The Senate passed an aid bill today for Ukraine and Israel (and Taiwan). Mitch McConnell hopes that Speaker Mike Johnson will allow the House to vote on it:
Mitch McConnell in an interview Tuesday urged Speaker Mike Johnson to allow a vote on Ukraine aid, though the Senate minority leader said he would not be “so presumptuous as to tell him how to do it.”
....“We’ve heard all kinds of rumors about whether the House supports Ukraine or doesn’t. It seems to me that the easy way to solve that would be to vote. And I hope the speaker will find a way to allow the House to work its will on the issue of Ukraine aid and the other parts of the bill as well,” McConnell said.
So far Johnson has suggested he'll block consideration, which means Republicans will have refused to pass an aid bill that includes immigration reforms and refused to pass an aid bill that doesn't include immigration reforms.
Mickey Kaus suggests passing an aid bill that includes one, single immigration reform that's a plain and unmistakable win for the right. Nothing complicated. I myself would be in favor of that if the single reform were passage of nationwide mandatory E-Verify along with effective funding and enforcement.¹ This is because it's simple, it would work, and I support it anyway.
This would lose some Democratic votes, of course, but ironically, it would probably also lose some Republican votes since the business community doesn't like E-Verify. That's because they know it would work, and they don't really want anything that works.² They're willing to tolerate lots of right-wing threats and blather, but only as long as they don't do anything that would truly put their flow of cheap foreign labor at risk.
Also, of course, I assume the House wouldn't accept even a simple carrot like E-Verify since they've made it clear that they don't actually want any immigration reform until Donald Trump is in office.³
¹I'd also like to see funding for more asylum judges since that seems like such a simple and obvious measure. But if I only get one thing in the name of simplicity, I'd choose E-Verify.
²Although the Chamber of Commerce supports it, so....
³Although who knows? They might change their tune when the January immigration numbers are released. I suspect they're going to be well under the December record. If Republicans start to fear that the immigration surge at the border is waning, which would rob them of an issue, they might be more willing to deal.
"Mickey Kaus suggests..."
a) Mickey Kaus is still alive?
b) You still read Mickey Kaus?
c) Mickey Kaus enjoys relations with goats.
d) underage goats
If Republicans start to fear that the immigration surge at the border is starting to wane, robbing them of an issue ...
The immigration surge has almost nothing to do with the "issue." Indeed, in the past, when there has been no "surge," they've come up with "caravans" and "calves like cantaloupes" and so on. And by now they're so brazen with their lying, they'd say there's one anyway.
The "issue" is that the large majority of White Republicans don't like brown people, especially ones who don't speak English like civilized people. Of course they don't like black people either, or brown people who do speak English, but Latinos happen to be the hate-object of the day, and Republicans will not give that up for any reason, facts be damned (not least because other than "Biden old" it's pretty much all they got).
So no, they will emphatically NOT be "willing to deal." If that isn't crystal clear by now given their recent actions and rhetoric, somebody better check your water supply.
"...but Latinos happen to be the hate-object of the day..."
We need to reframe the discussion. The slogan should be: A taco truck on every corner!
Who could argue with that?
Sorry I get digestive upsets with spicy food. I'd be down for a Ramen truck instead hold the chili crunch.
Mike Johnson has already said that any plan that allows even one person to cross the border illegally is unacceptable. The reality is that “the border!” Is Trump’s main campaign issue. Passing any kind of resolution is a non-starter for the Trumpian Party.
Also, they don’t give a shit about Ukraine and outright support Putin. Taiwan had better start building nukes or just allow themselves to be subjected. Even Israel should get the message that with Trump in power they are on their own depending on Trump’s whims.
Elect Trump and get World War III! Except America won't be fighting the bad guys this time. And there's no one left to come to the rescue this time.
There's really nothing anyone can do to stop it. After all, Joe Biden is old.
"Elect Trump and get World War III! Except America won't be fighting the bad guys this time. ..."
