Congress Catch-All

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 635
  • Views: 24K
  • Politics 
"... The president-elect said he is open to pushing his legislative agenda through Congress with either a single large bill or two separate bills, weighing in on an issue that has been a point of debate for lawmakers on Capitol Hill. Trump is expected to visit Capitol Hill on Wednesday.

“I like one big, beautiful bill,” he said, adding that two bills would move a “little bit quicker.” ..."

 


"... The House previously passed the bill in March by a vote of 251-170, with 37 Democrats voting in favor. The bill was expected to pass again with bipartisan support.

... The bill will need 60 votes to advance through the upper chamber. Even with the Republicans' new 53-vote majority, it could prove difficult to court the necessary Democratic support to advance it.

So far, only one Democrat, Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman, is reportedly co-sponsoring the bill, which is being led in the chamber by Sens. Katie Britt, R-Ala., and Ted Budd, R-N.C. It is unclear whether there will be requisite Democratic support to clear the Senate. ..."

abcnews.go.com

House passes Laken Riley Act as 1st bill of new GOP-controlled Congress

Unauthorized immigrants charged with nonviolent crimes could be be deported.
abcnews.go.com abcnews.go.com

"This bill requires the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to detain certain non-U.S. nationals (aliens under federal law) who have been arrested for burglary, theft, larceny, or shoplifting. The bill also authorizes states to sue the federal government for decisions or alleged failures related to immigration enforcement.

The bill can be found here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7511

Summary:

"Under this bill, DHS must detain an individual who (1) is unlawfully present in the United States or did not possess the necessary documents when applying for admission; and (2) has been charged with, arrested for, convicted for, or admits to having committed acts that constitute the essential elements of burglary, theft, larceny, or shoplifting.

The bill also authorizes state governments to sue for injunctive relief over certain immigration-related decisions or alleged failures by the federal government if the decision or failure caused the state or its residents harm, including financial harm of more than $100. Specifically, the state government may sue the federal government over a

  • decision to release a non-U.S. national from custody;
  • failure to fulfill requirements relating to inspecting individuals seeking admission into the United States, including requirements related to asylum interviews;
  • failure to fulfill a requirement to stop issuing visas to nationals of a country that unreasonably denies or delays acceptance of nationals of that country;
  • violation of limitations on immigration parole, such as the requirement that parole be granted only on a case-by-case basis; or
  • failure to detain an individual who has been ordered removed from the United States."
 
nycfan said:


"... The House previously passed the bill in March by a vote of 251-170, with 37 Democrats voting in favor. The bill was expected to pass again with bipartisan support.

... The bill will need 60 votes to advance through the upper chamber. Even with the Republicans' new 53-vote majority, it could prove difficult to court the necessary Democratic support to advance it.

So far, only one Democrat, Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman, is reportedly co-sponsoring the bill, which is being led in the chamber by Sens. Katie Britt, R-Ala., and Ted Budd, R-N.C. It is unclear whether there will be requisite Democratic support to clear the Senate. ..."

abcnews.go.com

House passes Laken Riley Act as 1st bill of new GOP-controlled Congress

Unauthorized immigrants charged with nonviolent crimes could be be deported.
abcnews.go.com abcnews.go.com

"This bill requires the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to detain certain non-U.S. nationals (aliens under federal law) who have been arrested for burglary, theft, larceny, or shoplifting. The bill also authorizes states to sue the federal government for decisions or alleged failures related to immigration enforcement.

The bill can be found here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7511

Summary:

"Under this bill, DHS must detain an individual who (1) is unlawfully present in the United States or did not possess the necessary documents when applying for admission; and (2) has been charged with, arrested for, convicted for, or admits to having committed acts that constitute the essential elements of burglary, theft, larceny, or shoplifting.

