Hardline GOP Immigration Bill Fails In House After Moderate Bill Shelved

The House of Representatives rejected a hardline immigration bill on Thursday, introduced by Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), after House leadership postponed a vote on a more moderate measure written by centrists. No Democrats voted in favor of Goodlatte's bill.

The failed vote of 193-231 came one day after President Trump signed an executive order which would end the controversial practice of separating children from parents who cross the border illegally - which had been done under prior administrations but supercharged by the Trump administration's new "zero tolerance" enforcement policies. 

That said, support for both the hardline and moderate immigration bills started to wane after a tweet from President Trump, who implied that even if the bill passed the House, Senate Democrats would kill it:

"What is the purpose of the House doing good immigration bills when you need 9 votes by Democrats in the Senate, and the Dems are only looking to Obstruct (which they feel is good for them in the Mid-Terms). Republicans must get rid of the stupid Filibuster Rule-it is killing you!" Trump tweeted. 

The GOP bills were already in disarray going into Thursday. On Wednesday, Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC), chairman of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, had an angry confrontation with House Speaker Paul Ryan after confusion erupted over which version of an piece of immigration legislation the House of Representatives was set to vote on, with Meadows later claiming in a statement that "the leadership compromise bill omitted key provisions that had been agreed upon beforehand."

Both men became animated - pointing fingers at each other to the point where reporters in the press gallery could hear the the heated discussion - such as Politico's Jake Sherman who live-tweeted the drama. 

Meadows reportedly got in Ryan's face over which of two similarly-named immigration bills the House is expected to vote on tomorrow. 

The more conservative legislation has been dubbed "Goodlatte," after the bill's author, Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va. But a second bill, commonly called the "compromise" bill, has also been referred to as "Goodlatte," since he’s a sponsor of that package as well. Notably, House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, R-La., rebranded the compromise bill "the president's bill" instead of the "leadership" bill. -Fox News

 

In order to clear things up, GOP leadership handed out talking points to lawmakers about the "compromise" bill - however Meadows claimed that the "talking points don't match the text," and "are not really for prime time.

"This was a communication issue where the leadership compromise bill omitted key provisions that had been agreed upon beforehand," Meadows spokesman Ben Williamson said in a statement. "We are working to resolve it."

Several GOP lawmakers told Fox News that they were disturbed at the spat between Ryan and Meadows - with one source saying that a few members who were previously a "hard yes" on the immigration legislation are now "squirming" after the confrontation. 

Between the Benny-Hill circus on Wednesday, Trump's tweet on Thursday - and the reality of "obstructionist" Democrats in the Senate shooting down whatever the House manages to cobble together, it looks like immigration policy will come straight out of the West Wing for the time being.

Bottom line:

Comments

ted41776 Bill of Rights Thu, 06/21/2018 - 14:30 Permalink

i'm sorry, but immigrant is not synonymous with criminal foreign invader. immigration is not a right, it's a privilege. there are billions of people on this planet, many of them would love to play by the rules and come to this country legally. many of them are highly qualified law abiding professionals with no criminal history who can make great contributions to our society (and pay lots of taxes). why should they get pushed to the back of the line behind a bunch of criminals? do their children not matter? do their ethnicities not deserve to be equally represented in immigration demographics under affirmative action instead of being continuously discriminated against? what does it say about our "justice" system when criminals of a specific ethnic group get preferential treatment? (drops mic)

In reply to by Bill of Rights

mkkby BaBaBouy Thu, 06/21/2018 - 15:38 Permalink

Target the DACA *kids* with aggressive enforcement/deportation until the dems cry uncle and cave to our security needs.  If the dems don't cooperate, then the DACAs will be gone and problem solved.

Until the wall is completed and all illegals are gone, there should BE NO legal immigration.  We are more than full up.  Our cities and freeways are well beyond crowded.

Also, there should be a strict points system for valuable job skills.  No welfare should be allowed until someone has been a citizen paying taxes for 10 years.

In reply to by BaBaBouy

HopefulCynical Alexander De Large Thu, 06/21/2018 - 17:56 Permalink

I don't think YOU quite grasp how pissed off the Silent Majority is right now - and it only gets worse with each new grandstanding bullshit stunt by the parasite commie swamprats.

Investing in piano wire futures would not be a bad idea at this point. Cuntlery Cankles apparently ordered another Arkancide. http://www.neonnettle.com/features/1398-fbi-agent-who-exposed-hillary-c…

The word is getting out. People are awakening

In reply to by Alexander De Large

radio man The First Rule Thu, 06/21/2018 - 15:24 Permalink

Last Monday, my neighbor called out," Bill, it's a rattle snake!" I yelled "Get the dogs inside!" Five feet from Frankie's back door, I delivered four 9mm rounds into the Eastern Diamond back. Two feet down we buried it's head and venomous fangs tossing it's carcass into the field for the buzzards. I looked back at two Mastiffs, a Lab and  Rott mix all unmolested. Only gratitude I feel for good neighbors, good dogs and high capacity magazines. As for the snake? Snake or liberals, makes no difference to me. 

