Yesterday was a busy day on the immigration front. Let’s get you caught. Earlier this week, sources close to House Speaker John Boehner indicated that he would respect the so-called “Hastert Rule” by ensuring that any immigration reform legislation passed would have the support of a majority of Republicans in the House. On Tuesday, the Marshal confirmed these reports publicly:
Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) told GOP lawmakers about this on Tuesday will follow the “Hastert Rule” regarding immigration reform and will not vote without the support of a majority of the caucus. “I don’t see any way to introduce an immigration bill to the floor that doesn’t have majority Republican support,” Boehner told reporters after a closed-door House GOP conference where he delivered a similar message to members.
This is significant given the position of Tom Cotton MP he told me on Hugh Hewitt’s show about the mood at his conference. If the House GOP is firmly committed to the first law enforcement paradigm, the Senate’s theatrics over the Cornyn Amendment are now essentially academic. Indeed, the Gang of Eight’s law enforcement structure appears to be in the legalization phase now, law enforcement later – perhaps. National Review sums up: :
Most of the so-called security triggers included in the bill are paper tigers. The requirement that amnesty applicants have a tidy criminal record effectively allows for two misdemeanor convictions, and, as with most triggers, the Department of Homeland Security can waive this requirement. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, has sought to exclude people convicted of driving under the influence, but is met with resistance — Sen. John McCain called Cornyn’s amendment, which also modestly strengthens other safety provisions, a “poison pill.” The bill in its current form only excludes people with three or more convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol – “ordinary” drunk drivers.
Similarly, under the current bill, DHS can waive the penalties on illegal immigrants contemplated by the Gang of Eight, and the collection of unpaid taxes only applies to fees already assessed by our dear friends at the IRS. Major security regulations only require DHS to prepare a security plan. (It’s classic Washington: you have to have a plan.) The much-vaunted requirement that DHS achieve 90 percent effectiveness in border security requires only DHS self-certification; in the unlikely event that DHS did not give itself a passing grade, the only result under the law would be the creation of a commission to study the problem. Completion of the border fence was left to the discretion of DHS, which does not support such action. Similarly, the requirement for the federal government to implement a visa overstay screening system – already a legal requirement and in place since 1996 – remains largely the responsibility of DHS.
From 1996. While we’re on the subject of previously requested work that still hasn’t been done, Sen. John Thune (R-SD) has proposed a border fence amendment that would require the federal government to build 700 miles of fencing along the southern border, which Congress ordered by a majority vote in 2007 .(the work was never close to completion). Here’s how to do it sequencing will work: 550 miles of the project will be built first, followed by momentary legalization for millions. Then, once the other half of the border fence was built, the green card application process could begin. The government would therefore be forced to produce some material results from the dormant project before the “amnesty” phase began, and most provisionally legal residents would not be eligible for full legalization until the job was done. Seems quite reasonable. Amendment failed 39-54. Nearly every Republican (plus two Democrats) voted for it, while almost every Democrat rejected it. Reid and Schumer were joined by all members of the eight-member gang – including Rubio and McCain – and Lisa Murkowski. McCain’s voice, while predictable, was especially irritating in delicate of his celebrated 2010 re-election ad. “Complete Endangered Fence”?
Rubio spent statement explaining his “no” vote (Thune’s plan was not “detailed enough”), but the truth is that none of the “gang” members are willing to comply with the significant condition of enforcing the law. Thune’s plan could have been full of details and Rubio would still have voted no. Rubio has repeatedly stated that the current bill requires more stringent border security provisions — but apparently not in this case. None of this will show up in the House as things stand, which brings us back to my analysis of the Democrats’ bill in all of this. Meanwhile, up-to-date CNN poll shows support for the bill at a shaky 51 percent, despite a snarky question that (a) mentions border security first and (b) uses a euphemism for “illegal immigrants.” The same survey shows that an overwhelming majority of Americans believe border security should be the government’s top priority when developing immigration reform legislation. How do the Senate’s actions reflect the will of the people?
I was reminded of it once again MP Raul Labrador’s planwhich is the best idea I’ve seen so far. First, actual law enforcement, and then a fair and equitable legalization process for the majority of immigrants who are here illegally. But if Cornyn’s summer fix is a bridge too far for Schumer and company, Labrador’s offer is in a completely different universe. The fact that this is more in line with the wishes of most Americans than the gang’s proposal is somehow reduced to an afterthought. Finally, the CBO determined that the gang of eight Bills would do just that reduce deficits by almost $1 trillion over 20 years. While there are credible arguments for why reforms would boost the U.S. economy, that number may be tough for many conservatives to swallow – especially in delicate of list of goods CBO was forced to produce under Obamacare. Click for Allahpundit’s explanation about how CBO’s calculations can be more or less exact… in a relatively tiny period of time.
