Connect with us


Dreamer talks still jumbled after Trump’s freewheeling summit




Continue to articles and reviews

\”Kevin McCarthy was the individual who said, \’All right, it\’s because of four things, right? DACA along with the other three things?\’\” said Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois, the highest negotiator for Senate Democrats, talking about the Republican House majority leader. \”And every one of us agreed.\”

Added Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.): \”Those are the outlines of the items a possible deal may just be. Now, what the fact is takes place mainly because it works with simultaneously elements is very important.\”

The White House concurred, with press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders saying the target audience \”reached a binding agreement to barter legislation that accomplishes critically needed reforms in four high-priority areas: border security, chain migration, the visa lottery plus the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy.\”

But some House Democrats say they do not accept those parameters. They argue Democrats are agreeing in order to legalize the Dreamers now, which debates over \”chain migration\” and the diversity visa lottery must happen later.

\”The statement issued by the White Residence is inaccurate,\” said House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.).

Meanwhile, may restive faction of House Republicans pushing their leadership to use a hardcore line in the the immigration fight, worried that your more moderate Senate may ultimately jam their chamber which has a Dreamer deal they are unable to accept.

The simple fact that only a deal to share a deal is stoking such consternation on Capitol Hill illustrates the difficult predicament that lawmakers – along with the Dreamers themselves – face in finding a solution. However it may not be that surprising the fact that talks have narrowed following your White House immigration meeting, like a bipartisan list of senators had already been centering on those four core areas.

The group primarily includes Durbin and Sens. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), Cory Gardner (R-Colo.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.); the senators have yet to reach a partnership, though they are working feverishly for weeks discussing proposals.

For example, the senators have debated calling effectively dump the visa lottery – which doles out about 50,000 green cards annually to prospects from countries with traditionally extremely low rates of immigration – by reallocating those visas to immigrants that have benefited from Temporary Protected Status programs that your Trump administration is terminating. Separately, there appears to be considered a more notable struggle over chain migration, with senators disagreeing on whether restrictions on sponsoring relatives should apply only to the Dreamers or even to a larger immigrant population.

It\’s still unclear your house senators could reach an agreement they are able to successfully target Democrats and Republicans during the Senate, including a much more conservative House. But defining the mere outlines on the deal was at least one step closer to any fix, senators said.

\”We did make some progress on it today,\” Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) said. \”The main thing was, let\’s define out the reasons for scope. Let\’s digest who\’s planning to do what, and let\’s move on the task, because the hard negotiation is undoubtedly probably going to be in smaller groups.\”

Other Senate Republicans were encouraged that Trump said his long-coveted border wall with Mexico doesn\’t need to pay the complete, 2,000-mile boundary. \”We\’ve been begging him to mention this sort of stuff before,\” Flake said. \”It\’s just [700] or 800 miles total. A number of that\’s replacement. And more importantly, the wall is usually a fence.\”

But later Tuesday, discussion of your bipartisan summit only fueled more dissension one of many Democratic ranks.

Democrats spilled out of a much more than hourlong meeting on the job of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) Tuesday afternoon differing over what was decided in the White House and even what they would entertain in upcoming negotiations.

Durbin and Hoyer left the meeting to huddle one-on-one in a very separate room, merely to emerge with contradictory talking points.

Hoyer maintained that McCarthy suggested those four areas when the basis for a bipartisan deal within the White House meeting, but that Democrats never decided to those terms nonetheless haven\’t. Durbin, meanwhile, didn\’t dispute his earlier comments that those four issues were shared, telling reporters the \”devil is in the details.\”

\”There are methods to perform stuff are painless and techniques are fatal,\” Durbin said. \”So you are trying to seek out painless alternatives.\”

Other Democrats also left the ending up in different stances: Sen. Tammy Duckworth of Illinois suggested we were holding available to discussing changes to family-based immigration as well as the visa lottery, while Sen. Kamala Harris and Rep. Linda Sanchez of California said those discussions should be an important part of broader immigration reform and not placed on a DACA deal.

