Senate Parliamentarian Rejects “Plan C” on Immigration:
Senate Parliamentarian Rejects “Plan C” on Immigration:
On Thursday, the Senate Parliamentarian issued an opinion that Senate Democrats’ third immigration proposal does not meet the criteria to be included in reconciliation. The provision included in the House draft of the Build Back Better Act, would include a parole status allowing work permits for immigrants who have been in the U.S. since before 2011, and recapture expiring family-based and employment-based visas.
Democrats and Republicans made formal arguments before the Parliamentarian earlier this month, with Democrats arguing the provisions would have a budgetary impact, a requirement under reconciliation rules. Previously, the Parliamentarian ruled against proposals to include a pathway to citizenship, and a proposal to give undocumented individuals legal residency through updating a federal immigration registry.
In response, Senate Democrats have promised to “pursue every means to achieve a path to citizenship”, in a statement released by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Majority Whip and Judiciary Committee Chair Dick Durbin (D-IL), as well as, Sens. Bob Menendez (D-NJ), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV), Ben Ray Luján (D-NM) and Alex Padilla (D-CA).
Ultimately, the ruling is not binding and has caused calls from immigration groups to sidestep the Parliamentarian to include immigration reform in a reconciliation package. When asked whether the White House supports such a move, Press Secretary Jen Psaki declined to answer, saying “We would encourage and support any effort that they make to look at any ways to move immigration forward, but I’m not suggesting we’re advocating for a change in the Senate parliamentarian rules at this point in time, I’m just suggesting we support their efforts to get immigration reform done.”
Some immigration negotiators are pushing for revisions that would respond to the parliamentarian’s decision. The opinion focuses on concerns that parole status would indirectly help some recipients pursue green cards, and that it would constrain DHS discretion in granting and revoking parole.
In theory, Democrats could respond to the first issue by redrafting the text to stipulate that the new type of parole status couldn’t be used to meet eligibility requirements. In addition, the parole language could be changed to broaden the secretary’s discretion, but doing so would allow a future administration to undermine the program by opting to grant fewer parole requests or weaponize requests against applicants.
Rep. Lou Correa (D-CA), one of the lead House negotiators, has argued that downsizing the language any further is a political liability, and Democrats ought to move forward with a path to citizenship. “At this point, what we’ve been asking all along is just overrule the parliamentarian,” he said in an interview.
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), the lead Senate Republican on the issue, praised the Parliamentarian’s ruling, saying “This guidance confirms, once again, what everyone already knew—that giving amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants isn’t a budgetary matter appropriate for reconciliation.”