These Are The Top 5 Legislative Issues That Could Force The Next Government Shutdown

House Republicans successfully managed to kick the can down the road (if only for two weeks) when they managed to pass a two-week extension last week of the continuing resolution that had been funding the government since September.

But after overcoming obstacles created by Democrats and conservative Republicans – with each camp pushing for priorities that were ultimately excluded from the extension bill – the White House and its allies in Congress will still need to figure out how to balance these demands if they want to successfully secure approval for the next funding bill by Dec. 22, the day the current extender bill requires.

Adding to the pressure on Congressional leaders, Republicans also need to work through what’s looking to be a difficult reconciliation process for the tax bill that President Donald Trump has vowed to pass before the end of the year.

With only four legislative sessions left on the official calendar (Congressional leaders reserve the right to delay the beginning of recess, something they will almost certainly need to do) the Hill has provided a quick rundown of five key issues that could possibly derail the spending bill - and finally usher in the shutdown that Trump believes could benefit the White House politically at the expense of Democrats, who are vying to take back the House and/or the Senate during next year"s midterm elections.

* * *

And the issues are...

Immigration:

Trump announced earlier this year that he was ending the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which grants work permits to undocumented young immigrants who came to the U.S. illegally as children.

 

Congress has just a few months left to save the program or come up with a new solution, with DACA recipients set to lose their status beginning in early March.

 

Many Democrats and even some Republicans like Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-Fla.) have demanded that any spending legislation that stretches into 2018 shield so-called Dreamers from deportation.

 

They view the must-pass spending bills as their best shot at getting a DACA solution over the finish line.

 

“We will not leave here without a DACA fix,” Pelosi vowed Thursday.

 

But conservatives have put their foot down on the issue, saying that attaching any DACA deal to a continuing resolution would be a non-starter with the Republican conference.

 

GOP leaders in both chambers have made clear that they oppose linking DACA to government spending bills, setting up a potential showdown at the end of the month.

 

Republicans have in the past had to rely on Pelosi and the Democrats to pass stopgap funding bills, though the House passed the two-week spending bill this week without Democrats. However, Democratic support will still be needed in the Senate.

 

“A DACA solution will be a standalone solution,” Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), chairman of the far-right House Freedom Caucus, told reporters on Thursday. “If DACA gets attached to the spending bill, there will be major, major pushback."

Defense:

It’s all but certain that Congress will need to pass another continuing resolution (CR) on Dec. 22 in order to buy more time to write a massive, omnibus spending package.

 

But defense hawks and conservative members of the House Freedom Caucus worry that yet another short-term spending bill would be harmful for the military.

 

They are insisting that leadership boost money for the Pentagon before the end of the year – and have threatened to vote against another CR this year if that doesn’t happen.

 

One option being considered would be to move a legislative package that funds defense at higher levels through September alongside a short-term patch to fund the rest of the government at current levels through January.

 

It’s unclear whether Democrats would be willing to go along with the idea. Their support would be crucial in the Senate, where at least eight Democratic votes are needed to overcome a filibuster.

 

Democrats have traditionally insisted that any increase in defense spending above budget caps be paired with an increase in spending on domestic programs.

 

But House Republicans could just jam the Senate with the defense-first package and dare vulnerable Democrats like Sens. Joe Manchin (W.Va.) and Claire McCaskill (Mo.) to vote against a bill fully funding the military, especially with the escalating nuclear threat from North Korea hanging over their heads.

 

“Then they can go home and explain why they can’t fund the American military when the House did,” said Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), an Appropriations cardinal.

ObamaCare:

Further complicating spending talks is the commitment that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) gave to Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) to help win her vote for the GOP tax reform bill.

 

McConnell pledged to support passage of two bipartisan ObamaCare fixes before the end of the year, which could be attached to a government funding bill.

 

But House conservatives say they oppose the measures seen as simply propping up ObamaCare.

 

To lock up the necessary Republican votes for the two-week CR this week, House GOP leadership promised that the next spending bill would not contain funding for ObamaCare cost-sharing reduction (CSR) payments, according to Rep. Mark Walker (R-N.C.).

 

“The three things that we’ve been told are not going to happen as part of our agreement: no CSRs, no DACA, no debt limit,” said Walker, chairman of the conservative Republican Study Committee

Disaster aid.

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle want to provide more supplemental funding for hurricane-ravaged Puerto Rico, Texas and Florida, as well as for western areas devastated by wildfires.

 

The thinking is that disaster aid could be attached to the next CR, but members are still debating the price tag, according to Walker.

 

The White House last month requested another $44 billion in disaster aid, which would be the third infusion of cash to help with relief and recovery efforts.

 

But the funding request has been under fire from lawmakers who say it doesn’t go far enough to address the damage from the string of natural disasters.

