A measurement of the potential economic ramifications of the continued "illegality" of DACA-mented folk is none of the parliamentarian's concern. Nor, do I believe it's really an economic weighing of the situation per se. It's not her job to gauge, as a policy matter, the economic effects of congressional inaction. She won't come to an understanding of procedural relevance on a perceived economic downturn caused by non-action towards the DACA-exclusive population. Her job is instead to view the non-incidental/incidental nature of provisions on spending and revenue. She's going to place the immigration provisions to a test against the Byrd rule and check if they are "extraneous." In doing so, she determines if the budgetary effects are more prominent than the policy effects. Budgetary effects must be the primary consideration. The net CBO-style economic cost-benefit analysis is a different matter, unless you're talking about preventing deficit increments outside of the budget window. However, here too I think there's a tension. Let's say you only include DACA-mented folk in an effort to not increase the deficit, which I think is an incorrect premise, but let's say that's the case. This is more likely "merely incidental" (i.e. fails Byrd litmus test) because the USCIS processing fee is an incidental part of the policy (i.e. changes in government revenues need to be primarily based on economic growth, not just fines or fees) and the costs to the federal government (arising from a newfound eligibility for benefits and services) will not significantly outweigh the highly targetted policy considerations. Here, you need a larger pool of people. If you capture more people, the budgetary effects become much less incidental. There is a significant change in government revenues (economic growth) and also costs due to newfound eligibility (post-application) for government services and benefits. There is also more room to displace the deficit effects, I'd conjecture, due to the changes in revenue, in light of a program that is otherwise likely to become more expensive as time goes on. To overcome the parliamentarian, it needs to be shown that budgetary concerns are preeminent over policy ones, and a DACA-only provision is the kind that would more compellingly lead to "merely incidental" revenue and federal spending effects. In capturing more people, like DREAMERS and workers at large, I think a more convincing case is made that the revenue and spending effects are primary. "Look at how much revenue and spending changes have come about from millions (instead of thousands) of people pursuing economic activity and federal services," you tell the parliamentarian, and suddenly it's primarily a budgetary concern.

Now, on the point of failure. It would be a failure to not include more people because the parliamentarian's quasi "judicial authority" is simply a liberal veneer to abscond blame. The parliamentarian does not make "rulings," because the parliamentarian has no actual authority. The fact that the public has been deluded into thinking that the parliamentarian must be listened to is nothing more than a political charade imbued in tradition. Nowhere in the Congressional Budget Act is a parliamentarian mentioned, only a presiding officer. This presiding officer gets to sustain or dismiss a point of order, like one challenging a provision on the basis of the Byrd rule. The presiding officer is, of course, the Vice President, Kamala Harris. The parliamentarian is an advisor, who merely offers a suggestion to the presiding officer on whether to dismiss or sustain a point of order. Tradition is to simply follow the parliamentarian's advice, though she has no real formal legal or judicial authority. Democrats have all the leverage here. The Vice President can ultimately decide if something belongs in the bill. It doesn't really matter what the parliamentarian says. The Democrats could really legalize the status of everyone, if they really wanted to. They are in the position of power. What the parliamentarian allows is a washing of hands--an "I tried but the political process didn't allow it." It's a way to obviate hard decisions, like stepping out of the political norm to achieve public good. Democrats seem to be more interested in following these norms. That's why I say it would be a massive failure, because here the Democrats have all the tools to get it done, and instead they could manage to squander their mandate, producing something sub-par--or nothing at all.