Dream Act passage in a lame duck session?

[rob in cal]

Senator Durbin suggested that the Senate might take up the Dream Act, which would give citizenship (or begin the process anyway) to illegal residents in the US who go to college or serve in military.  The question is, if the Senate passed it, would the house also take it up?
Also, would enough Republicans (perhaps bolstered by new members from Colorado, West Virginia, maybe even New York who I believe would join the Senate immediately after their election as their elections are special elections) in the Senate go along with this, or just filibuster it to death?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

there will be no lame duck session of congress

[minionofmidas]

Senator Durbin suggested that the Senate might take up the Dream Act, which would give citizenship (or begin the process anyway) to illegal residents in the US who go to college or serve in military. 

Which is a slightly misleading summary.
'Cause, right now, illegal residents in the US who graduate from the US school system cannot go to college. (Mind you - at least they can go to school til they're 18. Which, of course, helps make feasible the whole proposition of a huge population of "illegals" that noone cares about.)

[Bacon King]

This bill is very personal to me.

I have a close friend that's been here with her family illegally since she was eight, and her parents have struggled to put her through college at a state school paying the outrageously high out-of-state tuition fees even though she's lived in Georgia for as long as she can remember. She's recently had to drop out because her parents couldn't afford to pay for it anymore. She's working full-time right now to save up to try to start back school; honestly, though, the passage of the DREAM Act would be perfect because not only would she be able to start school again, she'd also be able to get permanent residency after she graduates. I hope it passes. Right now her only way to even be in the United States legally is to either get married or get petitioned by her sister who's a citizen now after getting married several years back (and the petitioning for a non-minor sibling takes like a decade)

Although I do have personal reasons to support it, that doesn't change the fact that it's a good, commonsense bill in the first place. Honestly, if someone is so integrated into this country that they completed high school here and are going to college here, or are willing to die for the country in the Armed Services, I don't know why anyone would prohibit them their desire to be an American.

You can't even make the, "OH NOEZ THEY'LL ALL BE ON WELFARES" argument that some people do, because the beneficiaries of the DREAM Act would be, y'know, college graduates. Or learning technical skills with a military job. Either way, these people aren't going to be below the poverty line.

[minionofmidas]

'Kay, so it is possible somehow. Nevermind. That was probably misstated in the German article where I first heard of the proposal.

[rob in cal]

Opponents of the bill claim that to qualify one wouldn't need to actually serve in the military or graduate college, just show the intention to do so. Not sure if thats the case or not.  One idea that seems reasonable to me is to give those H1 visas to people in this category, not to people overseas. In that way, this doesn't lead to any new extra immigration, (legal immigration is already at somewhere about a million a year) so it could be a compromise to appeal to conservatives as well as liberals.

[Capitan Zapp Brannigan]

Hopefully they do, along with repealing DADT. There is far too much stuff that needs to be done in a lame duck session of congress..

I also remember the DREAM Act having quite a bit of bipartisan support in the past. I definitely remember Hatch being one of the original co-sponsors.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

A Republican from West Virginia would filibuster it. DioGuardi is a wild card considering he hasn't voted on any issues since 1988 and Ken Buck would probably vote to preserve Republican filibuster.

Mark Kirk might vote for it depending on what position he staked on it in the campaign


ILL, NY, CO, WV, and DE would be seated in November.

[Bacon King]

Whether this vote is held before or after November, keep in mind that compared to the Defense Bill at least two more Senators will vote for cloture: Lugar, who's cosponsoring the bill, and Reid, who voted against the failed cloture for the normal procedural reasons. That's 58 votes right there. Lugar being on board could help persuade other moderate and/or pro-"amnesty" Republicans to support it, such as a few of Collins, Snowe, Gregg, Bennett, Voinovich, Murkowski, Brown, Bond. Especially if it's in the lame duck session, the above Senators that are on their way out would feel not-that-much compulsion for keeping the party line.

In the lame duck session, after Lincoln finally loses she'll probably be persuaded to vote for this. Same goes for other Senators that either just lost OR just won and think they're safe enough.

Regarding the new Senators, NY isn't a factor because Gillibrand will win. Manchin winning in WV would be a net gain of a vote for cloture (and the Republican winning would similarly have no net effect) because the currently vacant seat effectively counts as a vote against cloture. IL may not be an issue because Kirk could concievably vote for cloture. So that leaves DE and CO as two potential cloture vote "losses" when compared to the Defense Appopriations bill.

