Showing posts with label daca. Show all posts
Showing posts with label daca. Show all posts

Monday, August 11, 2014

Go big: Immigration activists beg Obama to legalize eight million illegals or more

Gobig:ImmigrationactivistsbegObamatolegalize

Go big: Immigration activists beg Obama to legalize eight million illegals or more

posted at 8:41 pm on August 11, 2014 by Allahpundit

The number kicked around for the past few months was five or six million. That’s not good enough for immigration groups, who want to see something closer to eight figures. And once you’re creeping up towards 10 million, there’s really no point in having eligibility criteria at all. Just legalize everyone, no questions asked.

Honestly, if we’re going to have the president dictate national policy, what’s the sense in demanding that he do it by half-measures? Instead of dipping a toe into our new antidemocratic age, let’s swan dive.

Marielena Hincapié, the executive director of the National Immigration Law Center, said that’s a start but it must go farther.

“I think that will be part of it, parents of U.S. citizens, but I don’t think they can stop there, they can try,” she told BuzzFeed. “There are also parents of DREAMers, and the vehicle for that to happen is deferred action.”…

“The NILC is thinking much broader,” Hincapié said. “We believe he has strong legal footing to provide broad and expansive relief like the 9 to 10 million in the Senate bill. As long as the administration can develop a clear set of criteria like family ties or ties to the U.S. workforce, I can see that businesses would want workers to be included even if they don’t have citizen family members.”…

[Lorella Praeli of United We Dream] added that DACA should be revamped because some people, like well-known activist Jose Antonio Vargas, aged out and were not eligible for legal status from the program.

She said her organization believes 6 to 8 million people could be protected by the president, rather than 2 or 3 million.

Parents of citizens, parents of DREAMers, would-be DREAMers who are too old for DREAM now, even people with “ties to the workforce” — who would be left once the eligibility lines are drawn that broadly? When the dust settles, the only person who doesn’t qualify will be one old man from Guatemala who got here less than a year ago, and then we’ll go ahead and legalize him too just because it’d be cruel to leave him out. But maybe I’m reading this wrong; maybe the reason amnesty shills are upping their demands is because they know the drift in public opinion is towards security and away from legalization, in which case the only way to make Obama stand firm at five or six million is to try pulling him even further left. In fact, here’s a tantalizing poll from last week that Laura Ingraham mentioned on the air today:

Immigration is only the 6th-most-important issue for Latino voters in California when casting a vote for a candidate for U.S. Senator or for U.S. Congress, according to a statewide survey conducted by Univision…

An overwhelming 86% of those surveyed support comprehensive immigration reform. However, a majority–53%–of registered Latino voters in California also answered that they believe that, “…we should require borders to be secured before providing a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.”

Furthermore, when asked, “Which of the following is your major concern or complaint about the Republican Party?”, only ten percent of those surveyed named Republican opposition to immigration reform.

Luis Gutierrez has taken to threatening Republicans with the prospect of two million new Latino voters racing to the polls in November, but the reality is different. It’s older white voters who turn out en masse for midterms; Latino turnout tends to drop off, which is why Brendan Nyhan of The Upshot calls O’s impending decision to issue his mass amnesty before November instead of after “inexplicable.” It’s really not inexplicable — he seems convinced that his base will stay home if he doesn’t do something flashy on immigration, the risk of a backlash notwithstanding. But the higher activists’ expectations get, the more of a bind it puts O in. Conceivably, he could legalize a million illegals and infuriate both the right (which opposes executive amnesty on principle) and the left (which wants the broadest executive amnesty possible). Good luck, champ.


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Wednesday, August 6, 2014

Yes, the border crisis began after Obama started messing around with executive amnesties

Yes,thebordercrisisbeganafterObamastarted

Yes, the border crisis began after Obama started messing around with executive amnesties

posted at 6:01 pm on August 6, 2014 by Allahpundit

Characteristically excellent work by John Sexton in tracing the timeline on when, and why, kids from Central America started streaming north. Democrats are in a weird position on this point. On the one hand, they insist endlessly to American audiences that Obama’s 2012 amnesty for DREAMers (a.k.a. DACA) had nothing to do with drawing illegals here. That’s crackpot nonsense, the sort of stuff you’ll find (gasp) Ted Cruz pushing. On the other hand, the White House is quietly putting the word out in Central America that whatever they’ve heard about the U.S. handing out “permisos” to young illegals lately isn’t true.

