Discussion On The Politics of Immigration Reform (Comprehensive Or Otherwise)

[qesehmk]

That's ok Rupen. It's not a big deal. All of us are pro CIR. These are minor things and differences.

I do not know what the confusion is. This bill as it stands is making green card backlog situation worse. That is why I am asking to oppose that. If by some magic, green card provisions are included in the same bill, we could support that but not without that.

[GhostWriter]

Q, whether you are inside or outside, at some point the trains and elevators just can not bear any more load. As I said in the previous post there is nothing wrong with getting more temporary workers but either the GC numbers should increase or new visas be in a separate category. Also keep in mind that the current EB2 train almost stopped moving 2-3 years ago and the EB3-I train stopped moving 10 years ago. Taking more load in the same train will now be accomplished by throwing some existing passengers out (most likely EB1 getting backlogged by new applications and EB2-I and portable EB3-I never getting green cards). I agree that existing EB2-I taking this stand displays conflict of interest but I can very easily argue (though i won't) that your stand against it also poses a conflict of interest in your current situation.
I will leave it at that.

PS: Don't mean to offend you but it has been my experience in life that it is very easy to see what is in someone else's blind spot. The difficult part is to see what is in ours.

I would certainly disagree with this because this is basically saying -- now that I am on the train - I am not going to allow any more people on the train because it will increase the backlog on the train going to the next station. Think about it.

[qesehmk]

Ghost - you can't say it and then say if I said it. It is just unfortunate you think that way. And may I say that is quite coward of you. If you want to say it just say it.

Regarding system bearing load, .... who is bearing the load here? You as immigrant or the system? Do you care about the system but not about the future people who just like you would like to come to this country? I would urge you to think about it than blindly support or oppose anything based on whatever your compulsion.

p.s. - By your stupid logic - I should oppose CIR because that would be in conflict with my interest. Right?

.. I can very easily argue (though i won't) that your stand against it also poses a conflict of interest in your current situation.
I will leave it at that.

[GhostWriter]

I would have said it if I believed it to be true. I don't think it is true that is why I didn't. I am making a case that it gives the same appearance of a conflict that you are accusing rupen, myself and the rest of EB2-I for. A case can be made by both you and us that inspire of the conflict our stand would have been the same because of our beliefs. I am just asking you to not accuse us (which you did more than once with your train analogy) that you would not like to be accused of yourself. My only point is that neither you nor me are solely making a point for our personal benefit. The fact that we do stand to gain by what we state can not be denied in either case.

PS: I still refrain to use demeaning adjectives even though you used a few in your post. This is to maintain the same high standard that this forum deserves.

Ghost - you can't say it and then say if I said it. It is just unfortunate you think that way. And may I say that is quite coward of you. If you want to say it just say it.

Regarding system bearing load, .... who is bearing the load here? You as immigrant or the system? Do you care about the system but not about the future people who just like you would like to come to this country? I would urge you to think about it than blindly support or oppose anything based on whatever your compulsion.

p.s. - By your stupid logic - I should oppose CIR because that would be in conflict with my interest. Right?

[qesehmk]

I don't think I am accusing EB2I. I am accusing those that are opposing 2131 because of their narrow EB3I interest. So who are they? There are organizations that have opposition to 2131 as their agenda. At the core they are formed by EB3 India folks. Good luck to them if that's what they are trying to do.

Please do not use this forum as propoganda tool for other organizations nor try to divide immigrants into EB2 vs EB3 vs EB2I etc. Lets use this to discuss individual merit of the bills and strategies.

I already said that 2131 is inadequate in that it doesn't address balancing demand and supply. But then remember perfect is enemy of good. I would rather let republicans use this as their bargaining chip in conference than they go empty handed in conference committee.

You may not want to support 2131. But opposing it is not productive. What is more productive is calling GOP congressmen about CIR. Those congressmen who are on the border. That is the best advocacy you can do.

p.s. - I also think that we need to take the mystery out of this whole advocacy thing that other people make you believe. None of this is rocket science. But if some body tells you that advocacy is a secret thing that a few people are supposed to do while all you can help is give us some money - that is a red alarm to me. If YOU want to buy that snake oil. Please buy it. Just don't sell it on this forum.