\”I don\’t think a lot of folks in this room really even understand, and I mean no disrespect for many years, it isn\’t their special areas of practice, really what [chain migration] means. – The current law makes for family reunification,\” said Rep. Michelle Lujan Grisham (D-N.M.), chairwoman within the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, who successfully crashed the White House meeting after not getting an invite. \”And the same principle with diversity visas. Once you really think about who\’s getting those diversity visas, they have nothing to apply the challenge we\’re trying to address with DACA recipients, and we\’re making that situation.\”

When told some House Democrats were disputing even the parameters of any agreement, a frustrated Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.) responded: \”There isn\’t an misunderstanding.\”

\”There were four concerns that were wanted to participate the DACA deal. – That was what the event was approximately!\” said Diaz-Balart, who also attended the White House meeting. \”We have got a real possiblity to choose this done provided folks don\’t start backtracking from the concepts described today.\”

But whether or not House Democrats ultimately get on board, there\’s trouble brewing one of the House GOP.

Senior House Republicans used a closed-door conference meeting earlier Tuesday to begin with pressuring Speaker Paul Ryan along with his top lieutenants to have a harder line on immigration. Specially, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte of Virginia urged leaders to put a conservative DACA bill he will introduce Wednesday on the surface for a vote. It addresses several of the provisions being discussed during the immigration talks, but goes further by changing policies governing unaccompanied child migrants and asylum seekers.

House GOP leaders aren\’t sure the check can pass and concern yourself with upending the bipartisan discussions transpiring inside the Senate. But that\’s unlikely to quell demands from rank-and-file Republicans them to pass a conservative solution rather then waiting on the bipartisan Senate deal.

\”There\’s an excellent commitment [to a vote] yet, but this is definitely the only bill that can unify the people,\” insisted Rep. Raúl Labrador (R-Idaho), who helped Goodlatte write the bill, which would surely be rejected because of the Senate. \”We may get to 218.\”


Black caucus chairman pushes to censure Trump over ‘shithole’ remark





Congressional Black Caucus Chairman Cedric Richmond on Thursday introduced a solution to censure President Donald Trump over what he contends would be the president\’s racist rhetoric referring to El Salvador, Haiti and African nations as \”shithole countries.\”

The resolution – who has much more than 130 co-sponsors, including House Democratic leaders – calls over the House to publicly state its support for any nations Trump disparaged, censure and condemn the president for his statements, and demand he retract his comments and apologize.

Story Continued Below

At a news conference announcing the resolution alongside House Judiciary Committee ranking member Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) as well as other Democrats, Richmond (D-La.) said Trump\’s controversial comments \”should have not been made\” and \”were factually inaccurate.\”

Richmond conceded, however, the resolution isn\’t \”privileged,\” meaning House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) might need to say yes to carry it in order with the chamber to keep a vote. It\’s almost certain Ryan will not likely do this.

\”If he doesn\’t, we then will be at other ways to just make a vote on there,\” Richmond told reporters. \”But the facts from the matter is definitely the speaker should bring it up. In the event that he doesn\’t, establishing is enabling and recurring to allow obama to perpetuate this hateful rhetoric, as well as at certain point – whether you agree or disagree – I believe this is the speaker\’s obligation to safeguard the dignity of the property.\”

If Ryan will not allow a vote, Richmond said he among others would hunt for “creative” strategies to force one.

Like most Republican leaders, Ryan hasn\’t said much for the president\’s reported comments, though he did acknowledge the other day that they are \”very unfortunate\” and \”unhelpful.\” For Richmond, however, that wasn\’t enough.

\”It\’s unfortunate when I miss my bus. Or it\’s unfortunate in the event the airlines lose my luggage,\” he was quoted saying. \”But when the president of america decides to Africa, Haiti and El Salvador which he used, which isn\’t unfortunate. That is wrong. That\’s disgusting. That is definitely hurtful. There are a variety of words because of it, but unfortunate\’s undertake and don\’t.\”

Continue Reading


Ryan's 2017 fundraising haul: $44 million





House Speaker Paul Ryan raised more than $44 million in 2017, an off-year record to get a House leader – a financial haul Republicans hope will shore up vulnerable GOP members in what\’s shaping up to often be a tough midterm cycle for Republicans.