So which is it? Is executive amnesty drawing illegal immigrant kids here or isn’t it? Sexton:

[I]n June 2011, Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) released the so-called Morton memos. The Morton memos were internal ICE memos which spelled out an expansion of “prosecutorial discretion” for certain individuals who might otherwise be facing deportation. This was one of the solutions to bypass Congress which progressive groups had recommended earlier in 2011…

During the summer and fall of 2011 the promise of “prosecutorial discretion” made big waves in immigrant communities. In fact, almost immediately there was concern that disreputable people were spreading false information about what “prosecutorial discretion” would mean. On August 20, 2011, two days after the White House announcement, the American Immigration Lawyers Association issued a warning (in English and Spanish) titled “Consumer Advisory Do Not Be Misled.”…

It’s clear from contemporaneous statements made by individual immigration attorneys that there was significant confusion about what the change meant. For instance, NY immigration attorney Allen Kaye said at the time, “there’s a lot of misinformation about this and many people think there’s a new immigration law, there’s a new amnesty. No, it’s just a policy.”

The buzz about amnesty for kids started in 2011, a full year before DACA, which explains why Rick Perry was seeing an uptick in border crossings by kids before DACA was even issued. Then, as the numbers began to explode this year, Border Patrol agents asked illegals why so many were suddenly deciding to make the journey north. The answer they got from some of them was that they had been told that June 2014 was the deadline for new “permisos” to be issued. Where that date come from is unclear, but it happens to coincide with DHS’s extension of DACA eligibility for kids who are already part of the program. Somehow, whether through deliberate disinformation being circulated by coyotes or through simple misunderstandings of American law amplified by Central American media, it may be that DACA developments are driving the surge of illegals even now, more than two years later.

But don’t take my word for it:

Children coming into the United States are confused about whether they qualify for President Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, according to Representative Luis Gutiérrez (D., Calif.), who said that criminal enterprises are enticing children with false promises of a “permiso.”

“I have 15-year-olds in my office today, who came to my office today, and you know what we told them? ‘You don’t qualify for DACA.’ Why? Because they came here four years ago, when they were 11, and they weren’t here by 2007,” Gutiérrez told reporters Friday evening as the House prepared to vote on a border supplemental bill and legislation freezing the DACA program.

The House’s foremost amnesty shill himself believes that DACA has, inadvertently, provided a pretext for smugglers to drum up business in illegal immigration. Which is ironic because, as Sexton explains, Gutierrez himself touted Obama’s first halting step towards prosecutorial discretion in exempting DREAMers from the law in 2011. He helped spread the idea in Spanish-speaking media that kids might be able to stay, and now kids are showing up confused when they’re told they don’t qualify. I don’t know whether to think that was a mistake on his part or, given his views on illegal immigration, something deliberate.

Exit question: If a comparatively modest amnesty like DACA was able to trigger a crisis at the border, what’s Obama’s upcoming mega-amnesty for adult illegals going to do?


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Tuesday, August 5, 2014

Newt Gingrich: Obama’s upcoming executive order on amnesty will start a civil war in his own party

NewtGingrich:Obama’supcomingexecutiveorderonamnesty

Newt Gingrich: Obama’s upcoming executive order on amnesty will start a civil war in his own party

posted at 8:41 pm on August 5, 2014 by Allahpundit

Via RCP, I want to believe it, I almost believe it — but I don’t really believe it. All the makings of a Democratic clusterfark are there. If O legalizes five million workers, plenty of blue-collar Democrats are bound to put two and two together and wonder what that means for their wages. And plenty of Democratic Senate incumbents in red states, like, oh, let’s say Mark Pryor, are going to panic, knowing what could happen if the backlash among conservatives is as ferocious as everyone expects. In fact, as Newt alludes to, both Pryor and North Carolina’s Kay Hagan have already come out against executive amnesty and Mary Landrieu and Mark Begich don’t seem so hot about the idea either. There’s certainly a chance that O will open the floodgates on amnesty and the Hagans and Begiches will end up drowning in November. A decent GOP election night of say, six pick-ups in the Senate might balloon to eight or nine.