 

And the White House has insisted that the latest disaster package be offset with cuts to non-defense federal programs, which could be problematic for Democrats.

Children"s health-care and the opioid crisis:

Democrats are also fighting for two health care priorities that could have bipartisan support: the renewal of a popular children’s health program and more money to combat the opioid crisis.

 

Many members are pushing to renew the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), which expired in September.

 

Republicans have said the issue could be attached to the next CR in an effort to sweeten the pot and attract more Democratic votes for the stopgap bill.

 

Democrats have also indicated that they want additional funding to fight the deadly opioid crisis in a larger spending deal.

 

Trump declared the opioid epidemic a public health emergency this year, but he stopped short of declaring it a national emergency — a designation that would have allocated new federal money toward the crisis.

 

It’s unclear, however, if additional dollars will come in a spending package.

 

“We"ve done a lot, put a lot of resources into combating opioids already,” the Senate’s No. 3 Republican, Sen. John Thune (S.D.), said earlier this month. “If they"ve got a proposal, I"m sure we would take a look at it, but I don’t know that that"s at least on the agenda at the moment."

* * *

As the Trump administration continues to get its legislative bearings after Trump’s hectic first year in office (a year in which he accomplished many of the priorities that he set out during the campaign, including recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, rolling back financial regulation and defanging some of the EPA’s most stifling regulations), the president has wasted no time setting out his next major priority: The $1 trillion infrastructure spending plan to help rebuild America’s crumbling roads and bridges.

The Wall Street Journal revealed still more details of the plan, which helped flatten the yield curve last week after Trump revealed that he intends to push ahead on one of his most crucial, yet long-delayed, promises.

While some in Congress might balk at still more deficit-expanding spending, polls show that a majority of Americans – even those who loathe the president – support this aspect of his agenda.

Recent polling showed that 52% of voters who supported Hillary Clinton in 2016 back an infrastructure program, according to the survey. Some 53% of white male respondents in states won by Clinton support an infrastructure initiative, as well as 51% of voters who say they disapprove of the job Trump is doing as president.

All of which begs the question: Will this be the issue that finally forces red-state Democrats to break with the “Chuck and Nancy” enforced plan for mass obstruction and throw their support behind the president’s agenda?

After all, their political futures may depend on it.  
 

Shutdown Imminent? Bitter Divisions Remain As Lawmakers Scramble To Pass Funding Bill

Lawmakers are just two days away from the expiration of the continuing resolution that"s been funding the government for the last two months, and yet many battles over a host of intractable issues are still being fought. At this point, passing something by midnight Friday - when the continuing resolution expires -is looking increasingly problematic.

Adding to the uncertainty are reports that President Donald Trump believes a shutdown could be spun as a political victory for Republicans by blaming it on the Democrats (it worked for Obama) - remarks that would seem to invalidate Mitch McConnell’s declaration that a shutdown “just isn’t going to happen."

Looming largest over negotiations is the fate of former President Obama’s DACA program - which is set to expire in March thanks to a Trump executive order. Most - but not all - Democrats want language preserving DACA attached to the funding bill - as a preliminary deal struck between Trump and “Chuck and Nancy” back in September had stipulated. Many Republicans - even many of those who ultimately support preserving DACA - feel it shouldn’t be attached to the spending bill.

Aside from preserving DACA, there are two other legislative priorities that Democrats and some moderate Republicans are fighting to include in the spending bill: An extension of a popular child health-insurance program, and a provision that would preserve federal cost-sharing payments to insurance companies for a couple of years.

Meanwhile, some conservatives are objecting to the two-week timeline favored by the Republican leadership, arguing that such a short timeline would give lawmakers more leverage to push for favors by threatening to make problems by holding tax reform hostage - something Republicans have promised to pass by the end of the year.

Here’s RealClearPolitics:

Democrats, and several dozen moderate Republicans, want to see a legislative solution for immigrants who came to the United States illegally as children -- known as “Dreamers” -- before the end of the year. Democrats and some Republicans in the Senate also hope to pass bipartisan legislation to shore up the Affordable Care Act marketplace, and lawmakers hope to reauthorize the Children’s Health Insurance Program. Also lingering are the expiring federal flood insurance program, and another round of disaster relief money for areas damaged by hurricanes.

As the Hill points out, many Democrats would refuse to support a spending bill unless it includes the protections for undocumented immigrants who were brought here as children.

Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), all prospects to run for president in three years, say they won’t vote for a year-end funding bill while these immigrants face the threat of deportation.

“I have been clear,” Harris said on the Senate floor Tuesday afternoon, noting the looming deadline to fund the government. “Any bill that funds the government must also include a fix for” the young immigrants.

Members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus have also warned they would oppose spending legislation unless some concessions are made to protect these so-called Dreamers.

