Dems in Senate Block Smith STEM Bill

Not surprisingly, the STEM bill that passed last week in the House will not move in the Senate. And that's because Lamar Smith put a poison pill in the bill that virtually guaranteed it would never reach the President's desk. It's the same poison pill he insists be inserted in every piece of green card legislation. Any new green cards must be matched with a reduction somewhere else. In other words, no net increase. It's a fundamentally anti-immigration position and the Democrats are not willing to accept that condition. And why should they? In a few weeks, Smith won't be calling the shots anymore and the parties negotiating the bigger comprehensive immigration reform bill certainly won't feel the need to abide by such a condition.

Comments

[Jack]

That's not what he said. He said that no net increase = *fundamentally* anti-immigration. Zoe Lofgren went even further and said zero-sum = "dangerous thought".

[Another Voice]

"So if you were offered to make changes but with no net increase you would have to turn it down because that would be fundamentally "anti-immigration"?"

No Jack it means that your proposed solution does not in fact help move the country towards fixing immigration in practical terms. In political terms it means that why should you take a bad deal when in January you can get a better deal including in this issue....why spent political capital that you can use somewhere else and still fix things. But hey you would not understand fixing unless is reductionist in nature.

[Backlogged]

For all you know it may be because the president and senators want to go on their vacations (http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2012/12/07/wh-petition-demands-obama-cancel-hawaii-vacation/)

"who cares about them immigrants, as long as they maintain the rhetoric" seems to be the mood in the WH anyways.The leadership is off to Hawaii.

[Jack]

"no net increase. It's a fundamentally anti-immigration position."

You sound like Zoe Lofgren but without the hysteria. So if you were offered to make changes but with no net increase you would have to turn it down because that would be fundamentally "anti-immigration"?