So the parliamentary arithmetic isn't looking all too bad, it just depends on how many Republicans join Lugar in supporting the bill. I think the Democratic whips have already counted enough ayes, because otherwise I don't think they'd be pushing this through again. The Democratic Senators can already tell voters "Hey, we tried to pass this but the Republicans blocked it" so it'd just be a waste of time to do the same thing over again.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

listen...the election results are going to scare DC to death.  there is no way the Dream Act or repeal of DADT or CapNTrade is going to pass.  In fact, the GOP will have ZERO reason to agree to a lame duck session of congress when they will probably have the House and may have the Senate.

[Beet]

listen...the election results are going to scare DC to death.  there is no way the Dream Act or repeal of DADT or CapNTrade is going to pass.  In fact, the GOP will have ZERO reason to agree to a lame duck session of congress when they will probably have the House and may have the Senate.

What do you think the election results are going to be, jmfcst?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

listen...the election results are going to scare DC to death.  there is no way the Dream Act or repeal of DADT or CapNTrade is going to pass.  In fact, the GOP will have ZERO reason to agree to a lame duck session of congress when they will probably have the House and may have the Senate.

What do you think the election results are going to be, jmfcst?

The GOP wins 50-80 House seats, and 7-12 Senate seats.  There will be no reason for the GOP to agree to a lame duck after the election.  The GOP RINOs Senators will be running scared

[Capitan Zapp Brannigan]

If at the minimum of stuff the Dems need to do DADT isn't removed during the lame duck or during the next Congress(lol) Obama will be facing a minor revolt on his left flank at the time he needs it least, 2012. They'll vote for him most likely, but it will hurt him if he doesn't get at least that done.

[rob in cal]

The Hill is reporting that the Dems are in fact considering the Dream act for this lame duck session.  In years past Senators Nelson (Nebraska), Mckaskill, Webb, Dorgan and Tester voted against full amnesty, but that doesn't mean they'd be against a reduced version such as the Dream Act.  Opponents claim that there is no time limit on it, which if in fact is the case would represent a nice juicy loophole going forward for more and more legalization year after year.  No wonder most Democrats are for this, and most Republicans are against it.

[Eraserhead]

The "Dream Act" is disgusting.

[rob in cal]

Sen Reid has repeated his promise to bring up the Dream Act in the lame duck session.  He says he just needs a few GOP votes to make it happen.  I guess he's assuming the House will follow suit, but I don't know if thats correct.  A whole bunch of blue dog Democrats, defeated or not, might not want to finish their career with one more act of obedience to the House leadership.
Concerning the Senate, Tester, Mccaskill, Webb, and Nelson have all voted against full amnesty in the past and are facing reelection next cycle I believe.  Also, if Kirk and Buck win and can get seated in time they'd likely vote for filibuster, and I wonder about Manchin.  This might be a great opportunity to establish himself as a true independent Democrat and against party leadership.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Looks Like Obama's going to attempt to do just that:

Here's the first half of the Article:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Torie]

It is going to be a very rough two years, and the election in 2012 is going to be brutal. Obama seems to have no interest in triangulating, and pushing through controversial legislation like this in a lame duck session, would poison the waters. But it will be filibustered, and die. I am beginning to think that Obama just is not a very effective politician. Bring back Clinton!

[exopolitician]

I feel optimistic it'll pass, though I have a feeling the repeal of DADT is more likely now than this.

[Badger]

The "Dream Act" is disgusting.

Really?? What's your thoughts, EH? You never struck me as a "amnesty" fighter.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

The "Dream Act" is disgusting.

Really?? What's your thoughts, EH? You never struck me as a "amnesty" fighter.

Indeed, I thought E was more of an open border kind of guy....are we "dreaming" this E ? 

[anvi]

It is going to be a very rough two years, and the election in 2012 is going to be brutal. Obama seems to have no interest in triangulating, and pushing through controversial legislation like this in a lame duck session, would poison the waters. But it will be filibustered, and die. I am beginning to think that Obama just is not a very effective politician. Bring back Clinton!