Unsurprisingly, red-state Democrats are somewhat less enthusiastic about preserving DACA.

But vulnerable Democrats running for reelection next year in states that President Trump won don’t want any part of that strategy. They are aiming to show swing voters who backed Trump that they’re willing to work with Republicans when it makes sense.

 

“I think it’s stupid talk. You don’t want to shut the government down. That’s not where I’m going to be,” said Sen. Jon Tester. Tester said he wants the Dreamers taken care of, but “you don’t shut the government down."

The Democrats’ leaders in Congress have been wary of appearing to threaten a shutdown lest it makes them look like they’re willing to fight for their principles - something the Democratic Party brain trust apparently believes could hurt Democrats’ chances in next year’s midterms.

Like the original agreement with Trump, Schumer ultimately expects Democrats to reach a deal with Republicans that will offer some border-security concessions in exchange for preserving DACA.

The party’s top leaders, Senate Democratic Leader Charles Schumer (N.Y.) and House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), have assiduously avoided threats of a government shutdown, knowing it could put some of their colleagues in a tough spot.  Schumer downplayed the prospect of Democrats blocking a spending measure to force Republicans to replace the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program that President Obama created in 2012 to halt deportations for certain young immigrants who came to the country illegally as children.

 

“We don’t think we’re going to get to that. There are good negotiations occurring between Democrats and Republicans to come up with a good DACA program, as well as some good border security,” he said Tuesday after a meeting of the Democratic caucus.

According to Bloomberg, conservatives angling for a funding extension until Dec. 30 argue that would give them more leverage over spending demands from Democrats as well as the promises of potentially costly legislation made in the Senate. They also want to use the time to secure more money for the Pentagon.

“You’ve got the major part of our conference making sure our war fighters are taken care of,” said Mark Walker, a North Carolina Republican who chairs the 170-member Republican Study Committee. “But right behind that number you’ve got the fiscal hawks who want to control mandatory spending."

Stocks and yields were slightly lower Wednesday, while the yield on the short-term T-bill that comes due next week trimmed some of its rise but remained just below its highs from earlier in the week.

Still, several lawmakers are insisting that they won’t let the government shutdown. Is that because they fear Trump is right and that a shutdown could endanger Democrats, especially Democrats from red states, during next year’s election?

We’ll need to wait and see.

Government Shutdown Looms Amid Clash Over "Dreamers" Fate

In an announcement that will provide some measure of relief for T-bill traders and others who are skeptical about Republican lawmakers" ability to compromise with their Democratic colleagues, the Republican House leadership said Tuesday they would bring a stopgap bill to extend funding at its current levels - and preserve funding for a popular child health-care program - until Dec. 22. Otherwise, the current continuing resolution would expire on Friday, tilting the federal government into its first shutdown since 2013.

The compromise leaves much to be desired, however, and a workable, long-term spending compromise will unlikely be reached, which is making markets nervous. As we reported yesterday, the T-bill market has once again been under pressure, with the Dec 14 Bill the traders" focus for now:

Lawamakers" unwillingness to compromise on this bill, however, is due to one policy demand that Democrats have staked their political future on, but Republicans see as tantamount to amnesty: Enshrining DACA, or DREAM Act, protections into law.

The deal look ready to go in Setember when Trump annoounced he"d struck a deal with "Chuck and Nancy" to pass a continuing resolution in exchange for a series of Democratic compromises on imigration enforcement while Trump would fight to push Congress to authorize the DACA privileges. Trump had canceled an executive order granting those protections earlier this year.

However, a few weeks later, Trump went back on his word, proposing that the final legislation include funding for his border wall - something Democrats had never agreed to. Meanwhile, some Republicans have taken a hard line on the DACA protections, saying there"s "no way" they"d be included in a spending bill before the end of the year. More from Bloomberg:

John Cornyn of Texas, the Senate’s No. 2 Republican leader, said Monday that talks with Senate Democrats over combining new border security measures and deportation protections are at an impasse. Cornyn said he sees little chance for resolution before the year is over, pushing the matter into early 2018.

 

He also told reporters that “no way” would he back combining such a package with a must-pass year-end spending deal designed to keep the government open, a key demand of Democrats to get their needed support to move it through the Senate.

 

Speaking on the Senate floor, he accused Democrats of a “hysterical and cynical ploy” of threatening to trigger a shutdown over the matter. Republicans are angling for a two-week stop-gap measure to get past a Dec. 8 deadline when agency spending authority lapses, with the potential for a second such measure later in the month that extends into January. Democrats haven’t agreed to those terms.

Widening the divide, many powerful Democrats are demanding these protections be enshrined in law by the end of the year. 

