The third and most recent plan to include immigration reform in the Build Back Better Act has been rejected by the Senate parliamentarian. The basis for the denied immigration proposal is that the proposal doesn’t satisfy the rules as to what can be included in the budget proposal that bypasses the Senate’s filibuster. The two previous proposals that provided a pathway to citizenship for millions of immigrants were also denied. The most recent plan removed the pathway to citizenship in an effort to meet required guidelines, offering a temporary parole status, and recapture of previously expired visas.
The next steps aren’t yet clear. Democratic senators are continuing to work on a new option, however, there is no additional option developed at this point.
The denied immigration proposal from the parliamentarian isn’t binding. So, Democrats are working to bypass the parliamentarian review. Their options are to put the proposal to a vote, which seemingly will be a bit of an uphill battle. The other option is to overrule the parliamentarian. That approach requires 50 votes, and the Democrats believe they will fall short of that, given the opposition of certain senators from West Virginia and Arizona.
Immigration advocates suggest the Democrats ignore the parliamentarian and push the Build Back Better Act forward with the current immigration updates. However, this approach is seemingly risky as, without the parliamentarian approval, any senator on the floor can force a vote to change the Act, which seems likely.
The original proposal included 8 million green cards for four specific groups: Dreamers, Temporary Protection Status holders, Agricultural workers, and other essential workers. That proposal was rejected on the basis of being ‘not appropriate’ for reconciliation, which is the option that avoids the open senate floor and likely resulting filibuster. This suggestion, and the second one, were both rejected on the basis that there were too many rights extended. The third proposal was rejected because it ‘is not much different in its effect than the previous proposals’.