Triangulation doesn't work very well when the opposition abandons previously held positions when you reach out to them.  Senate Republicans of '94 supported a basic health care plan that looks very, very much like the current law, but when Obama stepped out of the gate with it, they turned tail and called it "government takeover" and "socialism."  At the end of the negotiations on the '09 stimulus bill, Chuck Grassley said that he agreed with 90% of what was in it, and still voted against it and excoriated the president for supporting it.  A number of Republicans in the Senate supported the creation of a debt commission to make recommendations for dealing with the deficit, but when Obama declared his support for it, they withdrew theirs.  McCain pledged over and over and over again for the last four years that he would strongly consider repeal of DADT if a study was done which concluded that repeal would be feasible, and now that all that has been done, he has decided to stonewall.  Now, John Kyle, having asked for investments in shoring up existing missile defense as a condition for getting behind START has, now that it was provided, opposed the treaty. 

The notion that Obama has not reached out to Republicans in the last two years is just as ludicrous as the suggestion that Obama constantly caters to his base.  Bullsh**t.  Abject bullsh**t.  Obama's base, almost the entirety of it, is utterly and completely pissed at him, as the views expressed by posters on this very forum daily attest.  What is actually the case is that the Senate Republicans in the last two years have baited and switched on everything under the sun, and are nothing more than a bunch of unprincipled, hackish, cynical asswipes who ought not to be trusted with governing a telephone booth, much less a country.  And for their part, congressional Democrats have screwed the president six ways from Sunday since he took office.  I fault Obama for not being able to control his own caucus.  He has tried to triangulate plenty, but triangulation doesn't work when you're constantly trying to draw lines between disappearing dots. 

[Landslide Lyndon]

Exactly! How can you triangulate when the leader of the opposition says that his top goal is to make Obama an one-term president?

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

All Obama has done since taking office is reaching out towards Republicans. Remember the debates over the stimulus? It should have had bipartisan support. Republican leaders should have stood up in support of the bill so that the country could have a united fiscal response against the economic situation plaguing the nation. They could have made any further economic stimuli more in line with their ideology. Butterfiles, sugar and bunnies would spring forth from the earth and a new era of bi-partisanship would reign in Washington forever thanks to Moderate Hero Obama!

Oh wait, this would be an awful strategy for the Republican Party. Why would they endorse long term economic strategies when the economic strategies could ultimately be blamed for the state of the economy and they could have a tremendous rebirth of their party thanks to this without making difficult policy decisions or ideological reversals? This goes for all economic policy. Because they distanced themselves as far away as possible from anything coming from Obama's mouth, even if it was only tax cuts for small businesses, they reaped the benefits. The Obama administration should have seen this coming. These people have no scruples and never will...

Why is bi-partisanship even placed on a pedestal anymore? This is a serious question. As has been said before, the role of the opposition is to oppose. As much as I find this to be unconstructive, it's a truth that certain political leaders need to understand.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

All Obama has done since taking office is reaching out towards Republicans. Remember the debates over the stimulus? It should have had bipartisan support. Republican leaders should have stood up in support of the bill so that the country could have a united fiscal response against the economic situation plaguing the nation. They could have made any further economic stimuli more in line with their ideology. Butterfiles, sugar and bunnies would spring forth from the earth and a new era of bi-partisanship would reign in Washington forever thanks to Moderate Hero Obama!

Oh wait, this would be an awful strategy for the Republican Party. Why would they endorse long term economic strategies when the economic strategies could ultimately be blamed for the state of the economy and they could have a tremendous rebirth of their party thanks to this without making difficult policy decisions or ideological reversals? This goes for all economic policy. Because they distanced themselves as far away as possible from anything coming from Obama's mouth, even if it was only tax cuts for small businesses, they reaped the benefits. The Obama administration should have seen this coming. These people have no scruples and never will...

Why is bi-partisanship even placed on a pedestal anymore? This is a serious question. As has been said before, the role of the opposition is to oppose. As much as I find this to be unconstructive, it's a truth that certain political leaders need to understand.

Well first off, the stimulus bill was never going to gain meaningful pub support, even though they spent like drunken sailors during the Bush time......

Bi-partisanship?  I agree......hogwash.  Was W bi-partisan when he rammed it up the Dems ass hard and heavy toward the end of his presidency?  He said all the right words but hell no.....

Reaching out isn't always reaching out......