I would have said it if I believed it to be true. I don't think it is true that is why I didn't. I am making a case that it gives the same appearance of a conflict that you are accusing rupen, myself and the rest of EB2-I for. A case can be made by both you and us that inspire of the conflict our stand would have been the same because of our beliefs. I am just asking you to not accuse us (which you did more than once with your train analogy) that you would not like to be accused of yourself. My only point is that neither you nor me are solely making a point for our personal benefit. The fact that we do stand to gain by what we state can not be denied in either case.

PS: I still refrain to use demeaning adjectives even though you used a few in your post. This is to maintain the same high standard that this forum deserves.

[rupen86]

I don't think I am accusing EB2I. I am accusing those that are opposing 2131 because of their narrow EB3I interest. So who are they? There are organizations that have opposition to 2131 as their agenda. At the core they are formed by EB3 India folks. Good luck to them if that's what they are trying to do.

Please do not use this forum as propoganda tool for other organizations nor try to divide immigrants into EB2 vs EB3 vs EB2I etc. Lets use this to discuss individual merit of the bills and strategies.

I already said that 2131 is inadequate in that it doesn't address balancing demand and supply. But then remember perfect is enemy of good. I would rather let republicans use this as their bargaining chip in conference than they go empty handed in conference committee.

You may not want to support 2131. But opposing it is not productive. What is more productive is calling GOP congressmen about CIR. Those congressmen who are on the border. That is the best advocacy you can do.

p.s. - I also think that we need to take the mystery out of this whole advocacy thing that other people make you believe. None of this is rocket science. But if some body tells you that advocacy is a secret thing that a few people are supposed to do while all you can help is give us some money - that is a red alarm to me. If YOU want to buy that snake oil. Please buy it. Just don't sell it on this forum.

I do not know where EB3 or EB2 came into picture here. EB2/3 is certainly not my thinking. It is going to hurt everyone in the existing system and everyone coming in future. It is simple math. Current backlog is resulted by high H1B numbers. H1B numbers were increased in the past without increasing GC numbers and that is what again this bill is attempting.

You keep referring to CIR but there is not CIR in house. Senate CIR is history now. House is talking about piece-meal bill not CIR.

About the bargaining chip that you want to give to republicans, do you seriously think that they can go to conference with only this bill? If that is the case, democrats will be very happy to accommodate this in exchange for path to citizenship.

No sensible person would accept more bad situation than he is currently in. That's what this bill is bringing.

[GhostWriter]

Would have been very similar in the cold war era.
Commis disagree with me, you disagree with me, you must be a commi

So now everyone who disagrees with you on a bill has to pass "Are you a spy test".

I do not wish to continue this conversation any further. I just made simple arguments (and NEVER accused you of anything), repeating them won't make them any simpler.

I don't think I am accusing EB2I. I am accusing those that are opposing 2131 because of their narrow EB3I interest. So who are they? There are organizations that have opposition to 2131 as their agenda. At the core they are formed by EB3 India folks. Good luck to them if that's what they are trying to do.

Please do not use this forum as propoganda tool for other organizations nor try to divide immigrants into EB2 vs EB3 vs EB2I etc. Lets use this to discuss individual merit of the bills and strategies.

I already said that 2131 is inadequate in that it doesn't address balancing demand and supply. But then remember perfect is enemy of good. I would rather let republicans use this as their bargaining chip in conference than they go empty handed in conference committee.

You may not want to support 2131. But opposing it is not productive. What is more productive is calling GOP congressmen about CIR. Those congressmen who are on the border. That is the best advocacy you can do.

p.s. - I also think that we need to take the mystery out of this whole advocacy thing that other people make you believe. None of this is rocket science. But if some body tells you that advocacy is a secret thing that a few people are supposed to do while all you can help is give us some money - that is a red alarm to me. If YOU want to buy that snake oil. Please buy it. Just don't sell it on this forum.

[GhostWriter]

To put us back on track. Article by a republican Tom cotton, essentially saying what others here have expected. House is not going to take up Senate bill, chances of any conference for reconciliation also look bleak. House seems more inclined to go its own way. Let us see if that changes.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...885340348.html

[Spectator]

To put us back on track. Article by a republican Tom cotton, essentially saying what others here have expected. House is not going to take up Senate bill, chances of any conference for reconciliation also look bleak. House seems more inclined to go its own way. Let us see if that changes.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...885340348.html

Ghost,

Unfortunately, that is a subscriber-only article, but I have seen similar sentiments on Oh (not a great source. I agree).

