{"id":24987,"date":"2021-09-20T15:56:10","date_gmt":"2021-09-20T19:56:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/?p=24987"},"modified":"2021-09-20T15:56:13","modified_gmt":"2021-09-20T19:56:13","slug":"democrat-amnesty-push-hits-a-wall-immigrationreform-com","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/2021\/09\/20\/democrat-amnesty-push-hits-a-wall-immigrationreform-com\/","title":{"rendered":"Senate Parliamentarian Blocks Largest Amnesty in American History"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Late Sunday night, Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough derailed an effort to include amnesty for 8 million illegal aliens in the $3.5 trillion budget reconciliation package, ruling<\/a> that it would violate the \u201cByrd rule.\u201d Despite the ruling, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) vowed<\/a> to explore other ways to legalize millions of illegal aliens using the reconciliation process, which circumvents the Senate\u2019s 60-vote filibuster threshold. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

FAIR argued<\/a> at length<\/a> that the amnesty provisions in the proposed budget reconciliation package violated the Byrd rule because their primary purpose was to advance separate policy, rather than address the federal budget in an impactful way. MacDonough agreed with that reasoning, writing in her ruling that: <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The question before us is\nwhether a series of proposed amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act\n(INA) that remove existing barriers to adjustment of status to that of lawful\npermanent resident (LPR) for a variety of existing and newly created classes of\nimmigrants and non-immigrants, including many not legally present in the United\nStates, is a policy change that substantially outweighs the budgetary impact\nof that change<\/strong> <\/em>(emphasis added). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

For supporters of securing our borders, upholding the rule\nof law, and defending our sovereignty, this was a clear victory. The\npossibility of tacking on amnesty to the budget reconciliation package was the\nmost significant legislative threat since the 2013 Gang of Eight proposal, as\nit would have legalized millions of illegal aliens in exchange for nothing \u2013\nall without a single vote from a Republican lawmaker. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

While this is a welcome development, the battle is far from over. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

For one, Democrats could choose to overrule the parliamentarian\u2019s decision. This is politically fraught, but it is not impossible. If Schumer and his allies believe that legalizing 8 million people through the process is worth it, they could choose to take the political risk of shattering Senate norms by overruling the parliamentarian or replacing her. However, this is an extreme position and Senator Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) indicated<\/a> that Democrats do not consider this their first option. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Already, some senators and open-borders organizations have floated the possibility of updating the final year on existing immigration programs like the registry and through 245(i) adjustment. Both would allow illegal aliens who have lived in the U.S. for a certain number of years to become permanent residents.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The 245(i) program<\/a> allows illegal aliens with U.S. relatives or sponsoring employers to become permanent residents if they pay a $1,000 fee. However, the program currently covers only people whose relatives or employers filed green card petitions for them before April 2001. Democrats could attempt to alter this date and add a sizable fee as a \u201ctax penalty.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The immigration registry would also allow illegal aliens who\nhave lived in the U.S. since a certain year, without a criminal record and who\ndemonstrate \u201cgood moral character,\u201d to receive green cards. That program is\neven more outdated, and currently applies only to those who entered the U.S.\nbefore 1972. But by moving up the years on these programs, Democrats could\npotentially establish a path to permanent residency for individuals from all of\nthe targeted amnesty categories. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, both of these changes would have to move through\nthe budget reconciliation process. This means that they would face the scrutiny\nof the Senate parliamentarian again, who already ruled that the Democratic\nattempt to use the process to legalize millions of illegal aliens is not\npossible. Given her latest ruling, it is unlikely that MacDonough would see\nthese changes as anything different. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Again, while the battle is not yet over, the\nparliamentarian\u2019s ruling confirms what we already knew: amnesty for millions of\nillegal aliens is a significant policy change that dwarfs its budgetary impact.\nIt does not belong in the budget reconciliation package, and the\nparliamentarian\u2019s ruling is consistent with Senate norms and precedent. This is\nsomething Democrats and advocates must accept. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Late Sunday night, Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough derailed an effort to include amnesty for 8 million illegal aliens in the $3.5 trillion budget reconciliation package, ruling that it would violate the \u201cByrd rule.\u201d Despite the ruling, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) vowed to explore other ways to legalize millions of illegal aliens using the<\/p>\n

Read More<\/a><\/div>\n","protected":false},"author":78,"featured_media":13022,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0},"categories":[11885],"tags":[1497,1161,1524,141],"yst_prominent_words":[2019,12161,12165,2512,10870,12159,11396,11865,2013,2008,3723,12163,12162,12160,11685,11858,10866,5177,12164,12125],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24987"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/78"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=24987"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24987\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":24988,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24987\/revisions\/24988"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/13022"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=24987"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=24987"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=24987"},{"taxonomy":"yst_prominent_words","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/yst_prominent_words?post=24987"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}