“We don’t have a reliable partner at the White House to negotiate with.”

the bill would appropriate $2.705 billion in border security improvements, eliminate the visa lottery, make permanent the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program -- offering a pathway to citizenship to those who qualify -- and limit "chain migration," or family-based migration, of the individuals eligible for the program.


http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/17/politics/dreamers-bill-immigration-graham-durbin-congress/index.html

 

Which is less than 10% of the funding needed.

 

Careful...wouldn't want you to get an infraction

 

And more than Trump asked for

 

If you cannot get congress to even fund the gov't, it is time to send the whole lot of them home. These short patches are nonsense, and an indication we have the wrong damned people in congress.

 

assuming unanimous Democratic support, but not quite to the 60-vote threshold needed to advance legislation.

White House chief of staff John Kelly said Wednesday that the bill didn't meet the bipartisan and bicameral standard set by the President.

"His sense was, two things. It fell short of certainly what he was looking for based on the Thursday conversation and other conversations," Kelly said. "But more to the point, it did not include all of the senators that have been involved in all of the discussions about DACA and certainly did not involve the House."

Sens. Thom Tillis, R-North Carolina, and James Lankford, R-Oklahoma, said in a joint statement Wednesday evening they would oppose the bill because it "falls short" on border security reforms.

Conservative hard-liners Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley and Sens. Tom Cotton, R-Arkansas, and David Perdue, R-Georgia, also slammed the bill in a joint statement. They were previously negotiating with the group, but were left out of meetings over disagreements.

And White House legislative director Marc Short, coming out of lengthy meetings with lawmakers on different sides of the issue, said the President was still looking for a deal that covered only existing DACA recipients, not a broader population, and a curtailing of family-based migration that goes beyond only those affected by a DACA measure -- two elements inconsistent with the Durbin bill.....snip~

http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/17/politics/dreamers-bill-immigration-graham-durbin-congress/index.html


Doesn't include getting rid of the Chain Migration. Only limits it.



While members of the CHC publicly say they will reject any deal that kills the visa lottery program, privately some members have said they’re open to the idea if the Temporary Protected Status is saved. But that plan doesn’t sit well with members of the CBC, who maintain they’re dedicated to saving the Dreamers but not at the expense of losing the visa lottery.

“It would be a line in the sand,” said one Democratic aide familiar with the situation. “Totally unacceptable.”.....snip~

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/11/democrats-daca-dreamers-immigration-mutiny-334454

 

I've already proved that wrong.

Would you like me to do it again for you?

Here you go:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...b90a706e175_story.html?utm_term=.cee3402a8a7c

http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/05/politics/border-security-billions-trump-wall/index.html

http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...s-for-18-billion-to-expand-mexico-border-wall

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/wh...ation-requests-18-billion-border-wall-n835166

We done here, or are you going to revisit the same false statement in a few posts?

 

Oh no, now you've terrified me.

 

Yes they were.

What we know about the Graham-Durbin immigration framework
The framework that Sens. Graham and Durbin agreed to, along with Sens. Michael Bennet (D-CO), Jeff Flake (R-AZ), Cory Gardner (R-CO), and Bob Menendez (D-NJ), covers the four areas that the White House and congressional leaders agreed to after Tuesday’s meeting: a DACA fix, a wall, restrictions on “chain migration,” and an end to the diversity visa lottery program.

For the most part, though, the proposal finds the least disruptive way possible to satisfy those demands. It eliminates the “lottery” part of the diversity visa lottery but retaining some support for the “diversity” part. It gives access to legal status and green cards to DACA recipients (and those who would have qualified for the program) and to immigrants who are facing the loss of their Temporary Protected Status under the Trump administration. And it limits “chain migration” only for parents of DREAMers legalized under the bill — not by slashing family-based immigration more broadly.

Young unauthorized immigrants who came to the US as children would get legal status — and eventual citizenship. The deal would allow hundreds of thousands (potentially, depending on the details, a million or more) of unauthorized immigrants who came to the US as children, and meet educational and criminal requirements, to apply for provisional legal status in the US. After a certain number of years, they’d be eligible to apply for green cards — and after another three or five years, like other green card holders, they would be able to apply for US citizenship.

The qualifications for immigrants to legalize haven’t yet been released in detail; according to reports, they represent a compromise between the DREAM Act, supported by Democrats and some Republicans, and a Republican alternative called the SUCCEED Act.

Legalization wouldn’t just be open to the 690,000 immigrants who were protected under the DACA program when Trump started winding it down in September; it would also include immigrants who qualified for DACA and never applied (or whose protections expired without renewal), or who meet the requirements set forward in the bill, as well as immigrants under 15 who weren’t able to apply for DACA. And unlike DACA, it would be permanent.

It prevents “chain migration” by barring DREAMers from sponsoring their parents. Under the Graham-Durbin proposal, parents of DREAMers would be allowed to get a form of legal status that could be renewed every few years — but that would not, by itself, make them eligible for green cards. They wouldn’t be able to get green cards through their children who would be legalized under this bill, either.

This is the big open question about the whole framework — one that could make the difference in a few million unauthorized immigrants becoming US citizens.

According to some reports, the bill would place a restriction on the immigrant parents rather than the (eventual US citizen) children, making it impossible for them to get sponsored for green cards through their kids. In one respect, that could be more punitive toward millions of immigrants than current law.

Currently, the five million native-born US citizens with at least one unauthorized parent (many of whom also have DREAMers in their families) are able to sponsor their parents once they turn 21; if parents were banned from green cards categorically, a US-born child with a DREAMer older sister would never be able to sponsor her parents for green cards.