Senator Richard Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Democratic leader, said later that he continues to insist that Congress act this year to address the needs of the young immigrants, brought to the U.S. by their parents when they were children. Their deportation protections were put in place by President Barack Obama and temporarily extended by Trump until early March. Ending them will affect 1,000 young people each day over two years if the deadline is reached, Durbin said.

 

“I want it done this year,” Durbin said. “This calendar year.”

At least one Republican who’s in favor of keeping the protections has said it’s possible they pass by the end f the year – just not as part of the bill to reauthorize spending.

The protection for the those covered by Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA, has been up in the air throughout the first year of Trump’s presidency. Trump in September agreed with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California to move a border security bill by year’s end, and pair it with protections for the immigrants. He has since backed away from it.

 

A Senate Democratic aide familiar with the negotiations said that Republicans proposed a plan for a dramatic increase for border resources, some cuts to the number of legal immigrants and only temporary protections for the young immigrants. Durbin put forth a counter proposal with more modest border resources, combined with a permanent DACA fix and a pathway to citizenship for the immigrants.

Given the rancor these negotiations have instilled in both Democrats and Republicans, it’s also unlikely the two sides will be able to compromise on issues like preserving Obamacare subsidies, funding for Planned Parenthood and disaster relief spending.

For now, at least, Republicans have cobbled together a stopgap - though it"s still unclear if this will have the votes to pass the senate. The plan maintains the current federal spending levels but includes a provision to ensure that states are not forced to suspend the popular Children"s Health Insurance Program, which annually provides health insurance for nearly 9 million children in low-income families.

"This bill, one without any controversial policy riders, will continue government funding and give the House and Senate time to complete their work on a long-term solution," McConnell said on the Senate floor Monday.

"It will keep the government open and functional, and it includes critical resources for our national defense and to give states certainty to continue the Children"s Health Insurance Program while the bipartisan work on CHIP reauthorization continues," he added.

McConnell summarized the republican position best, noting that that Congress has until March before those covered by the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program lose protections from the program President Trump is ending.

“I don’t think the Democrats would be very smart to say they want to shut down the government over a nonemergency,” McConnell said on ABC’s “This Week.”

Of course, the Democrats will claim that it is an emergency, and certainly a worthy cause for government shutdown, just as Trump enjoyed his biggest legislative victory to date.

As the Hill pointed out, Pelosi and Schumer said in a statement accepting an invitation to meet at the White House on Thursday that a “bipartisan deal” could be found to pass the “DREAM Act along with tough border security measures.”

“There is a bipartisan path forward on all of these items,” the two said in the statement, which also emphasized the need to boost defense and nondefense spending and provide disaster relief.

* * *

Meanwhile, on Tuesday morning, as touched upon up top, the House Republican leadership said it was forging ahead with a stop-gap bill to keep the government funded through Dec. 22 and avoid a shutdown, despite a Monday night push from the conservative Freedom Caucus to move the date past Christmas. Lawmakers emerged from a House GOP conference meeting on Tuesday morning indicating that leaders are leaning toward a two-week continuing resolution (CR).

“Leadership is locked in on Dec. 22,” Freedom Caucus Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) told The Hill.

The Freedom Caucus had protested the strategy and held up a vote on a motion to go conference with the Senate on tax legislation Monday night until they got assurances from leadership that they would consider a longer CR. But leaders appear to be sticking with their original plan.

* * *

Still, the question remains: How long can lawmakers keep doing this before they get tired of pretending they have some deal in the worlds, and realize that a permanent solution is impossible and usher in the first shutdown since 2013?

(What's Left Of) Our Economy: The Real 'Dreamer Fakeonomics'

Authored by Alan Tonelson via Reality Check blog,

If you’ve been following the heated national debate about President Trump’s decision to rescind former President Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, you know that an economic conventional wisdom has been quickly established. It holds that, whatever you think about the legality, propriety, or morality of ending its legalization process for the young and young-ish residents of the country who arrived as the children of illegal immigrants, the impact on the nation’s growth, employment, and productivity would be disastrous.

Sadly – but not surprisingly – an examination of the data reveals this conclusion to be quintessential fakeonomics.

Worse, these claims have been spread with techniques that have become all too typical in the nation’s political, policy, and media circles – by endlessly and credulously repeating assertions that are based either on no solid data whatever, or on unusually weak data.

Enough examples could be cited to fill a book, so let’s focus for now on one that’s just appeared in America’s leading newspaper (The New York Times) and by no less than a Nobel Prize-winning economist (columnist Paul M. Krugman).

As Krugman argued in this morning’s paper, the Trump administration’s position that DACA has “denied jobs to hundreds of thousands of Americans by allowing those same jobs to go to illegal aliens” is not only “junk economics.” But because it’s based on the (equally false, per Krugman) belief that “immigrant workers compete with less-educated native-born workers, driving their wages down and increasing income inequality,” it’s “irrelevant.”