But I think Democrats are willing to make that trade, even if the Hagans and Begiches aren’t. Obama, Reid, and Pelosi played the long game once before when they were staring down the barrel of a tough midterm, remember. They passed ObamaCare in 2010 despite poll after poll showing public anxiety about the law and they got swamped that November because of it. But even so, and for all their whining about gridlock and GOP obstructionism, I think they’d do it again. They lost the House but gained universal health care; I suspect they’re willing to lose the Senate next year in the name of cementing Latino voters’ loyalty to the Democratic Party in 2016 and beyond. I won’t believe there’s any grassroots blue-collar Democratic backlash brewing either until I see it with my own eyes. The party’s stuck with Obama through everything so far — a perpetually disappointing economic recovery, the Healthcare.gov disaster, and one unsolvable foreign-policy crisis after another. There’s a reason his job approval tends to go no lower than 42 percent or so, the occasional one-day or one-week dip below that number notwithstanding. The entire Democratic leadership in Congress will back him to the hilt on executive amnesty, a few scattered objections from Landrieu and Pryor et al. aside. And of course there’ll be accusations of racism and phony worries about impeachment articulated as necessary, just to remind easily-led liberals in the base that the GOP is evil and opposing Obama’s policies makes you an accomplice to that evil. Democratic voters will fall in line. There’s not going to be a civil war, although there might be a midterm rout. Good enough?


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Chris Matthews: Maybe Obama should sue Congress for not doing its job

ChrisMatthews:MaybeObamashouldsueCongressfor

Chris Matthews: Maybe Obama should sue Congress for not doing its job

posted at 4:01 pm on August 5, 2014 by Allahpundit

Via RCP, not only is this not right, as the saying goes, it’s not even wrong. I wonder if he’s being deliberately and absurdly obtuse, as Obama was when he mocked House Republicans for “hatin’,” or if he honestly doesn’t grasp the difference between gridlock within one branch of government and power grabs by one branch at the expense of another. With most lefty media types I’d assume the former, but with Tingles you never know.

Ross Douthat tries to help liberals see the light:

Carter’s 1977 pardon of about 100,000 draft evaders, cited by Posner and others, doesn’t fit the bill. That was, of course, a high-profile, hotly-contested decision, made by the executive alone rather than through legislation. But it wasn’t a power grab, because the pardon power is obviously, explicitly inherent to the presidency (it’s right there in the constitution) in a way that the alleged power to rewrite immigration law is not. The pardon power’s expansiveness is a widely-understood feature of our system, and the draft-dodger issue was publicly debated in the 1976 presidential campaign on precisely that understanding; it wasn’t suddenly invented by Carter midway through his presidency after an attempt to pass a law through Congress failed.

Precisely. You may not agree with Obama’s Afghanistan strategy but it’d be absurd for the House to sue him over it. He’s the commander-in-chief; he’s within his right constitutionally to withdraw or not withdraw as he sees fit. If you don’t like it, express your disapproval at the polls. The same is true for Congress on immigration and health care. Those are broad, complex sectors of domestic policy, naturally within the purview of the legislature. If you don’t like gridlock on amnesty or the employer mandate, get on out there and solve the problem by electing a Democratic House or a Republican Senate. The irony of Matthews’s shpiel is that Obama suing Congress for not “providing services” by doing what he wants would actually be way better than what he’s actually doing. The suit would be ridiculous, essentially arguing that gridlock is unconstitutional, but it’d be much less threatening to separation of powers than the “caesarism,” to borrow Douthat’s term, that Obama’s currently engaged in. Does this guy really not understand that having the president step in and dictate policy when he decides Congress isn’t acting fast enough constitutes a soft dictatorship in the literal meaning of the term? And also that soft dictatorships tend to lead to hard ones? I don’t know what offends me more at this point, the fact that lefties would sign off on this or the stink of mockery that pervades their reactions to Boehner’s suit. If you’re going to own soft dictatorship, own it. But don’t laugh about it, at least. Geez.

Oh, by the way, congressional Democrats are now urging Obama to “go around Congress” and limit tax benefits for companies that move operations overseas even though Treasury Secretary Jack Lew said recently that he didn’t think he had the power to act alone on that issue. Obama himself said of corporations moving abroad, “I don’t care if it’s legal. It’s wrong.” And now, magically, by executive proclamation, it seems it’s going to become legal to punish them for doing it. What’s next, Chris?


