Democrats have control over the senate

[JeanneAdil 6,491]

4 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

The Senate still has the filibuster rule, so if they don't change that, in reality legislation still requires 60 to actually bring the bill to the floor for the up/down vote.  This is not the case anymore for confirmation votes of appointees/judges. 

Filibuster rule is for ending debates and yes 60 are needed

but to pass a bill it takes only 51 and without a bill (new law or rule) nothing will really change

but to further what will happen with immigration issues

this is what i find the new administration expects Congress to address and i don't see immigration is part of the following statement 

 

Joe Biden has advanced a range of ambitious policy proposals on issues including the economy, health care, and the environment. But even if he wins the White House in 2020, he will face considerable institutional obstacles in pursuing his agenda in Congress. The Senate cloture rule—which requires 60 votes to cut off debate on most measures—is probably the highest hurdle.

[SalishSea 17,818]

54 minutes ago, Mike E said:

Control over the Senate requires 60 senators, unless the Democrats decide to change Senate rules.

 

There won't be any immigration reform unless 10 Republican senators can be convinced. 

60?  Please check your math.

[JeanneAdil 6,491]

Getting into the real politics and this is probably not the place, but we now have an elderly President and Democratic Congress for 4 years

and 4 years are not enough to change things (not really) not when the new administration will spend the big part his first year making appointments and many of them require Senate approval (keeping them busy as well). so,  think ,  who will be in charge 4 years from now as Biden will be 82. 

as far as immigration is concerned there are many appointments to be made that affect the departments involved.

 

the biggest part of this process for immigration (our concerns) can be the removal and appointment of the ambassadors that serve in our various embassies according to the Roger's Act of 1924 and the Foreign Service Act of 1980

 

Knowing who will be the ambassador and that person's experience in guiding the post is important to each and every one of us

for instance the Casa embassy had a long period (9 months with no ambassador) before the Trump administration appointed Ambassador Fisher and it was definitely noted that the embassy and visa services were affected.

 

The United States Government Policy and Supporting Positions, or Plum Book, is used to identify presidentially appointed positions within the federal government. It lists the over 9,000 potential civil service leadership and support positions in the Legislative and Executive branches of the federal government that may be subject to political appointments

 

 

[Mike E 11,739]

57 minutes ago, tsabbas said:

There are 100 Senate seats. If the 2 seats in Georgia are confirmed Democrat, the seats will be split 50/50. If everyone votes on party lines, the tie breaker vote is cast by the vice-president so in this scenario the Senate will be controlled by the party of the vice-president, which will be Democrat. So, the Democrats will control the Senate assuming the Georgia seats both go Democrat. No change in Senate rules needed - not sure where you got 60 from? 

 

 

That's not how the Senate works.  

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option#The_60-vote_rule

 

Quote

Beginning with a rules change in 1806, the Senate did not restrict the total time allowed for debate. In 1917, Rule XXII was amended to allow for ending debate (invoking "cloture") with a two-thirds majority, later reduced in 1975 to three-fifths of all senators "duly chosen and sworn" (usually 60).^[6] Thus, although a bill might have majority support, a minority of 41 or more senators can still prevent a final vote through endless debate, effectively defeating the bill.

The rule can be modified: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option#Use_in_2013_and_2017

 

Quote

On November 21, 2013, the Democratic majority Senate voted 52–48, with all Republicans and three Democrats voting against (Carl Levin of Michigan, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Mark Pryor of Arkansas), to rule that "the vote on cloture under Rule XXII for all nominations other than for the Supreme Court of the United States is by majority vote,"^[34] even though the text of the rule requires "three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn" to end debate.^[35] This ruling's precedent eliminated the 60-vote requirement to end a filibuster against all executive branch nominees and judicial nominees other than to the Supreme Court.^[36] The text of Rule XXII was never changed.^[35] A 3/5 supermajority was still required to end filibusters unrelated to those nominees, such as for legislation and Supreme Court nominees.^[37]

Quote

On April 6, 2017, Senate Republicans invoked the nuclear option to remove the Supreme Court exception created in 2013. This was after Senate Democrats filibustered the nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court of the United States, after the Senate Republicans had previously refused to take up Merrick Garland's nomination by President Obama in 2016.^[47][48][49]

Once again, unless 10 Republican senators support immigration reform, or the 3/5s rule is revoked, there will not be immigration reform. Sorry.

[Dashinka 24,488]

56 minutes ago, JeanneAdil said:

Getting into the real politics and this is probably not the place, but we now have an elderly President and Democratic Congress for 4 years

and 4 years are not enough to change things (not really) not when the new administration will spend the big part his first year making appointments and many of them require Senate approval (keeping them busy as well). so,  think ,  who will be in charge 4 years from now as Biden will be 82. 

as far as immigration is concerned there are many appointments to be made that affect the departments involved.