The reason? “The Dreamers [as beneficiaries of DACA are often called] are a relatively well-educated group, very different from undocumented immigrants who came as adults.” Therefore, “letting Dreamers work is all economic upside for the rest of our nation, with no downside unless you have something against people with brown skin and Hispanic surnames.”

Needless to say, the argument that Dreamers actually tend be valuable economically on top of being young and young-ish, and slated to suffer for the sins of their parents, contributes to the image of Mr. Trump’s policy as a loser on all counts.

But the main evidence cited by Krugman doesn’t justify this conclusion at all. It comes from a Times feature posted on Tuesday that purports to show that “DACA-eligible immigrants have higher-skilled jobs” than other illegal immigrant workers.

Two big problems here, however. First, the statistics presented in this post show that this standard represents an awfully low bar. Second, the differences revealed by these numbers between DACA-eligible illegals and other illegals is decidedly unimpressive.

For instance, what’s the occupation of the greatest percentage of workers in both groups? “Food preparation and serving” (16 percent). That sector of the economy sure isn’t known for creating great jobs. Number two for the Dreamers and those eligible for this designation? “Sales and related.” This category also features the biggest absolute occupation gap between the Dreamer-types and non-Dreamers, employing 15 percent of the former but only six percent of the latter. But these kinds of jobs sound pretty dead-end, too. Ditto for “Office and administrative support” (which employs the next greatest share of Dreamer-eligible workers). Worse, both the sales and the office jobs are being killed off left and right these days by automation.

Equally revealing: The next four biggest employers of Dreamer-eligible workers are the kinds of blue-collar-dominated categories that typically don’t require much education, and which therefore place Dreamer types in direct competition with their “less-educated native-born counterparts.” These categories – “Construction and extraction”; “Production”; “Transportation and material moving”; and “Building and grounds cleaning and maintenance” – employ fully 32 percent of the Dreamer types. An additional seven percent work in the comparable occupations of Personal care and service and Installation, maintenance, and repair.

It’s true that, in what’s officially considered a very low unemployment economy, the Dreamer-eligible workers may not be taking jobs from the native-born (or from legal immigrants). At the same time, their presence may well explain some of the nation’s nearly multi-decade low labor force participation rate. Moreover, the laws of supply and demand strongly indicate that the influx of Dreamers into these labor markets is holding down wages, all else equal.

This Times feature reveals something else fishy about the new Dreamer-nomics conventional wisdom. Much is based on a survey that should prompt considerable skepticism – and especially from reporters and editors, who are supposed to be professional skeptics.

Here I’m talking about the insistence that DACA recipients (in the words of the liberal, pro-DACA Center for American Progress), thanks to their new status “are making significant contributions to the economy by buying cars and first homes, which translate into more revenue for states and localities in the form of sales and property taxes. Some are even using their entrepreneurial talents to help create new jobs and further spur economic growth by starting their own businesses” as well as earning higher wages.

Yet there are no hard numbers behind this “finding.”

Instead, it’s based on a widely cited survey conducted by a researcher employed by the Center and other pro-DACA groups that asks Dreamers about their experiences following the Obama decision. On the one hand, there can be little doubt that workers with some legal protections are going to do better than workers with none. On the other hand, how sustainable will these gains be, especially in an economy with poor recent economic and social mobility? Moreover, because DACA-style legalization is such a boon to recipients for reasons beyond economics, too, don’t the respondents have a strong incentive to play up their progress?

I’ve actually been moving toward the position that the Dreamers should be allowed to stay in the country permanently, and possibly get that proverbial “path to citizenship” – largely because they came out of the shadows and registered with the authorities based on a presidential promise. It’s not their fault that the promise’s legality was dubious at best. Best of all would be a Dreamer amnesty coupled with border security and other immigration policy measures smart enough to prevent yet another powerful illegal immigration magnet from being constructed.

But policy shifts based on clearly hyped and mis-interpreted data rarely turn out well. If Americans do decide to give the DACA recipients the blessings of legal residence in the United States, they should at least do it with their eyes wide open to the likeliest economic impact.

Trump Has Decided To End DACA, "Igniting A Political Firestorm"

On Friday, the White House announced that Trump would make his decision whether to end the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), or "Dreamer, program on Tuesday. Well, we won"t have to wait to long, because according to Politico, Trump has made the decision to end the DAVA program with a six-month delay.

Trump, who has faced strong warnings from both Democrats and Republicans not to scrap the program and struggled with his own misgivings about targeting minors for deportation, is said to have made up his mind and according to Politico, "senior White House aides huddled Sunday afternoon to discuss the rollout of a decision likely to ignite a political firestorm — and fulfill one of the president’s core campaign promises."