The bill also authorizes state governments to sue for injunctive relief over certain immigration-related decisions or alleged failures by the federal government if the decision or failure caused the state or its residents harm, including financial harm of more than $100. Specifically, the state government may sue the federal government over a

  • decision to release a non-U.S. national from custody;
  • failure to fulfill requirements relating to inspecting individuals seeking admission into the United States, including requirements related to asylum interviews;
  • failure to fulfill a requirement to stop issuing visas to nationals of a country that unreasonably denies or delays acceptance of nationals of that country;
  • violation of limitations on immigration parole, such as the requirement that parole be granted only on a case-by-case basis; or
  • failure to detain an individual who has been ordered removed from the United States."
Click to expand...

I don't know. $100 is a pretty high bar for damages.
 

Debt-Ceiling Fight Has New X Factor: Trump​

Democrats see potential for agreement with president-elect that permanently defuses borrowing-limit threat​


"... Republicans have the power to raise the debt ceiling by themselves, and they will try to do that in their tax, border, energy and spending-cuts legislation that would wrap many of President-elect Donald Trump’s priorities into one bill. That would be the first one-party debt-limit increase since 2010.

... If Republicans’ efforts collapse, however, they will need to turn to Democrats to avert a potential government default around the middle of the year, possibly setting the stage for more deadline drama. While many Democrats have made clear they won’t just sign off on a GOP plan that kicks the debt ceiling to the next Congress or next president, they have signaled support for effectively getting rid of the debt-ceiling threat altogether.

Trump’s recent call for a long-term or permanent debt-ceiling increase—which fell short among Republicans—could become the basis for an agreement with Democrats, said Rep. Brendan Boyle (D., Pa.). Boyle said he is open to working with Trump on a bill that would permanently alter the debt limit, aiming to prevent Republicans from wielding it against a future Democratic president like they did in 2011 and 2023.

... Debt-limit votes can be politically difficult, because lawmakers don’t like to be seen as enabling higher debt and deficits. The cuts demanded by some Republicans along with a debt-limit increase might prove unacceptable to other Republicans.

“When your House majority is one seat, it’s just going to be really, really difficult to get a debt limit over the finish line simply with Republican votes,” said Paul Winfree, who was a Trump aide in the first term and is now president of the Economic Policy Innovation Center.

But he also doesn’t think Congress would be able to muster enough votes to eliminate the debt limit. Instead, Winfree said, it will likely get suspended just like it has been, perhaps tied to some changes to budget processes."
 
StrangePackage said:
Surely you can't see the downside to letting Attorney General ramrouser from Alabama be able to sue the federal government for federal decisions which he disagrees with.
Click to expand...
Surely I believe that being in the US, especially if you are here illegally, is a privilege, not a right and if you take advantage of that privilege, we should remove it.
 
ZenMode said:
Surely I believe that being in the US, especially if you are here illegally, is a privilege, not a right and if you take advantage of that privilege, we should remove it.
Click to expand...
The question is whether that is all there is in the bill. On the surface, I understand what you're saying ,but you're not known for either the depth or breadth of your opinions. Where's the hook?
 
ZenMode said:
Surely I believe that being in the US, especially if you are here illegally, is a privilege, not a right and if you take advantage of that privilege, we should remove it.
Click to expand...
Which could be attained by passing the law without the ridiculous rider which permits States to sue the federal government for making decisions explicitly within their Constitutional remit and explicitly outside those of the states.

This should be titled the Ken Paxton Act, because that's who it's for.
 
StrangePackage said:
Which could be attained by passing the law without the ridiculous rider which permits States to sue the federal government for making decisions explicitly within their Constitutional remit and explicitly outside those of the states.

This should be titled the Ken Paxton Act, because that's who it's for.
Click to expand...
Yes, lots of bills could be passed without ridiculous add-ons. I wish they were. Unfortunately, that's often not how it works.
 
finesse said:
The question is whether that is all there is in the bill. On the surface, I understand what you're saying ,but you're not known for either the depth or breadth of your opinions. Where's the hook?
Click to expand...
Politics is often involved in getting bills passed. The result of that is often bills with undesirable add-ons. Not surprisingly, what is or isn't an "undesirable add-on" is dependent on your politics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top