 

the biggest part of this process for immigration (our concerns) can be the removal and appointment of the ambassadors that serve in our various embassies according to the Roger's Act of 1924 and the Foreign Service Act of 1980

 

Knowing who will be the ambassador and that person's experience in guiding the post is important to each and every one of us

for instance the Casa embassy had a long period (9 months with no ambassador) before the Trump administration appointed Ambassador Fisher and it was definitely noted that the embassy and visa services were affected.

 

The United States Government Policy and Supporting Positions, or Plum Book, is used to identify presidentially appointed positions within the federal government. It lists the over 9,000 potential civil service leadership and support positions in the Legislative and Executive branches of the federal government that may be subject to political appointments

 

 

Just one correction, the Congress may only have a Democrat majority for 2 years.

[JeanneAdil 6,491]

5 hours ago, Ikhan said:

Now that Democrats have control over the senate, how quickly can immigration reform occur? UScis needs an overhaul imo

Watching news from several different channels (many local Georgia stations as i am  almost on the state line) and as of right now,  who controls Senate is  not yet confirmed.   

[Babu Frik 1,162]

The race wasn't even called when this was posted, and why would you expect a sudden dramatic change?

Wishful thinking.

 

Also I wouldn't expect significant changes to CR1.

Even if there were eventual changes, you'd probably be done with your journey by the time they go into effect.

[Cathi 5,746]

6 hours ago, Mike E said:

Control over the Senate requires 60 senators, unless the Democrats decide to change Senate rules.

 

There won't be any immigration reform unless 10 Republican senators can be convinced. 

It's actually 67 Senators-2/3.

Democrats do have the majority now and control over many things.

[Babu Frik 1,162]

rioters have control 😂

[ROC-AL 87]

Does anyone think that the system is kept like this for reasons not being told to the general public....like big industries like the chicken and meat processing plants that rely on low skilled and low paying jobs. Nor democrats or republicans are interested in a major overhaul. Donors would have a fit if they needed to pay decent living wages and on top of that have to get rid of the cheap undocumented labor that is easily available and exploited. 

 

On the legal side of things. K1's and other legal immigrants...that is another story altogether. Trump fired or put the breaks on immigration and almost bankrupted USCIS. Those skilled ppl that used to do the job might have left altogether and now the mess is even bigger to fixed. Not a 6 month training process. In our time left to be naturalized...nothing major will happen. My wife will be USC before their is any changes, thank God. 

[Mike E 11,739]

1 hour ago, Cathi said:

It's actually 67 Senators-2/3.

Democrats do have the majority now and control over many things.

I’ve already cited a reference that says your are not correct. 
 

The civics exam does need to be tougher.  😀

[igoyougoduke 1,656]

i expect 0 immigration bills to get passed. first 2 years they will punt, next 2 years if house or senate flips than its all back to he said she said 

[Duke & Marie 1,389]

Unfortunately if any changes occur all it will do is increase the cost and time taken to process LEGAL Migration. 
 

Why do I say this?
1. The number of people illegally crossing the boarder will significantly increase,

2. These illegals will mostly apply for refugee status,

3. The Refugee application process is almost free, I think $60 or so 

4. Refugee cases must be prioritised, since ICE etc can’t accomodate them all and they will need work authority etc

5. USCIS isn’t funded by the government, it’s an applicant pay for service, so fees of all other visa’s e.g. CR1/K1/Work/Tourist etc etc will increase since more staff are needed to prioritise illegals... 

6. Like every other bureautic organisation, money goes walkabout, so the number of new staff:fee ratio won’t be nearly enough to process everything in a timely way, so processing times will increase. 

[XenophiliusPDX 50]

6 hours ago, Duke & Marie said:

Unfortunately if any changes occur all it will do is increase the cost and time taken to process LEGAL Migration. 
 

Why do I say this?
1. The number of people illegally crossing the boarder will significantly increase,

2. These illegals will mostly apply for refugee status,

3. The Refugee application process is almost free, I think $60 or so 

4. Refugee cases must be prioritised, since ICE etc can’t accomodate them all and they will need work authority etc

5. USCIS isn’t funded by the government, it’s an applicant pay for service, so fees of all other visa’s e.g. CR1/K1/Work/Tourist etc etc will increase since more staff are needed to prioritise illegals... 

6. Like every other bureautic organisation, money goes walkabout, so the number of new staff:fee ratio won’t be nearly enough to process everything in a timely way, so processing times will increase. 

Refugees and asylum seekers aren’t “illegals.” They’re refugees and asylum seekers who by nature of their having made application to USCIS for work permits and refugee status, they’re not even undocumented. It’s a terribly sad day if “refugee” and “illegal” are synonymous terms in the United States. 
 

Your deduction  is based on the assumption that any change to immigration law would lead to increases in illegal border crossings. Given that there is no bill presently, there is no way for that assumption to be based on facts. 

[Ed&Midori1031 330]

19 hours ago, Ikhan said:

Now that Democrats have control over the senate, how quickly can immigration reform occur? UScis needs an overhaul imo

Among everything that is going on with our country, or eve in the world, the #1 issue right now is covid, as we all know. I do hope for some positive change, especially with immigration.