Trump will announce his decision on Tuesday, with Politico noting that the White House informed House Speaker Paul Ryan of the president’s decision on Sunday morning. Ryan had said during a radio interview on Friday that he didn’t think the president should terminate DACA, and that Congress should act on the issue. However, Trump"s conversations with Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who argued that Congress rather than the executive branch is responsible for writing immigration law, helped persuade the president to terminate the program, although Politico hedges that "the White House aides caution that — as with everything in the Trump White House — nothing is set in stone until an official announcement has been made."

In what appears to be another victory for the recently exiled "nationalist" wing of the Trump inner circle, the president’s expected announcement is likely to shore up his base, which rallied behind his broader campaign message about the importance of enforcing the country’s immigration laws and securing the border. At the same time, the president’s decision is likely to be one of the most contentious of his early administration, opposed by leaders of both parties and by the political establishment more broadly. It also indicates that despite his departure, Steve Bannon still continues to have major influence on the Trump White House.

Still, in a nod to reservations held by many lawmakers, the White House plans to delay the enforcement of the president’s decision for six months, giving Congress a window to act, according to one White House official. But a senior White House aide said that chief of staff John Kelly, who has been running the West Wing policy process on the issue, “thinks Congress should’ve gotten its act together a lot longer ago.”

As a result, the vast majority of the nearly 800,000 people brought to the country illegally as children and who have benefitted from the program, are expected to lose their legal basis for continued presence in the United States, promoting even greater animosity between the Trump administration and the immigrant community.

DHS Issues Sweeping New Rules On Deportation Of Illegal Immigrants

The Department of Homeland Security released on Tuesday documents translating President Trump’s executive orders on immigration and border security into policy, providing details on how it will prosecute undocumented immigrants and criminal immigrants, repealing nearly all of the Obama administration"s guidances, and bringing a major shift in the way the agency enforces the nation’s immigration laws.

As the WSJ notes, "almost everybody living in the U.S. illegally is now subject to deportation, and more undocumented arrivals at the southern border would be jailed or sent back to Mexico to await a hearing rather than released into the U.S." according to the new guidance.

“The Department no longer will exempt classes or categories of removable aliens from potential enforcement,” the enforcement memo says. “Department personnel have full authority to arrest or apprehend an alien whom an immigration officer has probable cause to believe is in violation of the immigration laws.”

Secretary John Kelly"s two memos expand raids and the definition of criminal aliens, while diminishing sanctuary areas and enlisting local law enforcement to execute federal immigration policy. 

The memos still outline priority groups, starting with serious criminals. But the priorities are much broader and include people charged with crimes who haven’t been convicted, people guilty only of immigration-related crimes such as using false documents, and anybody who an immigration officer believes is a risk to public safety.

While DHS officials said they wouldn’t target otherwise law-abiding undocumented immigrants and don’t plan roundups of illegal immigrants, and said their limited resources would still require a focus on those people who pose a public-safety risk, they also said that people who don’t fall into a priority group aren’t exempt from deportation, and the DHS memo says exceptions would be made on a case-by-case basis.

Previously, under Obama guidelines, undocumented immigrants convicted of serious crimes were the priority for removal. Now, immigration agents, customs officers and border patrol agents have been directed to remove anyone convicted of any criminal offense. That includes people convicted of fraud in any official matter before a governmental agency and people who “have abused any program related to receipt of public benefits.” The only Obama-era guidances left in place were those relating to undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children.

According to the NYT, the policy also calls for an expansion of expedited removals, allowing Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to deport more people immediately. Under the Obama administration, expedited removal was used only within 100 miles of the border for people who had been in the country no more than 14 days. Now it will include those who have been in the country for up to two years, and located anywhere in the nation. The change in enforcement priorities will require a considerable increase in resources. With an estimated 11 million people in the country illegally, the government has long had to set narrower priorities, given the constraints on staffing and money.

Some more details from the NYT:

In the so-called guidance documents released on Tuesday, the department is directed to begin the process of hiring 10,000 new immigration and customs agents, expanding the number of detention facilities and creating an office within Immigration and Customs Enforcement to help families of those killed by undocumented immigrants. Mr. Trump had some of those relatives address his rallies in the campaign, and several were present when he signed an executive order on immigration last month at the Department of Homeland Security.

The directives would also instruct Immigration and Customs Enforcement, as well as Customs and Border Protection, the parent agency of the Border Patrol, to begin reviving a program that recruits local police officers and sheriff’s deputies to help with deportation, effectively making them de facto immigration agents. The effort, called the 287(g) program, was scaled back during the Obama administration.

The memos were decried by immigration advocates, and face resistance from many states and dozens of so-called sanctuary cities, which have refused to allow their law enforcement workers to help round up undocumented individuals.