Report indicates that despite the mounting pressure from some Republican party leaders including President Bush, today's meeting reputed comprehensive reform and would focus on piecemeal immigration reform legislations. Fox News reports that the House leaders also are not enthusiatic with the House version comprehensive immigration reform work. This throws a chilling water on the back of the Gang of 7. Report indicates that today House Republicans affirmed that rather than take up the flawed legislation rushed through the Senate, House committees will continue their work on a step-by-step, common-sense approach to fixing what has long been a broken system,citing House Speaker John Boehner, Majority Leader Eric Cantor, and other House GOP leaders' joint statement. The report indicates that Cheers erupted in the meeting when leadership said they would not take up the Senate bill. Additionally, the House lawmakers voiced concern about the possibility of passing a bill, and then leaving it up to a select team of lawmakers from each chamber -- known as a conference committee -- to come up with a compromise that they may not like.

The harder line Repubs appear to be cool on any any CIR (including the yet to be published House CIR from the Gang of Seven).

It seems to be piecemeal or nothing and "my way or the highway" in terms of any compromise.

I'm sure part of that is political posturing, but such an attitude almost guarantees that nothing will eventually pass both Chambers.

[geterdone]

Question- how does advocacy work? Honestly I have no clue and I am just asking.It may not be rocket science but I think it has to do with money. I don't think simple phone calls and emails make any difference. But I still do not understand why all the big tech companies cannot get something done with all the clout and money they got. Are they really concerned about solving it or is it just a show? I know there is a lot of politics involved.

The sad part is that the legal community is not united as the 'other' group. I also don't understand what some of these groups like ** are doing. Instead of focusing on country limits everyone should have pushed for not counting dependents in HR3012. I may be wrong but atleast it would have got more support I guess.

I don't think I am accusing EB2I. I am accusing those that are opposing 2131 because of their narrow EB3I interest. So who are they? There are organizations that have opposition to 2131 as their agenda. At the core they are formed by EB3 India folks. Good luck to them if that's what they are trying to do.

Please do not use this forum as propoganda tool for other organizations nor try to divide immigrants into EB2 vs EB3 vs EB2I etc. Lets use this to discuss individual merit of the bills and strategies.

I already said that 2131 is inadequate in that it doesn't address balancing demand and supply. But then remember perfect is enemy of good. I would rather let republicans use this as their bargaining chip in conference than they go empty handed in conference committee.

You may not want to support 2131. But opposing it is not productive. What is more productive is calling GOP congressmen about CIR. Those congressmen who are on the border. That is the best advocacy you can do.

p.s. - I also think that we need to take the mystery out of this whole advocacy thing that other people make you believe. None of this is rocket science. But if some body tells you that advocacy is a secret thing that a few people are supposed to do while all you can help is give us some money - that is a red alarm to me. If YOU want to buy that snake oil. Please buy it. Just don't sell it on this forum.

[GhostWriter]

Spec, see below. The last two paragraphs of the article are Congressman Tom Cotton's quote and sum up their approach. The quote is freely accessible from sources other than the WSJ. For example, at the Congressman's website. (Sorry for the length of the post.)

America is a nation of immigrants, but we're also a nation of laws, and the U.S. immigration system should respect both traditions. Unfortunately, the Senate immigration bill undermines the rule of law without solving the country's illegal-immigration problem, and it will harm American workers. The House of Representatives will reject any proposal with the Senate bill's irreparably flawed structure, which is best described as: legalization first, enforcement later . . . maybe.

This basic design flaw repeats the mistake of the 1986 amnesty law, which, according to former Attorney General Edwin Meese, President Reagan considered the biggest mistake of his presidency. The Senate bill ensures, as did the 1986 law, that we'll have full legalization but little-to-no enforcement.

The Senate bill's advocates argue that its implementation of enforcement measures, such as extending the security fence on the border with Mexico, will precede and be a "trigger" for opening a path to citizenship. But these advocates are conflating legalization and citizenship. America has approximately 12 million illegal immigrants, who chiefly desire the right to live and work here legally. The Senate bill legalizes them a mere six months after enactment.