A previous post claimed Trump was a wimp who was afraid to go to war.
He can still stumblefuck his way into it happening. Which is what inviting Russia to attack NATO encourages.
Not sure what post you're referring to, but not one of mine. Still, Trump is a wimp, among other things.
But he doesn't need to invade other countries. He only needs to do nothing.
The only thing preventing WWIII right now is the US and our NATO alllies. Putin, as we speak, is building up troops on the border with Estonia. He has ambitions beyond Ukraine. The world is increasingly a powder keg. Elect Trump and the shit hits the fan.
He was a wimp, and was afraid to go to war. Hence the bone spurs.
But I'm sure he'd be willing, as president, to push for a war he was 100% certain he could win. OTOH, he seemed pretty certain about the trade war with China, and look how that turned out.
Taiwan is about the size of Maryland. China has about 500 nuclear warheads. There isn’t much point to Taiwan having nukes of their own because in any nuclear exchange, the island would be completely irradiated, and any Taiwanese victors/survivors would immediately have nowhere to live out the remaining days of their radiation-poisoned lives.
But the unfortunate logic of MAD makes the issue not whether Taiwan would survive but whether the PRC would be willing to suffer the consequences of an attack, especially given that they would gain nothing in return except a radioactive Maryland-sized glass parking lot. Roughly, Taiwan would be saying "yeah you can kill me but you won't get a dime out of it and you'll be crippled for the rest of your life.
Second-order thinking is not permitted in comments.
Lol you should read some of the 1950s-70s "literature" on the theory (thank dog only that, so far anyway) of nuclear war. It takes the reasoning to utterly absurd lengths (demonstrated absurd in even simple war-gaming).
Actually, I take that back. You shouldn't read it. It's like trying to breathe in space.
The PRC would immediately invade if the Taiwanese tested a device. Yes, MAD might work if you’ve got an *arsenal*, but that’s going to take time to create. They should have told Washington where to stick it when we pressured them to shut down their program decades ago. In other words, what Israel did. I do think it’s quite likely. Japan, though, will immediately begin developing a nuclear arsenal if the PRC attacks Taiwan. Tokyo supposedly is only a turn of the screwdriver away, as the saying goes.
MAD isn't about surviving a nuclear exchange. It's exactly the opposite.
Now in the case of Taiwan and mainland China, the damage would be asymmetrical, but a "winning" exchange would cripple China for a century or so, and destroy the CCP, so that's about as effective a deterrence as you can get, absent a massive nuclear stockpile.
That's why NK has nukes, and Iran wants them... and if Iraq had them, Saddam Hussein or his sons might still be in power there.
"This is because it's simple, it would work, and I support it anyway."
Respectfully disagree. While the concept of E-Verify might work, here is the reality:
- There is no accurate single national database to determine citizenship, legal residents etc.
- We lack biometric ID's and the tools to ensure data integrity
- The legal infrastructure and enforcement is lax: what REALLY happens to employers who don't use E Verify
- what are the real policies? If you are not in the database are you actually physically removed from the country, the hospital etc?
- Add in sanctuary cities
- etc
To actually make E Verify work would be a huge, all of government, task.
I understand that “sanctuary cities” have all the Green Lantern powers and can do absolutely anything they want. But the states they’re in can force businesses to use E-Verify and punish those businesses for not doing so. In no state do sanctuary cities hold a veto over state government action.
Austin - my point E Verify, as it currently exists, is a marginal tool. The database is FAR from complete and holds lots of errors. We lack a strong national ID. We have zero agreement on what to do with the undocumented etc.
So sure, you could pass a national law to use E Verify. The reality is the current E Verify system does not work: pushing a lot more people through this system would solve very little...
