but is it just a symbolic issue? To me the common sense way would be to get the immigration issue into one bill - no amendments. Then debate it and defeat it once and for all. By doing it that way the issue is dead. And the proponents are identified without resorting to guessing and reading between the lines of every speech. It is a matter of who voted “yea.”
What are the other options?
So far it is a little confusing. I have read it the way you are interpreting it, and have read contradictory information in the same article. The way I have so far interpreted it is, the House bill prohibits Obama from spending on amnesty. If that is stripped from the bill, even though they say they are not providing funding, Obama can spend the budget on amnesty. He will veto the followup bill that prohibits spending on amnesty, and spend as he sees fit.
What Mitch is doing is offering what the media and dems say is a “clean” bill, meaning everything Obama wants including the funding for both illegal amnesties for illegal aliens.
Amnesty number one happened in 2012 when Owebowmao unilateraly implemented the Dream Act even though it did not pass Congress and isn’t an Act.
Amnesty number two is the one he anounced this fall. It has been blocked temporarily by a Federal Judge in TX.
Mitch is going to have a vote on a separate bill that would, if passed, remove the funding for the illegal amnesty number two only.
This will either not pass or be vetoed.
Owebowmao then gets the money for his illegal amnesties for illegal aliens.
What’s worse, they can then go into court and tell the judge that Congress has ratified his illegal amnesties for illegal aliens by funding them.
This is a huge double cross.