Read on Twitter
I had an interesting exchange w. @CesarConda and others yesterday after an off-hand tweet I made about whether Congress could include legalization for undocumented immigrants in a reconciliation package, and it seems there's a lot of interest. So I thought I'd expand on it a bit.
The Congressional Budget Act of 1974, adopted in the wake of Nixon impeachment, and subsequently amended by Senator Robert Byrd and others, is what controls here. At stake, in particular, is the interpretation of the Byrd Rule.
The incomparable @BillDauster wrote a great piece about the Byrd Rule and the minimum wage, and it's better than anything I could say. Take a look. https://www.rollcall.com/2021/01/22/congress-should-use-the-budget-to-raise-the-minimum-wage/
Much like @BillDauster's analysis of the minimum wage and the Byrd Rule, the primary question is whether the changes to outlays and revenues of legalizing undocumented essential immigrants are "merely incidental" to the provision.
Conventional wisdom has it that only "budget items" can be considered in reconciliation, but that's just short-hand for what is in fact a much more nuanced and flexible analysis.
For legalization advocates, the economic and budgetary effects of legalizing undocumented immigrants have been central to their case for years. First, there are indirect economic benefits, which in turn have budget effects. From @amprog in 2013. https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/reports/2013/03/20/57351/the-economic-effects-of-granting-legal-status-and-citizenship-to-undocumented-immigrants/
There are direct budget effects, too. Legalizing undocumented immigrants increases tax revenue, through higher rates of tax compliance and higher wages. https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/reports/2014/09/04/96177/administrative-action-on-immigration-reform/
There are also changes in outlays as a result of increased eligibility for federal safety net programs. Think Medicaid, SNAP, and lots more. The exact extent of these budget effects depends on the details, but it's not "merely incidental" in either amount or in purpose.
Here's a useful piece from the Congressional Budget Office about how they "score" the budgetary effects of various immigration proposals, including legalization. Short answer: they do, and it's a lot. https://www.cbo.gov/publication/49868
Finally--and often overlooked-- are the very concrete and direct effects on the federal budget from the fees that would be required of legalizing immigrants. These are almost always part of various legalization proposals.
It's true, as some will argue, that there are wrinkles to the Byrd Rule analysis--like deficit-related requirements beyond the budget window--but there are lots of different ways to navigate those requirements. Formula adjustments, sunsets, and phase-ins are most common.
Right now, there are lots of great advocates for legalizing essential undocumented workers as part of our economic rescue and recovery. The list is long and impressive. https://cdn.americanprogress.org/content/uploads/2021/01/21143957/Letter-on-LegalizationFINAL.pdf?_ga=2.37388576.1263997449.1611760733-1164814211.1598638372
I'll name just a few here @communitychange @SEIU @domesticworkers @IndivisibleTeam @ppfa @americanprogress, and folks like @iSheyman @TomJawetz @lorellapraeli but really there are so, so, so many more.
And there are lots of great reporters, like @JStein_WaPo, and amazing, dedicated Hill staff asking questions now about minimum wage and reconciliation. I think this may be the next question to grapple with.
Conventional wisdom is rightly shifting about what can be done through reconciliation, given the statute. And my key takeaway here is that the options may be more expansive and flexible than many people realize.