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Friday, August 1, 2014

Obama: This congressional deadlock on immigration means “I’m going to have to act alone”

Obama:Thiscongressionaldeadlockonimmigrationmeans“I’m

Obama: This congressional deadlock on immigration means “I’m going to have to act alone”

posted at 5:21 pm on August 1, 2014 by Allahpundit

Via the Corner. At first blush it seems like all he’s saying is that he’ll need to find some money somewhere to process illegal immigrant children now that Congress has failed to agree on a new appropriation. Not so. He’s saying more than that. I can’t find the link now but the NYT had a story a few weeks ago about White House strategy sessions on Obama’s looming amnesty for adult illegals. How, they wondered, could they get the public to accept unilaterally legalizing five million people at a moment when Americans are nervous about the border crisis and want to reduce the incentives for illegals to come here, not add more? Solution: Argue that the border crisis is kinda sorta forcing Obama to legalize America’s adult illegals. The federal government’s enforcement resources are scarce and are desperately needed at the border right now to stem the flow of Central American kids, so let’s leave the people alone who’ve already evaded deportation for five or 10 years and focus all of our attention on the Rio Grande. (Footnote: Obama’s party is also opposed to stemming the flow of kids. Only people who hate children support that.) What he’s doing here, in other words, is laying the rhetorical groundwork for his forthcoming amnesty. When it happens, he’ll point back to this and say “if only Congress had given me the money I asked for, maybe I wouldn’t have had to pull ICE workers off of their cases and reassign them to the border,” never mind that he’s already threatened to veto the House GOP’s bill giving him half a billion dollars more in enforcement. He never wanted Republicans to pass anything, and why should he? He’s established the sinister principle that when a gridlocked Congress can’t agree, the president can do what he wants. That means House Republicans can either do what Senate Democrats say or Obama will do it himself by executive order. He has all the leverage, and the more gridlock there is, the more emphatic his nonsense about being forced to act alone becomes.

But there’s a silver lining here. Yuval Levin:

Let’s imagine that a Republican wins the presidency in 2016, and that Republicans have a majority in the House while Democrats have a majority in the Senate. And let’s say the president and House Republicans try to lower everyone’s personal income-tax rates by 10 percent. The House manages to pass a bill to enact such an across-the-board cut, but Senate Democrats kill it. And let’s imagine that the president then proceeds to announce that, given how helpful he believes his preferred course of action would be to the economy, he will just implement the rate cut himself: His administration will not enforce any legal penalties against people in the 35 percent bracket who only pay a 25 percent tax on their incomes, people in the 25 percent bracket who only pay 15 percent, and so on.

Given some of the ways President Obama has been enforcing Obamacare (his suspension of the employer mandate, for instance), and given what he has already done and reportedly plans to do in immigration enforcement, what would the Democrats’ arguments against such a move by a Republican president consist of?

That’s where we are right now. There’s no legal argument for why Obama can declare a mass moratorium on deportations but President Rand Paul can’t refuse to enforce certain tax rates. The argument for doing one but not the other is political — the public is ambivalent about immigration reform in all its complexities but they’re ferociously opinionated about tax hikes and tax cuts. The only restraint on President Paul would be whether he thinks his job approval rating could sustain the hit. But Obama has established the policy precedent. Two can play at this game, and will.


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Paul Ryan’s buddy Luis Gutierrez on the GOP: “It is almost as if they despise all of our children”

PaulRyan’sbuddyLuisGutierrezontheGOP:

Paul Ryan’s buddy Luis Gutierrez on the GOP: “It is almost as if they despise all of our children”

posted at 2:01 pm on August 1, 2014 by Allahpundit

That’s Charlie Spiering’s quotation of what he said today in reaction to the new House border crisis bill. I haven’t seen video yet but HuffPo quotes him substantially the same way:

This is the same guy with whom Paul Ryan’s been working on comprehensive immigration reform for years, and of whom Ryan said last year, “He’s not trying to play politics, he is sincere in trying to find common ground to solve the immigration problem and I very much appreciate that.” Common ground, evidently, encompasses, “you hate our children.” In reality, there’s no one in the House who’s consistently more willing to demagogue Republicans as anti-Latino for resisting a massive amnesty sellout (so far) than Gutierrez. And yet, he’s forever being placed by Democrats at the center of immigration negotiations. He was a member of the House’s doomed version of the “Gang of Eight” and he’s invariably included when the White House huddles with members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus on immigration. The next time you hear a liberal lament Steve King’s influence over the Republican caucus, remind them that the fate of immigration policy in America seems to revolve around this sleazy A-hole, by the consent of their own leadership — and the GOP’s. Right, Paul?

