Senate Parliamentarian Nixes Parole Amnesty in Build Back Better Bill

The Senate’s non-partisan debate referee has rejected the Democrats’ “Plan C” amnesty parole for 6.5 million migrants, so sending the Democrats back to plan their next amnesty push in early 2022.

The Thursday evening rejection is possible because the Senate’s rules bar the inclusion of major policy changes in spending bills that are placed in the fast-track, no-filibuster, reconciliation budget process. The Democrats are using that process to push their almost $2 trillion Build Back Better (BBB) plan past the nearly unified GOP caucus of 50 senators.

The parliamentarian’s ruling will not be easily overcome by the Democrats. A handful of Democratic senators want to preserve the parliamentarian’s authority because she enforces rules that protect the clout of small states.

But the parliamentarian’s rejection still allows the Democrats to draft new amnesty plans for the BBB bill in 2022. Those plans include more public pressure on Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV), who is arguing the Democrats’ spending plan will accelerate inflation.

The referee’s rejection does not cover the three other “historic” migration changes hidden in the BBB bill. Those measures would allow the White House to provide green cards to millions of favored migrants, including perhaps three million “chain migrants” selected by recent immigrants.

The plan would also allow President Joe Biden’s pro-migration deputies to sell green cards to at least one million migrants who have taken — or who promise to take — many of the Fortune 500 jobs sought by skilled U.S. college graduates. Most of these beneficiaries are Indian workers who got jobs via various visa worker programs, such as the H-1B and Optional Practical Training program.

The huge population inflow would boost Wall Street, create a powerful ethnic Indian bloc in the United States, cut wages for many millions of Americans, and drive up housing costs for renters and homebuyers.

But the green card giveaway to the Fortune 500 may be dropped if the Democrats cannot also pass their amnesty for illegal aliens, a Hill staffer told Breitbart News. “It would be really bad politics for them to not get their amnesty [for poor migrants] but be giving this big green card giveaway to businesses,” he said.

“It would be the height of irony that all of our efforts on immigration would be to help business and not help people who are undocumented,” Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ) told Bloomberg in early December.

The referee’s rejection of the parole amnesty was announced via a short note:

The proposed parole policy is not much different in its effects than the previous [two amnesty] proposals we have considered. The proposal, which would increase the deficit by $131 billion over 10 years, creates a class of eligible people (those who have been in the country for 10 years or more) who qualify for a grant of parole in place status. This new class would make eligible for parole 6.5 million people – nearly the same number of people as the previous two plans. CBO [Congressional Budget Office] estimates that 3 million people would adjust to LPR status [get green cards] – 2 million of whom would be otherwise ineligible under current law. In order to effectuate the policy, the parole proposal changes the contours of the current parole in place program, making it a mandatory award of status for qualifying applicants rather than the current discretionary use of the [Homeland Security] Secretary’s authority and assessment, which the USCIS website states that the Secretary grants “only sparingly.” The granted parole will be accomplished by mandatory issuances of work authorization, travel documents, a deeming of qualification for REAL ID and automatic renewal of PIP [Parole in Place]. These are substantial policy changes with lasting effects just like those we previously considered and outweigh the budgetary impact and would subject to the proposal a 313(b)(1)(D) point of order.

The U.S. government’s economic policy of extracting migrant consumers, renters, and workers from poor countries for use by U.S. businesses is deeply unpopular.

The extraction migration policy damages ordinary Americans’ career opportunities, cuts their wages, and raises their housing costs.

The economic policy also curbs Americans’ productivity, shrinks their political clout, widens regional wealth gaps, radicalizes their democratic, compromise-promoting civic culture, and allows the elites to ignore despairing Americans at the bottom of society.

Unsurprisingly, a wide variety of pollsters have shown deep and broad opposition to labor migration and the inflow of temporary contract workers into jobs sought by young U.S. graduates.

This opposition is growing, multiracial, cross-sex, non-racist, class-based, bipartisan, rational, persistent, and recognizes the solidarity Americans owe to each other.