Should Democrats' Reconciliation Bill for Infrastructure Include Immigration Reforms?

"unauthorized immigrants?" All of them? Anyone who has been able to sneak across the border, now gets to stay and have a path to citizenship, is that really what I just read? Do that, and the flood of immigrants we have now will start to look like a trickle in comparison. Word will get around, and the border crisis will live up to the name "crisis." We may want to help out the world's poor, but we can not take them all.

I don’t give a damn what you define infrastructure border security is a infrastructure

immigration reforms are too important to the Citizens of the USA and it must be a stand alone bill.

No discussion of any kind of amnesty. The border must be secure, exit visa monitoring, and everify befory any consideration

America’s inhumane and racist immigration system needs to be reformed immediately, especially after the actions of 45’s administration. The longer we wait, the more intergenerational damage is done.

It largely depends on which parts of an overall immigration policy would be appropriate to include with a bill for infrastructure improvement. Since the bill already includes extending the definition of “infrastructure” to include essential healthcare workers, many of whom are immigrants with work permits or green card status, it would seem appropriate to include the parts of an immigration policy that would affect them. I would not think including the entire immigration policy would be appropriate.

Well of course, it has to include immigration reform. We are going to need to build a number of "communities" in the wide open spaces of the western states where there is lots of space for them. They will need to include schools and neighborhoods, grocery stores etc, etc, everything any families would need to grow and develop and prosper. That is our promise on the Statue of Liberty and I still stand by that!

Immigration needs its own legislation.

No. It has no place in an infrastructure bill regardless of the spin leftists want to put on the definition of infrastructure. All of their wokeness and reimagining of everything that will serve them is slowly being exposed and would be quashed entirely if the mainstream media were not providing cover and distraction through incompetent journalism. And referring to them as journalists is a stretch as many in today's media do not possess journalism degrees but rather got their jobs based on what liberal politician they campaigned in support of. Hilarious too seeing the comments about everything "bad-Republican" from posters essentially calling for and supporting a one-party regime. Let's talk about election fraud, Biden-Ukraine and uncle Joe's troubled cognitive state.

If this bill only takes a 51 majority, why not include voter rights? I am 73 years old. I have voted in every election since I was 21. I worked as an Inspector in Arizona for over 10 years and worked in other precincts for another 10 plus years. I usually vote by mail. But this year, the dirty Republicans have chosen to not allow vote by mail. And we have the capability to change this Jim Crow wrangling in the Senate. All we have to do is abolish the filibuster. Then we can get thi ngs done. I hope our senator will take the advice of an old democrat and abolish the filibuster. Otherwise, we may never see another democrat in office ever again and we wil lose our democracy. So what is it, Sinema? Are you a democrat or have you joined ranks of those crooked Republicans.