And no, the curious use of “our” in the quote isn’t an accident or Freudian slip. Gutierrez has been candid about where his allegiances lie:

“He’s as close as the Latino community has to a Martin Luther King figure,” says Frank Sharry, founder of the pro-immigrant group America’s Voice. Yet Gutierrez’s tactics are controversial. While many admire his tenacity and credit him with keeping immigration reform alive, others, including members of the Obama administration, believe his confrontational style can be counterproductive. He sees things more simply. “I have only one loyalty,” he says, “and that’s to the immigrant community.”

If I were Boehner, I’d pass whatever they’re going to pass today and then walk away until Gutierrez apologizes. Part of the reason demagoguery from liberal attack dogs in Congress is so nasty on this issue is because they pay no price for it. On the contrary, they have every incentive to ramp it up: The more they accuse Republicans of racism, the more GOP leaders seem to tremble and start murmuring about comprehensive immigration reform again. Boehner’s repudiated King before, publicly and privately. Let’s hear Pelosi or Reid or Obama open their mouths for once if Gutierrez won’t do it himself.

And by the way, it’s time for Republicans who speak Spanish to start paying attention to this jackhole’s press conferences. Here’s an interesting tidbit I hadn’t heard before courtesy of WaPo reporter Ed O’Keefe:

One of the reasons even the Senate’s Gang of Eight bill demands that illegals learn English before being legalized is to encourage assimilation. If huge swaths of the population speak different languages, balkanization is inevitable. Assuming O’Keefe is right, Gutierrez is exploiting the language barrier for political ends, encouraging balkanization by presenting two different versions of political reality depending on which language one speaks. Again, this is one of the most influential people in America when it comes to immigration policy. Pull the plug, Boehner.


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Report: New House bill on border crisis will limit Obama’s power to expand executive amnesty to new illegals; Update: Two separate bills

Report:NewHousebillonbordercrisiswill

Report: New House bill on border crisis will limit Obama’s power to expand executive amnesty to new illegals; Update: Two separate bills

posted at 10:41 am on August 1, 2014 by Allahpundit

Still waiting for fuller details but Chad Pergram sees some sort of victory for tea partiers in the making. Initially, Boehner wanted to keep his own border bill separate from Ted Cruz’s and Marsha Blackburn’s bill limiting DACA, Obama’s 2012 amnesty for DREAMers. Only if House Republicans passed Boehner’s bill, the leadership insisted, would they get a vote on Cruz/Blackburn. But that was no real incentive: Either the House itself would have killed the Cruz/Blackburn bill or the Senate surely would have killed it. The only way to make DACA part of the ongoing negotiations in Congress was to add it to Boehner’s own bill, as part of the House’s formal offer to Harry Reid. I.e. “one bill, one vote.”

Mission accomplished?

On the other hand:

Chad Pergram’s the only reporter with details on the bill that I’ve noticed but that’s newsy enough that it’s worth flagging now. I’ll update as more details are known. As for the timetable, Pergram says they’re going to at least pay lip service to formal procedure in passing this thing even though they’ll end up ignoring Boehner’s “three-day rule” for posting the text of a bill before it’s voted on. First comes a vote authorizing the House to take up a “same day rule,” then comes the posting of the bill’s text, then comes a meeting of the House Rules Committee followed by a vote of the House on the new rule, and then finally a vote on the bill itself sometime in the late afternoon or early evening. If all goes well, the GOP will have a new message for the August recess — they’ve now formally warned the president that he should go no further than he’s already gone in granting executive amnesty. If he goes ahead and issues a mega-amnesty for adult illegals in September anyway, it’ll look more like outright defiance of the will of one branch of Congress than Congress “refusing to act” or whatever. That might help, however marginally, in the messaging war that follows.