“These memos lay out a detailed blueprint for the mass deportation of 11 million undocumented immigrants in America,” Lynn Tramonte, Deputy Director of America’s Voice Education Fund, said Tuesday in a statement. “They fulfill the wish lists of the white nationalist and anti-immigrant movements and bring to life the worst of Donald Trump’s campaign rhetoric.”

Senior Homeland Security officials told reporters Tuesday morning that the directives were intended to more fully make use of the enforcement tools that Congress has already given to the department to crack down on illegal immigration. The officials emphasized that some of the proposals for increased enforcement would roll out slowly as the department finalizes the logistics and legal rules for more aggressive action.

According to Bloomberg, the memos could further inflame tensions between the U.S. and Mexico, which has advised its citizens living in the U.S. to take precautions in the face of Trump’s new immigration policy. DHS is considering employing a rarely used law to return people who traveled to the U.S. illegally through Mexico back into Mexico, even if they are not Mexican nationals. Officials said that returning Central American refugees to Mexico to await hearings would be done only in a limited fashion, and only after discussions with the government of Mexico, which however would most likely have to agree to accept the refugees.

While nothing in the directives would change the program known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, which provides work permits and deportation protection for the young people commonly referred to as Dreamers, officials made clear that the department intended to aggressively follow Mr. Trump’s promise that immigration laws be enforced to the maximum extent possible, marking a significant departure from the procedures in place under President Barack Obama.

That promise has generated fear and anger in the immigrant community, and advocates for immigrants have warned that the new approach is a threat to many undocumented immigrants who had previously been in little danger of being deported.

Meanwhile Trump, who said during his campaign that he would cancel the program, has since changed his stance, calling those covered by DACA “incredible kids.” “The DACA situation is a very, very -- it’s a very difficult thing for me because you know, I love these kids,” Trump said at a Feb. 16 press conference. “I find it very, very hard doing what the law says exactly to do and you know, the law is rough.”

Starbucks Announces Plans To Hire 10,000 Refugees

With a relentless barrage of corporate executives taking veiled, and not so veiled, shots at Trump"s immigration policies, moments ago Starbuck"s outgoing CEO Howard Schultz went one better, and in a letter to employees, the CEO announced plans to hire some 10,000 refugees in the 75 countries in which Starbucks does business, and furthermore added that “our Partner Resources team has been in direct contact” with employees affected by President Trump’s immigration ban."

He outlined different plans to not only hire refugees, but also on how the company will support “Dreamers” in the country, “building bridges, not walls” with Mexico and providing healthcare for his employees as Congress prepares to repeal ObamaCare.

Schultz focused on future ties with Mexico and said that "coffee is what unites our common heritage, and as I told Alberto Torrado, the leader of our partnership with Alsea in Mexico, we stand ready to help and support our Mexican customers, partners and their families as they navigate what impact proposed trade sanctions, immigration restrictions and taxes might have on their business and their trust of Americans.  But we will continue to invest in this critically important market all the same."

Schultz also vowed to support “Dreamers” saying that "there are nearly three quarters of a million hardworking people contributing to our communities and our economy because of this program.  At Starbucks, we are proud to call them partners and to help them realize their own American Dream.  We want them to feel welcome and included in our success, which is why we reimburse them for the biennial fee they must pay to stay in the program and why we have offered DACA-related services at our Opportunity Youth hiring fairs."

Also, having been criticized in the past of curtailing total worker hours in order to accommodate higher minimum wages and health benefits, Schultz wrote that "our commitment remains that if you are benefits eligible, you will always have access to health insurance through Starbucks." He added that "many have expressed concerns that recent government actions may jeopardize your ability to participate in the Affordable Care Act. If the recent Executive Order related to health care remains in place and the Affordable Care Act is repealed causing you to lose your healthcare coverage, you will always have the ability to return and can do so within 30 days of losing that coverage rather than having to wait for an open enrollment period."

It is unclear how big of a hit to the SBUX bottom line these generous proposals will end up costing, and whether the company"s shareholders will be as delighted in sharing the CEO"s noble vision.

His full letter below.

Message from Howard Schultz to Starbucks Partners: Living Our Values in Uncertain Times

Dear partners,

I write to you today with deep concern, a heavy heart and a resolute promise. Let me begin with the news that is immediately in front of us: we have all been witness to the confusion, surprise and opposition to the Executive Order that President Trump issued on Friday, effectively banning people from several predominantly Muslim countries from entering the United States, including refugees fleeing wars. I can assure you that our Partner Resources team has been in direct contact with the partners who are impacted by this immigration ban, and we are doing everything possible to support and help them to navigate through this confusing period.

