Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
^^^^see above. You present facts in the same fashion as Sarah Husterabee.
The bill failed because most of the GOP Senators voted against it! For those who are just reading: A bill passed by almost all democrats in senate provided 25 billion in funding for a border wall but almost all of the GOP senators voted against it!
Not sure how long this exchange continues ... but to weigh in:
The Democrats did NOT filibuster the February 2018 vote. On the contrary, the 60-vote threshold was not reached primarily due to Republican "nay" votes.
Only three Democrats voted against it. Per your question, why "if they cared about DACA so much"? Because those three Senators - all whom were located on the border (1 in CA, 2 in NM) - apparently found the Wall more problematic. Also, Cornyn (TX) voted against it. Now Cornyn isn't opposed to including DACA in any deal pool. So why did he vote against Trump's wall? Again, the key words may be "Texas" and "wall." McCain abstained.
Now if Trump had not threatened to veto the bill ... could he have gotten enough Republicans on his side? He'd be a pretty weak President if he could not.
Trump threw away the Wall (a $25 billion wall, at that) for a pie-in-the-sky attempt to include a reduction of legal immigration in the deal-pool. THAT's the deal that the Democrats rejected.
So why isn't the Wall-DACA deal on the table any more? Per the article: For one thing, the White House lost its leverage when the courts ruled that the president couldn’t scrap the DACA policy.
Why can you not stick with the first link you provided? Because you cannot be honest....and have to find more links because your first link cannot support what you say....
How about you agree that the Democrats offered 25 billion for trumps wall in exchange for DACA but almost every GOP senator voted this down.
The “Common Sense” plan
What the bill would do?
$25 billion for the wall and other stuff at the border. The bill would appropriate $25 billion to the Department of Homeland Security for border infrastructure (including “the construction of physical barriers”) and technology. That money would be doled out at the rate of $2.5 billion a year for the next 10 years — with specific instructions for how it should be spent in 2018. It would require DHS to submit detailed plans to Congress of how it planned to spend the money each year, and to meet 75 percent of the goals it set each year in order to get the next year’s money.
Not sure how long this exchange continues ... but to weigh in:
The Democrats did NOT filibuster the February 2018 vote. On the contrary, the 60-vote threshold was not reached primarily due to Republican "nay" votes.
Only three Democrats voted against it. Per your question, why "if they cared about DACA so much"? Because those three Senators - all whom were located on the border (1 in CA, 2 in NM) - apparently found the Wall more problematic. Also, Cornyn (TX) voted against it. Now Cornyn isn't opposed to including DACA in any deal pool. So why did he vote against Trump's wall? Again, the key words may be "Texas" and "wall." McCain abstained.
Now if Trump had not threatened to veto the bill ... could he have gotten enough Republicans on his side? He'd be a pretty weak President if he could not.
Trump threw away the Wall (a $25 billion wall, at that) for a pie-in-the-sky attempt to include a reduction of legal immigration in the deal-pool. THAT's the deal that the Democrats rejected.
So why isn't the Wall-DACA deal on the table any more? Per the article: For one thing, the White House lost its leverage when the courts ruled that the president couldn’t scrap the DACA policy.
Thank you for clarification on this complex issue.
Thank you for clarification on this complex issue.
I finished reading the thread and links. It looks like the vote tally attached to the msnbc article was the cloture vote, bringing the bills to the floor. That's not the relevant vote, or it may be for some reason I do not grasp.
There were four votes that day (per your vox link). This is one that matches the Democratic "deal":
Third: The so-called Common Sense Caucus, a large bipartisan group led by Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), released its own outline. The plan had gained the endorsement of Democratic leadership and was technically sponsored by Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. The “Common Sense” plan would have:
Provided a path to citizenship for 1.8 million undocumented immigrants who came to the country as children
Offered $25 billion for border security
Prevented DACA recipients from sponsoring their parents for legal status
It failed 54 to 45. Democrats almost unanimously backed the plan, along with eight Republicans. But the rest of the GOP conference and a handful of Democrats blocked the bill.