In the bill, legalization comes with trivial preconditions. Pay a "fine"? Yes, but it's less than $7 per month and can be waived. Pay back taxes? Only if a tax lien has already been filed, which will be rare for undocumented work. Pass a criminal-background check? Yes, with a gaping exception allowed for illegal immigrants with up to two misdemeanors—or more, if the convictions occurred on the same day—even if these were pleaded down from felony offenses and included serious offenses such as domestic violence and drunken driving.

This approach is unjust and counterproductive. We should welcome the many foreigners patiently obeying our laws and waiting overseas to immigrate legally. Instead, the Senate bill's instant, easy legalization rewards lawbreakers and thus encourages more illegal immigration.

What's worse, the bill's illusory enforcement mechanisms won't stop this illegal immigration. Effective enforcement requires a border fence, a visa-tracking system to catch visa overstayers, and a workable employment-verification system. The Senate bill fails on all three fronts.

The Secure Fence Act of 2006 mandated 700 miles of fencing, but the Senate bill merely restates this long-ignored requirement without mentioning specs or locations. It also doesn't prohibit delay-inducing lawsuits from fence opponents. Further, the bill explicitly lets the secretary of Homeland Security decline to build a fence in a specific location if she decides it's not "appropriate."

Instead, the bill throws billions of dollars at the border for new border-patrol agents (though not until 2017) and sensor technologies. These solutions are complements, not substitutes, for a fence. When I was a soldier in Iraq and Afghanistan, my units relied on guards and technology to secure our bases, but the first line of defense was always a physical perimeter.

That's because fences work. The fence built in the San Diego border sector dramatically reduced border crossings there from 100,000 per year to just 5,000 per year when it was completed in 2006, a 95% drop. Earlier this year, Israel reduced illegal crossings at its Sinai border to two per month from 2,000 per month by completing a fence. Why doesn't the Senate bill mandate an effective fence? The answer, plainly, is that the intention is not to build one.

Similarly, the Senate bill restates a 17-year-old requirement in federal law that the government have a functioning visa-tracking system. But it delays implementation for six years and increases by millions the visas available for low-skill immigrants. This will lead to more illegal immigration by visa overstayers, while depressing wages for young and lower-skill Americans. The bill also delays implementation of the employment-verification system by at least five years and doesn't require mandatory effectiveness levels for the system.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office recognizes that these enforcement measures will be largely ineffective. The CBO estimates that, even with them, annual illegal immigration will decline by only one-third to one-half compared with current projections. After 10 years, the CBO predicts, the illegal-immigrant population will have declined to only eight million from today's 12 million. So much for solving the problem. All we're doing is setting up the next amnesty.

But it's actually worse because even these modest enforcement measures likely won't happen. Any future Congress can defund these programs, as has happened too often. The bill grants enforcement discretion to the bureaucracy in hundreds of instances. Opponents can tie up the bill in court for years, which would block implementation of key enforcement measures but not the path to citizenship. This is exactly what happened with the 1986 law: legalization now and enforcement never.

And what's to stop President Obama from refusing to enforce this law? After all, he just announced he won't enforce ObamaCare's employer mandate because of complaints from big business. If that's his attitude toward his biggest legislative accomplishment, imagine what he'll do when big business complains about, say, an employment-verification system he never wanted to begin with.

If enforcement fails, what's more likely: that legalized persons won't become citizens or that future Congresses will simply relax or eliminate the required "triggers"? If past is prologue, we know the answer.

Given all this history, the American people rightly doubt that the government will finally enforce immigration laws. Thus the best solution is to abandon the Senate bill's flawed framework and proceed with an enforcement-first approach that assures Americans that the border is secure and immigration laws are being enforced. The House is already pursuing that goal with committee-approved bills such as the Legal Workforce Act, which expedites the employment-verification system, and the SAFE Act, which empowers local and state law-enforcement officers to enforce immigration laws.

If the full House approves such bills, they should be sent directly to the Senate for consideration. They should not be handed to a conference committee so that they can be reconciled with the Senate bill—the Senate and House measures are irreconcilable. Instead, the Senate must choose whether it wants common-sense, confidence-building immigration legislation this year.

If the Senate insists on the legalization-first approach, then no bill will be enacted. Meanwhile, the House will remain focused on addressing ObamaCare, the economy and the national debt—which, after all, Americans overwhelmingly regard as higher priorities than immigration reform.