We are living in an unprecedented time, one in which we are witness to the conscience of our country, and the promise of the American Dream, being called into question. These uncertain times call for different measures and communication tools than we have used in the past. Kevin and I are going to accelerate our commitment to communicating with you more frequently, including leveraging new technology platforms moving forward.  I am hearing the alarm you all are sounding that the civility and human rights we have all taken for granted for so long are under attack, and want to use a faster, more immediate form of communication to engage with you on matters that concern us all as partners.

I also want to take this opportunity to announce specific actions we are taking to reinforce our belief in our partners around the world and to ensure you are clear that we will neither stand by, nor stand silent, as the uncertainty around the new Administration’s actions grows with each passing day:

• Support for DACA: As I wrote to Senators Graham and Durbin this week, we are enthusiastically behind their work to support “Dreamers” across our country – including those young men and women who are part of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. There are nearly three quarters of a million hardworking people contributing to our communities and our economy because of this program.  At Starbucks, we are proud to call them partners and to help them realize their own American Dream.  We want them to feel welcome and included in our success, which is why we reimburse them for the biennial fee they must pay to stay in the program and why we have offered DACA-related services at our Opportunity Youth hiring fairs.


• Hiring Refugees: We have a long history of hiring young people looking for opportunities and a pathway to a new life around the world. This is why we are doubling down on this commitment by working with our equity market employees as well as joint venture and licensed market partners in a concerted effort to welcome and seek opportunities for those fleeing war, violence, persecution and discrimination.  There are more than 65 million citizens of the world recognized as refugees by the United Nations, and we are developing plans to hire 10,000 of them over five years in the 75 countries around the world where Starbucks does business.  And we will start this effort here in the U.S. by making the initial focus of our hiring efforts on those individuals who have served with U.S. troops as interpreters and support personnel in the various countries where our military has asked for such support.   


• Building Bridges, Not Walls, With Mexico: We have been open for business in Mexico since 2002, and have since opened 600 stores in 60 cities across the country, which together employ over 7,000 Mexican partners who proudly wear the green apron. We have sourced coffee from Mexico’s producers and their families for three decades and last fall, we also announced the creation of a farmer support center in Chiapas to help accelerate our collective ability to grow and export some of the world’s finest coffees from this important growing region, while donating more than $2 million to support the livelihood, food security and water quality of coffee producing communities in Oaxaca.  With the support of thousands of Starbucks partners and millions of customers, we have also donated half a million coffee trees to support 70,000 families, and we will be expanding the initiative this year to generate another 4 million tree donations. Coffee is what unites our common heritage, and as I told Alberto Torrado, the leader of our partnership with Alsea in Mexico, we stand ready to help and support our Mexican customers, partners and their families as they navigate what impact proposed trade sanctions, immigration restrictions and taxes might have on their business and their trust of Americans.  But we will continue to invest in this critically important market all the same.


• Our Healthcare Commitment to You: Finally, let me restate what we have recently communicated with you about the Affordable Care Act – our commitment remains that if you are benefits eligible, you will always have access to health insurance through Starbucks.  Many of you have expressed concerns that recent government actions may jeopardize your ability to participate in the Affordable Care Act. If the recent Executive Order related to health care remains in place and the Affordable Care Act is repealed causing you to lose your healthcare coverage, you will always have the ability to return and can do so within 30 days of losing that coverage rather than having to wait for an open enrollment period. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact the Benefits Center at 877-728-9236.

In the face of recent events around the world, let me assure you that we will stay true to our values and do everything we can possibly do to support and invest in every partner’s well-being while taking the actions that are squarely within our ability to control. This is our focus: providing a Third Place of respite for those around the world who seek it, daily.

Starbucks has and will always stand for opportunity – opportunity for our young people who are working to land their first job in the 75 countries where we do business, opportunity for our farmers who care so deeply for the highest of quality coffee we offer to customers all around the globe, and yes, opportunity for those who come to America in search of their own fresh start – whether that is with Starbucks directly, or through our suppliers or our partner companies.

If there is any lesson to be learned over the last year, it’s that your voice and your vote matter more than ever. We are all obligated to ensure our elected officials hear from us individually and collectively. Starbucks is doing its part; we need you to use the collective power of your voices to do the same while respecting the diverse viewpoints of the 90 million customers who visit our stores in more than 25,000 locations around the world.

So, while we seek to understand what the new Administration’s policies mean for us and our business both domestically and around the world, I can assure you that we will do whatever it takes to support you, our partners, to realize your own dreams and achieve your own opportunities. We are in business to inspire and nurture the human spirit, one person, one cup and one neighborhood at a time – whether that neighborhood is in a Red State or a Blue State; a Christian country or a Muslim country; a divided nation or a united nation. That will not change.  You have my word on that.

Onward,

Howard