Thank you. This is absolutely correct. Until E-verify is updated to require a non-falsifiable biometric id, it's pretty useless. And the reason it's close to impossible to enforce work status with E-verify is because it's often imposssible to assign liability for unauthorized workers who game the system. Is it the employer? What if they're using employees who were supposedly verified by some labor contractor (as is the case with most farm workers)? Is it the labor contractor? What if they were presented with IDs and SSNs that appeared genuine? How much should they have invested in making sure that faded Salvadoran birth certificate from 1972 is real? When does scrutinizing paperwork cross the line into illegal discrimination (oh, so my name is Hernandez or Zhang and I get the third degree about my papers, but Mr. Smith over here sails right through?)?
It's complicated.
Every day I am more convinced that immigration has nothing to do with getting aid approved in the House.
At first, it was a GOP excuse for not approving aid. No, we can't protect Ukraine's borders if we're not protecting our own. So Republicans make ridiculous demands on border security that Democrats will never agree, and the blame will fall on Dems for tanking the deal.
Oops. Democrats are agreeing to demands tougher than anything GOP expected. Now, what? Trump says no border deal: chaos is better. Deal is dead. Back to square one.
Now, GOP says: can't agree to aid with no deal on the border. Yes, they themselves killed the deal. It makes no sense. But when people do things that don't make sense they reveal the truth: the GOP (taking orders from Trump) really doesn't want a deal on aid for Ukraine, plain and simple.
William of Ockham lived 700 years ago and we should heed his advice. What that means:
THE REASON REPUBLICANS IN THE HOUSE DO NOT WANT TO PASS AID FOR UKRAINE IS BECAUSE DONALD TRUMP IS PALSY-WALSY WITH VLADIMIR PUTIN AND WANTS PUTIN TO WIN THE WAR.
Yes, he's a traitor. Of course, he is! And blocking US aid for Ukraine has NOTHING to do with security at our Southern border. That was just a smokescreen.
How aid gets done I don't know. I hear people talk about a discharge petition but I'm not clear how that works or if it's possible. But I hope it can get the job done.
I think a discharge petition is pretty unlikely to work. As I understand the rules (someone with better knowledge should chime in) such a petition must be introduced and referred to the appropriate committee for thirty days (not sure if that's actual days or Congressional working days, which is a very significant difference) and then must be signed by a majority of the House. Which means that even if every Democrat signs (which is no sure thing right now since the bill includes aid to Israel that is problematic with some ATM), at least a handful of Republicans must sign. A handful of Republicans who must not only buck more than 200 of their peers, oppose their Orange Jesus, and suffer a guaranteed primary fight from a MAGA cultist, but accept the almost certain destruction of any political career within the Republican Party as well as serious and significant death threats against them and their family. Doubtless egged on by not very subtle unhinged Truth Social posts written in fluent mob boss-ese by said Orange Jesus.
IIRC one way around the thirty-day thing is to have one already "ripe" and use it as a vehicle. Whether they do have such a one AND want to "spend" it on this issue I dunno.
I believe they have a bill that had been prepared for the debt-ceiling increase, which wasn’t necessary when McCarthy decided to keep government running. I am certain they would use it to spring the aid bill. Not only is it the right thing to do, but if Ukraine suffers reverses from the Republicans having blocked aid, you can be sure the R’s would blame Biden. And their base of gullible ignoramuses would believe it.
For what it's worth, Hakeem Jeffries says the aid bill would get 300 votes in the House. Without spelling out details, he said Democrats would use every legislative tool available to get a vote on the package.
A discharge petition is a way around the Speaker's control of the agenda. If a majority of the House signs it, the issue has to be brought to the floor (discharged from committee) for a vote. IIRC it doesn't guarantee an up-or-down vote on the matter itself, eg because there can be other motions or maybe amendments or whatnot, but at least it gets it out of limbo.
The difficulty would be getting enough Republicans to sign on. Any running for re-election would of course be primaried over it, so the best bet is likely the dozen-plus who won't be running, but even they can have their children kidnapped and houses firebombed by MAGA patriots. And I've seen commentary that not all Dems necessarily would support it because of squabbling over Gaza. But it's not utterly implausible.