In a final quarter, Ryan raised $4.8 million, his political operation will announce Thursday – down from $6.7 million during the third quarter.

Story Continued Below

The infusion of greenbacks is a follower of Republicans passed a tax reform law last December, which GOP members said would drive support among voters and donors. But also in 2018, Republicans must defend its 24-seat majority spanning a broad battlefield, while President Donald Trump\’s approval ratings stay in the bottom 40s and Democrats hold a broad bring success the generic ballot. Nearly 24 retirements, including California Reps. Ed Royce and Darrell Issa latest research by, will force Republicans to invest more heavily to protect these open seats.

In 2017, Ryan transferred $32 million to the National Republican Campaign Committee, which announced a unique record-breaking off-year total with $85 million raised in the last year. Ryan also transferred $1.7 million on to GOP members, as well as hosting 49 fundraisers for members.

"This eye-popping number is usually a testament to Speaker Ryan, House Republicans, as well as the agenda them to led your strugle on in 2017," said Kevin Seifert, executive director of Team Ryan, the speaker\’s fundraising committee.

Continue Reading


Bannon won't testify again on Russia Thursday





Former White House adviser Steve Bannon declined House Russia investigators\’ request to go back for a second interview Thursday, telling lawmakers through his lawyer their own obtain him to go back just 2 days after his first appearance was "unreasonable."

"The Committee\’s subpoena provides require Mr. Bannon\’s appearance for that second deposition [Thursday] at 2pm. That may be plainly insufficient time for me to undertake precisely what the Committee has asked," Bannon\’s attorney William Burck wrote within a Wednesday letter to store intelligence committee leaders obtained by POLITICO.

Story Continued Below

Instead, Burck told committee leaders that the former senior aide to President Donald Trump would return after reaching an accommodation when using the White House to make sure his testimony doesn\’t violate executive privilege.

On Tuesday, Bannon-citing instructions from your Trump administration-refused to reply Republican and Democrats\’ questions on his amount of the White House, the post-election transition team and in some cases about his conversations with the president after he was fired from his post in August. His stonewalling infuriated persons in both parties, who subpoenaed him immediately. But despite the subpoena, Bannon declined to reply to their questions.

Burck\’s letter told the committee\’s top Russia investigators, Rep. Mike Conaway (R-Texas) and Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), that Bannon remains ready to answer the committee\’s questions-but after striking an understanding together with the White House while on an acceptable scope of questioning.

"There isn\’t any conceivable solution to talk to the White House Mr. Bannon\’s time using the transition and also the White House, obtain their thoughts about the knowledge he previously provide, communicate those views back to the Committee, relay the Committee\’s views time for the White House, and then negotiate or facilitate a binding agreement amongst the Committee along with the White House from the time allotted by the Committee\’s subpoena," Burck wrote.

Committee members at the moment are weighing calling hold Bannon in contempt of Congress for avoiding their questions. They\’ve noted that White House lawyers haven\’t formally invoked executive privilege-they just have suggested that Bannon\’s testimony might implicate it.

White House officials have argued that it is customary for Congress to coordinate the scope of the questions with current and former officials to stop violating privileged information.

But GOP and Democratic lawmakers have questioned this argument, suggesting they see no reasonable interpretation of executive privilege that might preclude Bannon from discussing his time over the transition team, that is before Trump was president.

Burck indicated that the committee didn\’t have use of White House and transition documents that has to be relevant precursors to the questions for Bannon and suggested lawmakers and Bannon would require time for them to produce them and review them before Bannon\’s next interview.

"There are lots of lawyers over the Committee plus the Staff, and i also could well be surprised as long as they believed it becomes anything in addition to unprofessional even unethical should be expected to depose a witness that has did not have possibility for review relevant documents," he said.

Burck also indicated a potential disconnect between committee staff and lawmakers. He revealed that he had informed the employees of the committee, chaired by Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), the White House "may not permit Mr. Bannon to discuss his in time the transition and the White House unless an accommodation was agreed between your Committee plus the White House."

"Staff raised no objection to the telltale restrictions in any of such conversations," he said. "The main objection came yesterday within the Members who appear not to have been informed by Staff about our prior conversations."

Continue Reading


Copyright © 2019