Joe Manchin. The multi-millionaire that earns a six-figure government salary, a government pension (since he’s worked more than 4 years in the Senate) and gets a paid-for staff, office, and generous medical benefits. Oh, and one of the Senators who maintains an image as a guy from, of, and for the working class. He now says he won’t support the infrastructure bill if it’s not fully paid for, and there’s lots of “free money” that we could use. He doesn’t specify where the free money is: Is it from the extended unemployment benefits refused by Republican governors and legislatures under the expert-debunked theory that people don’t need it and it is preventing businesses from finding workers? I hope not. Maybe he means the taxes that corporations and the super wealthy evade paying added to the gifts these elite were handed in the 2017 tax reform. If that’s the case, those unpaid taxes and unwarranted tax-reducing gift won’t be available for use until the filibuster is reformed or killed, and until the reality of non-bipartisanship is accepted. The bill Manchin appears to be repudiating was negotiated by a bi-partisanship group, so it could be called bi-partisan in that regard. However, I predict that there won’t be 10 Republicans that vote for it, including some of those who negotiated it. Why do I predict that? Because events have unfolded this way before- a carrot gets dangled in front of the donkey only to be snatched away as the donkey reaches for it. Or two people negotiate a deal and to seal it both reach to shake hands only to have one snatch their hand back just before the clasp occurs. Reported today: Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) warned on Tuesday that he wants both a bipartisan infrastructure bill and a separate Democratic-only bill to be fully paid for. "I think everything should be paid for. We've put enough free money out," Manchin told reporters. Manchin's demand, if he sticks to it, could create real problems in Democratic negotiations. The party in a matter of weeks is seeking to exercise a complicated legislative goal of winning Senate approval of both a bipartisan infrastructure measure opposed by many progressives, and a budget resolution that will tee up a larger Democratic bill filled with spending priorities. The latter bill will not win any GOP support and will need to pass with just Democratic votes, including Manchin's. A group of 22 senators, including Manchin, agreed to a framework for a bipartisan infrastructure deal that would spend $1.2 trillion over eight years. But there are concerns among Republicans that the bill isn't fully paid for, threatening GOP support for the bill. Republican negotiators in the group have warned that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) could lowball the amount of revenue the proposal will raise. "I know there are some things that we're relying on as pay-fors that will probably not receive a CBO score but nonetheless are real," Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) told reporters. Meanwhile, Democrats are trying to agree to a price tag for their larger bill. In order to pass the reconciliation bill Democrats to have total unity from all 50 of their members for a budget resolution, which would include the top-line and instructions for the Democratic-only bill, and the subsequent infrastructure bill itself. The measure under Senate rules cannot be filibustered, meaning the GOP can't block it. Democrats have yet to agree on a top-line figure. Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) met with Budget Committee Democrats on Monday night but didn't get an agreement. They'll meet again on Tuesday night. Senate Budget Committee Chairman Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has thrown out $6 trillion, paying for roughly half, as where he would like to go on the Democratic-only bill. Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), a member of the panel, has suggested he's closer to roughly $4 trillion. Manchin has acknowledged that a Democratic-only bill is "inevitable," but hasn't committed to a specific top-line. But he's warned that he doesn't want to go as high as Sanders. "I want to make sure we pay for it. I do not want to add more debt on. So if that's $1 trillion or $1.5 trillion or $2 trillion, whatever that comes out to be over a 10 year period, that's what I would be voting for," Manchin told ABC News last month.” https://thehill.com/policy/transportation/562746-manchin-draws-red-line-in-infrastructure-talks

Let’s just pass the infrastructure bill no matter what - it must must must happen before the 2022 elections

Immigration law has needed to be reformed for a long time.( A bipartisan bill was to be introduced to congress just before 9/11 happened and all consideration of immigration was off the table) It is a hot button issue that has been politicized- Including it in the infrastructure bill would be assure the failure of infrastructure . Get what is possible and acknowledge that immigration will continue to be a problem - especially with increased immigration caused by climate change, until we have updated, reasonable federal laws

No. I am sick and tired of legislators on both sides of the aisle holding valuable legislation such as the infrastructure bill hostage by packing pork and unrelated legislation into the bill. Each bill should be debated and voted up or down based upon its own merits without these entangling legislative add-ons.

CAUSES ASKS: "Should Democrats try to include a pathway to citizenship in their infrastructure reconciliation bill?" ME: Don't think so. It's a stretch too far, and should stand on its own worthy merits. The GOP will kick it out anyway.

The only reform needed is show them the way out of here.

Infrastructure Bill should ONLY address true infrastructure projects...not advance liberal open border immigration political views.

Do a clean immigration bill and quickly

The subject of Immigration Reform is too controversial for Dems to be an add on to Infrastructure Bill, that will be blindly voted upon as a test of party loyalty instead of the good of country. Keep Immigration items separate so the voters can speak.

This is the problem in govt - too often they lump unrelated things in to bills to either force them through or to shoot down the main reason for the bill. Do the old fashioned way of crafting in committee then to the floor for a vote for each different issue.