In reply to by The First Rule

slyder wood radio man Thu, 06/21/2018 - 16:59 Permalink

Funny, a top beneficial predator, that has survived for millennia in spite of humans, killed to protect your fucking helpless dawgs. The snake wouldn’t have “molested” your dawgs, it woulda been the other way around because they’re so stupid and inbred they can’t survive without humans. Oh, and when the SHTF you’ll be wasting your hi-cap mags to protect and feed them. In a cohesive society dawgs can be useful but when things fall apart they’ll be a liability. What’s worse is you didn’t even eat the snake, which is pretty tasty BTW. 

In reply to by radio man

radio man slyder wood Thu, 06/21/2018 - 17:43 Permalink

You discust me already. You piece of work! What do you know about a family dog. Venezuela is a wonderful story, don't ya think, heartless asshole! When their shtf, they cut the dogs loose to save food. When the food ran out, they wanted their dog back. Do you appreciate a dog when it's being served with beans, rice and Chianti? Fuck you! I shot the wrong snake I think.

In reply to by slyder wood

Dindu Nuffins onewayticket2 Thu, 06/21/2018 - 14:41 Permalink

There's no such thing as legal immigration when the Constitution says "For Us and Our Posterity" and not "For the Rest of Humanity and Pajeet's Posterity"

Legal immigration will destroy everything you love as surely as illegal.

We all know that the 1965 Immigration bill was foist upon common Americans by Jewish elites and their bought politicians without a say. It's long past time we pretended that "laws" are working in our common interests.

In reply to by onewayticket2

Endgame Napoleon ted41776 Thu, 06/21/2018 - 15:15 Permalink

A few fit that description, and I have heard several professionals, including MDs, report spending years & years going through the legal immigration process. But most are not competing at that level in this underemployed country, not even close. 

Why don’t more naturalized citizens and legal immigrants speak out, including the legal immigrants that we take in———1.5 million each year———even though we have a massively underemployed country with 101 million working-age citizens out of the workforce, 78 million gig pieceworkers and 42 million womb-productive citizens & noncitizens working part time to stay under the income limits for free EBT food (and other freebies). 

If there are any sincere conservatives—and there aren’t—they should tell the womb-productive, legal immigrants who qualify for welfare that covers their rent & grocery bills, in addition to their refundable child tax credits up to $6,431, that we need that money to finance the household expenses of all of the new, womb-productive, illegal border crossers.

If these bleeding hearts are serious about open borders for anyone & everyone who shares their skin-pigmentation hue or group identity, they will willingly give up the pay-per-birth welfare that makes it easy for millions of noncitizens & citizens to undercut underemployed, non-welfare-eligible citizens in the labor market.

On both sides, this is really just about another under-the-radar attempt at amnesty, with a few cake crumbs thrown to Deplorables.

The minute it is done, 800,000 toddler dreamers (under age 35) and all of their relatives will start taking the jobs advertised by virtue-signaling liberal corporations—-corporations with factories all over non-racially-diverse, homogenous Asian countries——saying DACA FRIENDLY EMPLOYER. Celebrate your culture by working for X company.

We already have that kind of reverse racism here in construction, with “racially diverse” work crews of 98% Hispanic workers. We have a lot of low-wage “voted best for moms” service sector jobs for womb-productive applicants with access to welfare-funded major bills, like subsidized rent and free food, not to mention refundable child tax credits that, at the $6,431 max, equal 3 to 4 months of full-time wages for citizens with earned-only income and rent that consumes more than half of their monthly pay. More & more of those jobs, too, want Spanish speakers. 

In reply to by ted41776

chubbar ted41776 Thu, 06/21/2018 - 15:40 Permalink

Look, illegal immigration has NOTHING to do with "immigration", therefore there is nothing to "reform" with the immigration law.

When a thief robs a bank we don't insist on re-writing banking laws.

When someone speeds we don't insist on re-writing motor vehicle laws.

This is all bullshit, keep the fucking illegals out of the country, period. Build the wall, enforce the laws on the books and stop with this nonsense from the libtards to obfuscate the issues that are hurting this country.

In reply to by ted41776

Endgame Napoleon lester1 Thu, 06/21/2018 - 15:31 Permalink

Catholics need to know where all of that money for orphanages in Central America went. Catholic Charities and the Vatican are rich—richer than many governments. The money comes from all over the world and is intended for things like humane orphanages, staffed by people who care about the kids in their own countries. 

Department of Children’s Services workers—especially the newbies—need to know WHY they are told that they could be prosecuted for making a wrong decision, deciding not to remove a child from a home.

DCS workers often evaluate American parents who appear to put their children in MUCH less dangerous situations than crossing a drug-war-torn nation and the rape-tree playground in the border region. Sometimes, it is just a messy house, with signs of roaches, rats or other vermin. Imagine the vermin that little children encounter along that illegal-immigration route, crossing the entire country of Mexico, including when sleeping outside.

DCS workers with modest salaries can be held responsible if anything bad happens to a child, when they decide to leave him or her with a parent in an American home. So, what will happen if the “parents” of these migrant children turn out to be smugglers who hurt the children? Will they be prosecuted?  Someone on B.B. asked why they aren’t doing DNA testing to prove that these are really their parents. Even though 10,000 out of 12,000 children crossed the country of Mexico unaccompanied by a “parent,” that would cost a bundle. Maybe, Congress could ask Catholic Charities for the money.

In reply to by lester1