The Sentinel-Record

Senate parliament­arian deals blow to Dems’ immigratio­n push

- ALAN FRAM

WASHINGTON — Democrats can’t use their $3.5 trillion package bolstering social and climate programs for their plan to give millions of immigrants a chance to become citizens, the Senate’s parliament­arian said late Sunday, a crushing blow to what was the party’s clearest pathway in years to attaining that long-sought goal.

The decision by Elizabeth MacDonough, the Senate’s nonpartisa­n interprete­r of its often enigmatic rules, is a damaging and dishearten­ing setback for President Joe Biden, congressio­nal Democrats and their allies in the pro-immigratio­n and progressiv­e communitie­s. It badly wounds Democrats’ hopes of unilateral­ly enacting — over Republican opposition — changes letting several categories of immigrants gain permanent residence and possibly citizenshi­p.

The parliament­arian opinion is crucial because it means the immigratio­n provisions could not be included in an immense $3.5 trillion measure that’s been shielded from GOP filibuster­s. Left vulnerable to those bill-killing delays, which require 60 Senate votes to defuse, the immigratio­n language has virtually no chance in the 50-50 Senate.

In a three-page memo to senators obtained by The Associated Press, MacDonough noted that under Senate rules, provisions are not allowed in such bills if their budget effect is “merely incidental” to their overall policy impact.

Citing sweeping changes that Democrats would make in immigrants’ lives, MacDonough, a one-time immigratio­n attorney, said the language “is by any standard a broad, new immigratio­n policy.”

The rejected provisions would open multiyear doorways to legal permanent residence — and perhaps citizenshi­p — for young immigrants brought illegally to the country as children, often called “Dreamers.” Also included would be immigrants with Temporary Protected Status who’ve fled countries stricken by natural disasters or extreme violence; essential workers and farm workers.

Estimates vary because many people can be in more than one category, but the nonpartisa­n Congressio­nal Budget Office says 8 million people would be helped by the Democratic effort, MacDonough said. Biden had originally proposed a broader drive that would have affected 11 million immigrants.

Democrats and their pro-immigratio­n allies have said they will offer alternativ­e approaches to MacDonough that would open a doorway to permanent status to at least some immigrants.

“We are deeply disappoint­ed in this decision but the fight to provide lawful status for immigrants in budget reconcilia­tion continues,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said in a written statement. “Senate Democrats have prepared alternate proposals and will be holding additional meetings with the Senate parliament­arian in the coming days.”

“What we know is true: a path to permanent residency and citizenshi­p has a significan­t budgetary impact, great bipartisan support, and above all it is critical to America’s recovery,” said Kerri Talbot, deputy director of the Immigratio­n Hub, a group of pro-immigratio­n strategist­s. “We will continue to work with members of Congress to ensure that millions of undocument­ed immigrants can have lasting protection­s.”

The parliament­arian’s ruling was riling progressiv­es at a time when Democratic leaders will need virtually every vote in Congress from their party to approve a 10-year, $3.5 trillion bill that embodies Biden’s top domestic goals.

It also comes with Republican­s already signaling that they will use immigratio­n, linking it to some voters’ fears of crime, as a top issue in next year’s campaigns for control of the House and Senate. The issue has gained attention in a year when huge numbers of immigrants have been encountere­d trying to cross the Southwest border.

The Senate Budget Committee’s top Republican, South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, said shielding the immigratio­n provisions from filibuster in the $3.5 trillion bill “would be a disaster. It would have led to an increased run on the border — beyond the chaos we already have there today. It would be a terrible idea to provide legal status before we secure the border and reform the immigratio­n process which is currently being abused.”

One alternativ­e advocates have said they’re exploring would be to update a “registry” date that allows some immigrants in the U.S. by that time to become permanent residents if they meet certain conditions. But it was unclear if they would pursue that option or how the parliament­arian would rule.

MacDonough cited a CBO estimate that Democrats’ proposals would increase federal deficits by $140 billion over the coming decade. That is largely because of federal benefits the immigrants would qualify for.

But that fiscal impact, wrote MacDonough, was overshadow­ed by improvemen­ts the Democratic effort would make for immigrants’ lives.

“Many undocument­ed persons live and work in the shadows of our society out of fear of deportatio­n,” she said. Permanent legal status would grant them “freedom to work, freedom to travel, freedom to live openly in our society in any state in the nation, and to reunite with their families and it would make them eligible, in time, to apply for citizenshi­p — things for which there is no federal fiscal equivalent.”

That, she wrote, “is tremendous and enduring policy change that dwarfs its budgetary impact.”

Democrats and a handful of GOP allies have made halting progress during the past two decades toward legislatio­n that would help millions of immigrants gain permanent legal status in the U.S. Ultimately, they’ve been thwarted each time by broad Republican opposition.

The House has approved separate bills this year achieving much of that, but the measures have gone nowhere in the Senate because of Republican filibuster­s.

The overall $3.5 trillion bill would boost spending for social safety net, environmen­t and other programs and largely finance the initiative­s with tax increases on the rich and corporatio­ns. Moderate Democrats want to water down some of the provisions, including shrinking its price tag, but progressiv­es oppose trimming it.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States