[qesehmk]

Fair enough.

I do not wish to continue this conversation any further.

[gcq]

I don't think I am accusing EB2I. I am accusing those that are opposing 2131 because of their narrow EB3I interest. So who are they? There are organizations that have opposition to 2131 as their agenda. At the core they are formed by EB3 India folks. Good luck to them if that's what they are trying to do.

Please do not use this forum as propoganda tool for other organizations nor try to divide immigrants into EB2 vs EB3 vs EB2I etc. Lets use this to discuss individual merit of the bills and strategies.

I already said that 2131 is inadequate in that it doesn't address balancing demand and supply. But then remember perfect is enemy of good. I would rather let republicans use this as their bargaining chip in conference than they go empty handed in conference committee.

You may not want to support 2131. But opposing it is not productive. What is more productive is calling GOP congressmen about CIR. Those congressmen who are on the border. That is the best advocacy you can do.

p.s. - I also think that we need to take the mystery out of this whole advocacy thing that other people make you believe. None of this is rocket science. But if some body tells you that advocacy is a secret thing that a few people are supposed to do while all you can help is give us some money - that is a red alarm to me. If YOU want to buy that snake oil. Please buy it. Just don't sell it on this forum.

I should point out that ** is a pro-EB2 organization. Though some of their core members are EB3 guys, their agenda is pretty much EB2-I specific. I am one of the EB3-I guys who quit participating in their activities for that reason. They try to use hapless EB3-I as their campaign tool taking advantage of their misery. But when it comes to their internal work, EB2-I drives their agenda except for HR 3012.

[qesehmk]

geterdone - I think vested interests or lack of interests is the answer why EB immigration doesn't have good sponsor.

I do think advocacy is not obvious and certainly needs money. Based on my small experience in activism I have realized that money is less important than people organization connections and vision. Money ranks after all the other bases are checked in.

Question- how does advocacy work? Honestly I have no clue and I am just asking.It may not be rocket science but I think it has to do with money. I don't think simple phone calls and emails make any difference. But I still do not understand why all the big tech companies cannot get something done with all the clout and money they got. Are they really concerned about solving it or is it just a show? I know there is a lot of politics involved.

The sad part is that the legal community is not united as the 'other' group. I also don't understand what some of these groups like ** are doing. Instead of focusing on country limits everyone should have pushed for not counting dependents in HR3012. I may be wrong but atleast it would have got more support I guess.

[gcq]

Question- how does advocacy work? Honestly I have no clue and I am just asking.It may not be rocket science but I think it has to do with money. I don't think simple phone calls and emails make any difference. But I still do not understand why all the big tech companies cannot get something done with all the clout and money they got. Are they really concerned about solving it or is it just a show? I know there is a lot of politics involved.

The sad part is that the legal community is not united as the 'other' group. I also don't understand what some of these groups like ** are doing. Instead of focusing on country limits everyone should have pushed for not counting dependents in HR3012. I may be wrong but atleast it would have got more support I guess.

Advocacy does not need money. Money definitely adds power to it. Basic level advocacy is meeting with your congressman/senator and educating him/her about your issues. US democracy is different from many democracies we have experienced. As US government has power over whoever resides in US, US constitution also guarantees rights to whoever resides in US whether citizen, greencard, H1, L1 or even illegals. That is the beauty of US democracy.

Once you continuously keep in contact with lawmaker, his/her view on the issue changes. Many of us will be surprised to know that many of the lawmakers are not aware of the backlogs. Some of them even don't understand GC aspects of immigration for high skilled. They always co-relate high tech employees to H1B/L1. That is all they know. Reason might be it has been the corporate interests that has lobbied for high skilled applicants. All these corporates want is H1 visas. Thankfully this perspective has changed by continuous advocacy by high skilled immigrants.

Money definitely adds power, but human suffering and 1-0-1 contacts with your lawmaker definitely changes position. Lawmaker offices are appreciative of us reaching to them with our issues.

[GhostWriter]

Thank you both, i should have provided the alternate link. Thanks for adding it Spec.

Q,

I'm not sure that is necessary.

GhostWriter has said he has not quoted the entire WSJ article. The article (or at least what was quoted) is on Congressman Tom Cotton's own website and many others. It is not violating any walled-garden the WSJ may have, since it is otherwise freely available.