There are some technical requirements, but essentially a discharge petition needs 218 signatures (a simple majority). Since Republicans have a narrow majority, at least four Republicans would need to defy their leadership and sign the petition.
I believe that helping Ukraine defend itself from aggression is vital to world security, including American security. And it's probably true that at least four House Republicans believe the same thing. But whether there are four Republicans who are willing to defy the Speaker is a much more doubtful question.
Unfortunately the effective leader of the Republican party is a Russian asset, and anyone who had enough backbone to put the country's interest ahead of Donald Trump's (or Vladimir Putin's) has been drummed out of the party.
I can guarantee at least one Republican: Victoria Spartz. Born in Ukraine, she's been extremely vocal on funding Ukraine's efforts.
Either laundered Russian money is being funneled into Republican accounts, or Putin has incriminating photos/documents of lots of Republican members of Congress, or both. They are clearly dead set against aiding Ukraine. Johnson has talked about possibly breaking up the aid bill into separate bills for each recipient entity, so that they can screw the Ukrainians and the Gazans, thereby sucking up to both Putin and Netanyahu.
Didn't even know about this when I wrote the above:
https://www.newsweek.com/house-speaker-mike-johnson-donations-russia-butina-1838501
I'd be willing to bet MAGAs are going to deal with this by trying to dump Johnson. He started out with good will among the wingnuts and they've given him a pass when he's relied on D votes for the continuing resolutions, but I've read that he developed a habit of telling everybody what they want to hear from him even though the promises are contradictory and for some reason people are getting pissed about that. Senate Rs have already had it with him and one point of this bill is to put him on the spot.
A motion to vacate probably wouldn't pass this time, and Ds could make sure it wouldn't if necessary. But it would cause an uproar even so and magnify the poisonously bad feelings inside the R caucus-- in other words, sow chaos, which is MAGA's reason for being-- and it would extend the stall on aid for Ukraine as trump wants. And the bigger play for trump is showing how he controls Congress, which this kind of move would do. So it's one thing I'll be looking for.
The absolute cravenness of Republicans towards the Defendant is astounding to this Dem. A party that brags on its "morality" and "personal responsibility" and how they "stand their ground" yada yada yada are revealed as crying little babies whenever their Master and Messiah speaks.
Democrats ought to be harping on this. Also, that the Defendant has issued these orders so he'll have an easier job taking on Old Joe Biden, who he apparently fears even as he bashes him.
The whole Republican Party is a sham and a fraud. Pass it along.
The spirit of servility sure is a wonder to behold here in the land of the free, innit?
headline in wapo: Biden forcefully condemns Trump’s NATO comments as ‘un-American’
biden needs to start saying trump's appeasment of putin will not end well for the united states
(appeasment signals weakness, which trump hates)
then claim that if trump's elected he'll arrange an apology tour in moscow to grovel before putin in the kremlin
On the Newshour last evening either Lisa or Laura said "Well it sounds like Insurrection is whatever the President says it is." and everybody laughed and kind of agreed. I'm not sure that's literally true, but they were talking about Trump's assertion that he would ask all state governors to Federalize their National Guard forces to round-up undocumented immigrants by invoking The Insurrection Act. If the Blue State governors refused, Trump would order the nearest Red State Guard into the refusenik state.
So apparently, at least in the context of the Insurrection Act which WAS USED three times during the Twentieth Century -- it's not a Civil War-era relic -- the President has a lot of authority to declare an Insurrection.
So, Joe, if you're listening, declare Trump's rally in South Carolina where he spewed that traitorous threat an Insurrection, grab him next Saturday evening and render him immediately to Guantanamo, out of the purview of US Civil courts. Try him under the UCMJ. It's not very far from Palm Beach to Gitmo in a CIA G-stream.
if that's how trump sees it, biden could just declare j6 an insurrection
Andy Biggs conceded the bill would pass if given a floor vote. But definitely-not-a-dictator Trump has ordered Moses Johnson not to allow a vote, so there won't be one.