The CHC’s Tuesday proposals also come as the group has been purposefully excluded from Senate negotiations on border policy, which reportedly have centered on ways to curtail asylum and further fortify the border without addressing calls to overhaul the legal immigration system and appeals to give longtime undocumented immigrants a path to apply for legal status.

Archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20240205133352/https://thehill.com/latino/4437280-hispanic-caucus-immigration-senate-talks-biden-border/

  • @Rapidcreek
    link
    -39 months ago

    The bill is bipartisan. You may not like it, but that’s what it is.

    • queermunist she/her
      link
      fedilink
      -29 months ago

      That’s my point! Democrats did this bipartisan bill to appeal to right-wingers and they do not care that it alienates their base.

      What part of that do you disagree with?

      • @Rapidcreek
        link
        -39 months ago

        Bipartisanship means that you seldom satisfy all of your base. It does mean you get shit done, usually.

        • gregorum
          link
          fedilink
          English
          3
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          Their point is that the Republicans in the house were not going to pass a bill no matter what the Democrats or a bipartisan group did. Therefore, they should not have wasted their time.

          I don’t happen to agree with this, but that’s what their point is

          • @Rapidcreek
            link
            -29 months ago

            Yes, it was a bluff that failed by Republicans.

            • @Ensign_Crab
              link
              English
              -19 months ago

              And we’re not talking about funding Ukraine anymore. Republicans got what they wanted. Democrats get nothing. So both sides are happy.

        • @agitatedpotato
          link
          09 months ago

          Oh so its gonna pass because it’s bipartisan?

          • @Rapidcreek
            link
            -29 months ago

            Didn’t see the “usually” part?

            • @agitatedpotato
              link
              0
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              So it sounds like you’re agreeing it’s not gonna pass, so why should they be bipartisan with the bill if it doesn’t move the needle?

              • @Rapidcreek
                link
                -29 months ago

                I’m of the opinion that indicators are that it won’t go to the floor of the house for a vote because it would pass. But, the fat lady hasn’t sung yet. Bipartisan work usually does move the needle, but obviously not with MAGA Mike.

        • @Ensign_Crab
          link
          English
          -19 months ago

          The only shit Democrats got done here was kissing Republicans’ asses and getting nothing out of it at all.

          So centrists will soon be calling it the most progressive shit ever.

          • @Rapidcreek
            link
            09 months ago

            Not at all. Democrats called their bluff. Republicans said they wanted a border bill, and they got one. Now they’ve proven it wasn’t about the border at all.

            • @Ensign_Crab
              link
              English
              09 months ago

              Hooray. We proved the obvious. We also proved that Democrats will do what Republicans want for the sheer joy of getting nothing out of it.

        • queermunist she/her
          link
          fedilink
          -59 months ago

          Seldom satisfy? This shit was so bad it’s enough to make people not vote for them. If this bipartisan bill had been successful it would have resulted in an extremely bad policy.

          Fortunately Republicans would rather get nothing done than get everything they want if it means Democrats can’t have a “win”.

          • @Rapidcreek
            link
            -29 months ago

            So in the end, you complain that you don’t like the terms of a bill that won’t pass anyway. Sounds like a good use of time.