But other observers familiar with the talks say that possibility has been rejected, and that the restriction would only be on DREAMers sponsoring their parents — not on native-born citizens sponsoring them.

These immigrants would (eventually) be eligible for green cards under current law anyway — as long as they’re not permanently barred from legal status because of their immigration history. But the Graham-Durbin proposal would give them a form of legal status to bridge the gap until they could become citizens. If the reports of a more permissive “chain migration” fix are true, it would make the bill unequivocally dovish in its approach to current unauthorized immigrants.

The diversity visa lottery would be eliminated, and those 50,000 visas would be reallocated. When President Trump started going after the “visa lottery” after a failed terrorist attack in New York, it made a certain amount of sense: Republicans had been railing for a while against the idea of handing visas out by lottery instead of merit. Many Democrats are willing to give that up if those visas are used for other things they want — though the Congressional Black Caucus is very worried about the impact on African countries, which tend to benefit the most from the visa lottery.

The Trump administration is moving aggressively to end temporary legal protection for hundreds of thousands of immigrants who’ve been in the US for years or decades, while calling on Congress to solve the problem with a permanent solution.

The proposed DACA deal would kill two birds with one stone. It would eliminate the visa lottery. But instead of just allowing 50,000 fewer immigrants into the US legally each year, it would reallocate those visas. Some of them would go to immigrants from underrepresented countries, just on a non-lottery basis (such as holding spots for underrepresented countries in current visa categories); other visas would go to immigrants who currently have TPS, opening the door for them to apply for green cards.

A few billion dollars for the border. NBC’s Leigh Ann Caldwell reported that the deal as presented to Trump would have included $1.6 billion for physical barriers (which Caldwell called a fence but the White House would probably call a wall), surveillance tech, and agent training — and another $1.2 billion for “other priorities” on border security. Those numbers are roughly in line with what the White House asked for a single year on the border in its 2017 supplemental funding requests, and Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) dismissively characterized them as only funding the wall “for a year.”

 

How many times would you like me to explain that this part obviously doesn't meet the criteria, there are other parts, but this one is the most obvious.

A few billion dollars for the border. NBC’s Leigh Ann Caldwell reported that the deal as presented to Trump would have included $1.6 billion for physical barriers (which Caldwell called a fence but the White House would probably call a wall), surveillance tech, and agent training — and another $1.2 billion for “other priorities” on border security. Those numbers are roughly in line with what the White House asked for a single year on the border in its 2017 supplemental funding requests, and Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) dismissively characterized them as only funding the wall “for a year.”

 

The CBC and the CHC in the House wont accept it.

Which doesn't even include those Repubs in the House, and now Trump knows don't ever trust the DICK Durbin to lead in anything.

 

Exactly.

The last thing the democrats want is that wall, because they know exactly how effective it will be.

 

Those numbers are roughly in line with what the White House asked for a single year on the border in its 2017 supplemental funding requests.

 

You forgot the rest, here, let me help.

and Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) dismissively characterized them as only funding the wall “for a year.”

 

Republicans propose $1.6B measure to fund Trump's wall

http://www.foxbusiness.com/politics...propose-1-6b-measure-to-fund-trumps-wall.html

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/10/18/senate-gop-backs-1-6-billion-2018-border-wall/

 

So why only 2.7 billion for the wall? Don't say it's the cost . We know better! I believe he campaigned on the wall, he keeps his promises. Dreamers will cost way more then a wall.

 

Its clear the leftness still hasn't learned what bicameral means.


bi·cam·er·al
[ˌbīˈkamərəl]
ADJECTIVE
bi-cameral (adjective)

1. (of a legislative body) having two branches or chambers.

 

It only limited Chain migration not end Chain Migration. Still its a mute point.....the Congressional Black Caucus and the Hispanic Caucus wont accept getting rid of the Diversity lottery.


And White House legislative director Marc Short, coming out of lengthy meetings with lawmakers on different sides of the issue, said the President was still looking for a deal that covered only existing DACA recipients, not a broader population, and a curtailing of family-based migration that goes beyond only those affected by a DACA measure -- two elements inconsistent with the Durbin bill.....snip~

http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/17/politics/dreamers-bill-immigration-graham-durbin-congress/index.html

 

Boom! I've been saying this forever. The arguments against it are hollow. A physical barrier is needed, because Mexico is a SHITHOLE.

 

he may of wanted that when you posted it, wanted something else last week and who know what he wants now, that is the problem, it depends who trump last speaks to or what tv show he watches last

 

Oh please.

How much is being requested has been reported by every major news outlet.

"BUT BUT BUT He'll change his mind! I'm just so sure of it!"

Come with a real argument please, not one that exists only in the imagination.

 

Good to see some one else is on the same page with me. All Trump has to due is make sure that among the things that get shut down is funding for left wing advocacy groups many of whom are funded directly and indirectly by and though government programs. One question I would like to ask all these open borders nits on here is if Latinos are totally on board with illegal immigration why do so many border patrolmen top to bottom seem to possess Latino surnames?

 

Yes when you can't prove a lie change the subject.

 

O wait they have yet to produce a bill they brought him a proposal from the open borders caucus and it was rejected there was nothing to sign and there won't be till congress gets off it's duff crafts some legislation passes it in both houses, ad gets it on the presidents desk.

 

McConnell and Graham both expressed frustration with Don's constantly moving goalposts. Both Repubs. But naturally the blind defenders of all things Don all the time will never admit his indecisiveness and differing views among House Repubs are the biggest obstacles to arriving at a solution.