Senate Parliamentarian Rules, No Citizenship For Illegals

Rightguide

Prof Triggernometry
Joined
Feb 7, 2017
Posts
67,763
Let's see if Schumer and his Commies fire the Parliamentarian:


Senate parliamentarian rules that Democrats can't give illegal immigrants pathway to citizenship in new spending bill
The ruling potentially wrecks Democrats’ hopes of unilaterally enacting changes which would have allowed multiple categories of illegal migrants to gain permanent residence and possibly citizenship.



Ari Hoffman
Seattle, WA

The US Senate parliamentarian ruled Sunday night Democrats cannot include a pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens in the their $3.5 trillion social-spending bill.

According to the Associated Press, Elizabeth MacDonough, the Senate’s nonpartisan parliamentarian, ruled that that the immigration language could not be included in the massive spending bill that’s been protected from Republican filibusters. The ruling potentially wrecks Democrats’ hopes of unilaterally enacting changes which would have allowed multiple categories of illegal migrants to gain permanent residence and possibly citizenship.

MacDonough was appointed in 2012 when Democrats controlled the chamber.
The liberal Center for American Progress has estimated that 6 million illegal immigrants could have taken advantage of the Democrats’ legislation.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, (D-NY), said in a statement, "We are deeply disappointed in this decision but the fight to provide lawful status for immigrants in budget reconciliation continues. Senate Democrats have prepared alternate proposals and will be holding additional meetings with the Senate parliamentarian in the coming days."

The news comes on the heels of the Biden administration’s approval rating crashing down into the 30s.

https://thepostmillennial.com/senat...nship-in-new-spending-bill?utm_campaign=64487

https://apnews.com/article/joe-bide...AP&utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=Twitter
 
Last edited:
I saw that earlier...



I guess the Parliamentarian is just another lying, hateful, RW partisan.
 
And how long ago was that?

Arcane and/or irrelevant is your schtick!

Actually, it was relevant to my point regardless of the date.

But you seem to need my attention this morning, for some reason.....hope you're doing well, Sparky.
 
Sounds like a single-subject ruling. Strictly procedural. Nothing to stop a pathway-to-citizenship bill on its own.
 
You never do explain the difference. More importantly, you will never explain the difference between "liberal" and "libertarian."

I have repeatedly and will again, the acknowledgement of positive liberty.

Your ignoring this the first 200 times I told you so that you could persist in being a willfully ignorant and dishonest leftist shill for authoritarianism doesn't make it go away. :D
 
I have repeatedly and will again, the acknowledgement of positive liberty.

Your ignoring this the first 200 times I told you doesn't make it go away. :D

That doesn't answer the question, and never did. What is the difference between "liberal" and "libertarian"?
 
That doesn't answer the question, and never did. What is the difference between "liberal" and "libertarian"?


Again, the acknowledgement of positive liberty is the difference between a liberal and a libertarian. Libertarians reject the concept, liberals do not.


Yes it does, in the most concise and direct way possible.

No matter how much you stamp your feet and pretend otherwise, this has been the case for well over a century now. :D
 
Again, the acknowledgement of positive liberty is the difference between a liberal and a libertarian. Libertarians reject the concept, liberals do not.

Not the impression I get from libertarian literature. Can you define "positive liberty"?
 
Not the impression I get from libertarian literature. Can you define "positive liberty"?

You don't even know what positive liberty is yet you don't get that impression from libertarian literature??? REALLY?? It pretty explicitly condemns it and the whole philosophy is built around it's rejection and that explains why YOU wouldn't get that impression, you're just backwards and opposed to reality at EVERY LEVEL.

LMFAO.....you totally invalidated your first statement with the question you followed it up with. :D And if you really did not get that impression you would have brought us some pro social-liberalism (the opposite of libertarians) big government/New Deal loving FDR fan club of libertarians...LOL

Go take a basic poli-sci class at your local CC or learn to use google, I'm not here to spoon feed you the basics.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top