I agree he might also include a link to a site where it can be read freely and I have done that.

Thanks Spec. If this is available on Congressman's website then no issues. I deleted my request.

[GhostWriter]

See the link below. Boehner confirms today about the piecemeal approach. McCain still seems optimistic though.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...migration.html

[idiotic]

See the link below. Boehner confirms today about the piecemeal approach. McCain still seems optimistic though.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...migration.html

I think this is a tremoundous step forward by House members. The bad news at this step was for house deciding to "do nothing" and just kill the immigration reform discussion, which is not the case here.

It basically indicates house will pass a omnibus bill and negotiate with senate in conference(Shumer and McCain statements on same day confirms this).

[druvraj]

Does anybody have a list of points will benefit and harm Legal immigrants esp the backlogged legal immigrants. I mean i am looking general high level points that the senate passed that might harm or help legal immigrants

[qesehmk]

Exactly my thoughts idiotic. This is a negotiations phase. There will be a lot of posturing. We need to understand our core interests and we need to understand other side's limitation compulsions and motivations.

A lot of statements are meant for their own constituency to show that they are doing all they can to oppose this. Just a few days back Bush Jr said this

America can be a lawful society and a welcoming society at the same time.

GOP will find it very hard to not get into conference and eventually support CIR.

I think this is a tremoundous step forward by House members. The bad news at this step was for house to do nothing, which is not the case.

It basically indicates house will pass a omnibus bill and negotiate with senate in conference(Shumer and McCain statements on same day confirms this).

[idiotic]

Exactly my thoughts idiotic. This is a negotiations phase. There will be a lot of posturing. We need to understand our core interests and we need to understand other side's limitation compulsions and motivations.

A lot of statements are meant for their own constituency to show that they are doing all they can to oppose this. Just a few days back Bush Jr said this

GOP will find it very hard to not get into conference and eventually support CIR.

I was expecting the antiimmigration wing in House will just kill the reform. Boehner seems to have clearly conveyed the message that "Doing nothing is not an option". I also think the message given is it has to be "bi-partisan" just like the senate and not just right wing's enforcement only bills. Goodlatte will be forced to Markup the bipartisan "Gang of 7" house version bill soon Please let me know your take on this.

[axecapone]

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2...ate-obama?lite

"Trusting Barack Obama with border security is like trusting my daughter with Bill Clinton," he said.

Ouch!! That was blunt.

Sorry if this is a repeat question but I don't understand why the senate is so opposed to "Enforcement first and legalization later". To me, that sounds fair. I mean cant they just put a trigger in place that states that if border security does not meet certain xyz conditions, legalization process is ruled out. In any case, the current CIR bill requires illegal immigrants to wait 10 years before starting their process. Its just a matter of adding a trigger to their bill.

[qesehmk]

In other words, idiotic, Boehner is signalling GOP hardliners to soften up. Right? GOP is completely in a corner and if they produce a GOP only bill - that doesn't help them much. a bi partisan bill puts them in equal footing and then they are in a position to reject senate bill.

But since senate has already shown its hand, it will be extremely difficult for congress to come up with a bi partisan bill that is piecemeal. So we will see.

The good news I read here is that the leadership is signalling hard line folks to soften up.

I was expecting the antiimmigration wing in House will just kill the reform. Boehner seems to have clearly conveyed the message that "Doing nothing is not an option". I also think the message given is it has to be "bi-partisan" just like the senate and not just right wing's enforcement only bills. Goodlatte will be forced to Markup the bipartisan "Gang of 7" house version bill soon Please let me know your take on this.

[rupen86]

In other words, idiotic, Boehner is signalling GOP hardliners to soften up. Right? GOP is completely in a corner and if they produce a GOP only bill - that doesn't help them much. a bi partisan bill puts them in equal footing and then they are in a position to reject senate bill.

But since senate has already shown its hand, it will be extremely difficult for congress to come up with a bi partisan bill that is piecemeal. So we will see.

The good news I read here is that the leadership is signalling hard line folks to soften up.

Their goal right now seems to be passing something so that they can claim that they have done something. If it can be reconciled with senate and become a law is least of their worry.

[qesehmk]

i dont disagree.

Their goal right now seems to be passing something so that they can claim that they have done something. If it can be reconciled with senate and become a law is least of their worry.