Here’s your thread, just in case you’re following along on C-SPAN today. Updates to follow. One other point in closing in case it’s ambiguous: Cruz/Blackburn wouldn’t *repeal* DACA, it would simply close it off to new applicants. That’s a concession to the politics here. The GOP’s willing, however grudgingly, to take on Obama’s executive action, but it fears the “anti-Latino” brand enough that it won’t expel kids who are currently in the program.

Update: Speaking of the messaging war, Becket Adams wonders why congressional Republicans don’t do something bold to stress the urgency of the border crisis and cancel their recess in August. If you want to show that you’re the party that’s more serious about illegal immigration, here’s your chance:

This form of protest, which was first suggested by Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren, would not only signal to the American public that House leadership gives “a damn” about the crisis, but it also would likely force the White House and the Senate to act on immigration reform (as failure to do so would invite terrible optics ahead of the November midterm elections). Obviously, getting the Obama administration to act on illegal immigration is more important than mere political posturing, the point of the protest being that it may produce a solution to the crisis.

True, it’s a bit “inside the beltway” to talk about so-called “optics” and midterms, but sticking around the city likely won’t hurt the House Republicans. So why not at least consider the idea? It seems like it could be an easy win, one that could hand a much-needed confidence boost to Republican leaders who have likely forgotten what victory feels like.

Update: At least one tea partier is satisfied.

Update: Nope, I’m wrong. The Cruz/Blackburn bill is being split off after all.

Not sure what’s different today from last night. Maybe Pergram’s wrong and Boehner’s agreed to allow a vote on Cruz/Blackburn no matter what; yesterday, Cruz/Blackburn wouldn’t have come to the floor unless and until Boehner’s bill passed. Or maybe the House leadership is whipping votes for Cruz/Blackburn too, so that that bill will at least pass the House before it dies in the Senate.


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Quotes of the day

Quotesoftheday postedat10:41

Quotes of the day

posted at 10:41 pm on July 31, 2014 by Allahpundit

After a chaotic afternoon, which saw the GOP leadership suddenly pull their [border crisis] legislation from the House floor because of flagging support, lawmakers planned a Friday morning meeting at 9 a.m. to try to plot a path forward. Plans are in flux, and subject to change at any minute, aides and lawmakers warned.

In a Thursday afternoon meeting, Speaker John Boehner, Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) heard from a number of Republicans who did not want to leave Washington until a package passed the House — a sentiment reflected by nearly every lawmaker who emerged after the meeting ended…

The turmoil is stunning considering how far to the right the GOP leadership pulled this bill. Boehner, McCarthy and Scalise, the new GOP whip, crafted a process that would have given the House a vote on legislation to stop the Obama administration from expanding its deferred deportation program. But even that wasn’t enough…

The political impact of this decision is not clear, but if the House doesn’t vote, Democrats will be able to say that the GOP left Washington for an entire month without passing legislation to address the influx of migrants across the U.S.-Mexico border.

***

Boehner’s decision to punt on the border bill set off a wild scene on the House floor during a vote on the highway bill. Dozens of moderate and mainstream conservative Republicans, furious with the far-right Republicans who torpedoed the legislation, surrounded Boehner and newly minted Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), demanding that they not leave town without voting on immigration legislation…

“America did not send us here to do nothing,” said Rep. Steve Southerland II (R-Fla.), a junior member of the leadership team facing a tough November election.

***

Inside the meeting, Rep. Raul Labrador (R-ID) vowed that if need be, he would miss his son’s upcoming wedding to stay in Washington to pass the bill.

But other lawmakers were punchy.

“Well, let’s see, I’ve been bitching about this for, what, 15 months? Democrats wants the votes and Republicans want cheap labor. They didn’t want to do anything with it, now they’re going to wait until the last minute? You know, I have a forum I’m supposed to be at, I can’t be, on this very subject,” Michigan Rep. Kerry Bentivolio said…

In the meeting, most Republicans expressed support for figuring out some way – any way – to pass a bill that is widely expected to go nowhere but was hoped to give the GOP a political advantage over the recess.

