order. Not a smidgen of politics here. You see come March 5th, the deadline is not really a deadline after all.

Let the dems keep opening their mouths and showing they are the anti American party. After Pelosi spent eight hours standing for illegals when she wouldn’t spend thirty seconds standing for Americans they might as well have changed the name of the party to the Anti-American Democratic Party.

Let the rinos keep wallowing in the mud with the other swamp creatures. Better to know which ones need to be replaced.

Build the Wall. Deport them all. They all have to go back.