Washington Post Goes All-In on Busting Senate Rules to Get Amnesty for Illegal Aliens

If you listen closely – really, really closely, when the crickets stop chirping – you just might hear the sound of Americans clamoring for a massive amnesty for illegal aliens. If you do, you probably live in Portland, San Francisco, Brooklyn, or in the vicinity of some overly woke college campus. Most other places, people’s priorities are jobs, taxes, safe streets, or even getting our border under control.

One other place you might encounter an obsession with amnesty for illegal aliens is on the airwaves of the 24-hour cable “news” channels and on the pages of elitist once-great newspapers and magazines. The Fourth Estate has long since ceased to function as an objective source of information that allows the public to make up its own mind about important issues. But in recent months it has morphed into a lobbying force, pushing for enactment of a woke political agenda – by any means necessary.

At President Biden’s one (and only) highly staged “news” conference on March 25, “journalists” openly lobbied him to declare his support for changing longstanding Senate rules. When President Biden, working off of index cards listing pre-approved questioners, called on Yamiche Alcindor, the PBS anchor did not so much pose a question, as exhort the president to take a political position. “Why not back a filibuster rule that at least gets around issues, including voting rights or immigration?” she asked passive-aggressively.

The drum beat of “news” media lobbying continues. In the May 4 edition of the Washington Post, columnist Greg Sargent implores Senate Democrats to scrap the rule that requires a 60-vote majority to bring most legislation to the floor for a final vote. Despite holding control of the Senate only by virtue of Vice President Kamala Harris’ tie-breaking vote, Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) is reported to be seriously considering this option by attaching massive illegal alien amnesty measures to an already pork-laden infrastructure bill.

Under Senate rules, a provision known as “reconciliation” can be employed to enact legislation that would have a budgetary impact that is not “incidental” by a simple 51-vote majority. (In fact, amnesty would have a profound budgetary impact, just not a very beneficial one. It would cost the public treasury trillions of dollars over the coming decades.) The move would also run roughshod over another Senate rule requiring all amendments to a bill to be germane to the legislation being considered. Passing off immigrants as “infrastructure” might be a heavy lift, even for the silver-tongued senator from New York.

While Sargent concedes that it is “unclear whether the Senate parliamentarian will agree that these immigration changes would have budgetary impact” that meets the threshold for reconciliation to be invoked, what is clear is that when it comes to amnesty for illegal aliens and other woke immigration policies, the elitist media are no longer objective observers with a mission to inform the public. They are full-throated advocates with a mission to jam their political priorities down the throats of the public.