Edited to add: Both the cloture vote and the Third vote received the same number in favor - so maybe it's the same 54 which is why msnbc listed it. Regardless ... the pattern was interesting. Opposing Democrats were on the border, again strongly suggesting they were not willing to do a deal that involved the wall even IF it meant getting DACA.
This suggests that those along the border have strong feeling about the Wall, largely "nay" (including Republicans). Once you go inland, other factors drive decisions - DACA for Democrats and immigration in general for Republicans.
How about you agree that the Democrats offered 25 billion for trumps wall in exchange for DACA but almost every GOP senator voted this down.
The “Common Sense” plan
What the bill would do?
$25 billion for the wall and other stuff at the border. The bill would appropriate $25 billion to the Department of Homeland Security for border infrastructure (including “the construction of physical barriers”) and technology. That money would be doled out at the rate of $2.5 billion a year for the next 10 years — with specific instructions for how it should be spent in 2018. It would require DHS to submit detailed plans to Congress of how it planned to spend the money each year, and to meet 75 percent of the goals it set each year in order to get the next year’s money.
Interesting ... Democrats, well the bipartisan effort, attach strings (which Congress has the right to do) to monitor how the money is to be spent. They would have included additional wall footage (that may well be needed) but not provided a blank check.
Not sure how long this exchange continues ... but to weigh in:
The Democrats did NOT filibuster the February 2018 vote. On the contrary, the 60-vote threshold was not reached primarily due to Republican "nay" votes.
Only three Democrats voted against it. Per your question, why "if they cared about DACA so much"? Because those three Senators - all whom were located on the border (1 in CA, 2 in NM) - apparently found the Wall more problematic. Also, Cornyn (TX) voted against it. Now Cornyn isn't opposed to including DACA in any deal pool. So why did he vote against Trump's wall? Again, the key words may be "Texas" and "wall." McCain abstained.
Now if Trump had not threatened to veto the bill ... could he have gotten enough Republicans on his side? He'd be a pretty weak President if he could not.
Trump threw away the Wall (a $25 billion wall, at that) for a pie-in-the-sky attempt to include a reduction of legal immigration in the deal-pool. THAT's the deal that the Democrats rejected.
So why isn't the Wall-DACA deal on the table any more? Per the article: For one thing, the White House lost its leverage when the courts ruled that the president couldn’t scrap the DACA policy.
LOL, yea facts....read the second set of bold.....even though you won't like it....
Quote:
Originally Posted by EveryLady
I finished reading the thread and links. It looks like the vote tally attached to the msnbc article was the cloture vote, bringing the bills to the floor. That's not the relevant vote, or it may be for some reason I do not grasp.
There were four votes that day (per your vox link). This is one that matches the Democratic "deal":
Third: The so-called Common Sense Caucus, a large bipartisan group led by Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), released its own outline. The plan had gained the endorsement of Democratic leadership and was technically sponsored by Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. The “Common Sense” plan would have:
Provided a path to citizenship for 1.8 million undocumented immigrants who came to the country as children
Offered $25 billion for border security
Prevented DACA recipients from sponsoring their parents for legal status
It failed 54 to 45. Democrats almost unanimously backed the plan, along with eight Republicans. But the rest of the GOP conference and a handful of Democrats blocked the bill.
Edited to add: Both the cloture vote and the Third vote received the same number in favor - so maybe it's the same 54 which is why msnbc listed it. Regardless ... the pattern was interesting. Opposing Democrats were on the border, again strongly suggesting they were not willing to do a deal that involved the wall even IF it meant getting DACA.
This suggests that those along the border have strong feeling about the Wall, largely "nay" (including Republicans). Once you go inland, other factors drive decisions - DACA for Democrats and immigration in general for Republicans.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