***

In fact, House Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers, R-Kentucky, told ABC News that he was at the airport when he was summoned back to the Capitol for a closed-door GOP meeting. Rogers said it became clear this morning the conservative defections were growing, but he said he and others believe the House should vote — up or down — on immigration.

“I would like to see us have a vote,” Rogers said in an interview.

There is an unusual air of uncertainty in the Capitol, mixed with a big dose of dysfunction, as rank-and-file Republicans discuss whether to have a vote on immigration before they go home for August recess.

Rep. Justin Amash, R-Michigan, told ABC News that he believes lawmakers need to vote. Leaving town without doing so, he said, will be difficult to explain to constituents. He supports the immigration bill.

***

Republicans have been repeatedly criticized for not offering a governing agenda if they take power. What happened Thursday underscores why that has been so difficult. Getting the party’s factions on the same page has proved more than difficult. In some states where Republicans control the governorship and the legislature, there has been a backlash to their governing agenda. Kansas and North Carolina are two prime examples.

In Congress, Republicans have spent four years attacking the Affordable Care Act with a series of votes to repeal or defund it. But is there a Republican alternative they are collectively promoting this fall? No. Rep. Paul Ryan (Wis.) told reporters at a breakfast held by the Christian Science Monitor on Thursday that he is working on one — but that it is just one of several GOP ideas on health care.

House Republican leaders say Democrats are hypocritical to blame them for the gridlock and chaos. They point to a series of bills approved with Democratic support that are parked in the Senate with no action. They say Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) should let senators vote on them. But by their own high-voltage missteps, they draw attention away from that and to themselves. They reinforce a narrative that remains not in their favor.

***

(1) Politically speaking, it would be malpractice to skip town having done nothing on this issue — which everyone agrees is an acute, urgent crisis. Conservatives have not been bashful about labeling it as such, and for good reason. So Republicans’ table-pounding about the problem, and endless demands that President Obama go to the border to survey the situation, all looks like cynical, empty point-scoring if they then proceed to do literally nothing about it before heading home for a month. Members will be asked about this crisis over the break. Republicans need an answer to give beyond, “Obama and the Democrats are terrible, and this situation is intolerable.” They need to be able to say, “we’ve passed X bill that accomplishes Y and Z to alleviate the unacceptable status quo” — and then pivot to nailing Obama and the Democrats, etc, etc. Passing nothing would also led Reid off the hook for his shameless obstructionism, rather than applying appropriate pressure via passed legislation. There’s a reason why Reid has been doing everything within his power to derail Boehner’s bill, including floating theories explicitly designed to turn House Republicans against each other. Sprinting into his trap — again! — would be unfathomably stupid.

(2) On principle, Republicans (at least nominally) hold one of Congress’ two chambers. They’re asking voters to give them control of the other one, too. Yes, it’s true that Harry Reid has promised to kill the House proposal in the Senate and that Obama has issued a veto threat. In other words, even if the House passes something, it won’t become law. Shame on the Democrats for playing such myopic and cynical games. But that is not an excuse for Republicans to abandon attempts to govern. Complaining about the other side’s intransigence rings uniquely hollow when your own side can’t get its act together in support of any solution. If Republicans believe the border situation is a genuine and immediate crisis, they have an obligation to act.

***

The agony of the House border bill seems to have two causes:

1) It has too many substantive weaknesses and loopholes for a bill that is supposed to buttress enforcement (Ryan wrote about the critical Numbers USA analysis here; Bill Kristol noted a number of the problems in his “kill the bill” post here).

2) It fails to address the president’s looming lawlessness in his contemplated new DACA. It seems the bare minimum Republicans could ask for in a border bill would be a provision denying the president the ability to waive more immigration laws. Yet, leadership has been resistant about talking about Obama’s potential new DACA, let alone including anything on it in the bill. Under heavy conservative pressure, it promised a mostly symbolic stand-alone measure.

Heaven knows the leadership has had trouble passing other bills, and it may be that it still gets this one through. But it is clear that just the prospect of Obama’s new DACA is creating an urgency about responding to his lawlessness that it will be very hard for Republicans to ignore.

***

The House leaders are thus far insistent they will not close the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. They would rather be embarrassed in their failure to do anything than do the right thing and close this program.

They even had some Democrat support, but could not muster enough votes to give Barack Obama more money to cause more problems. So much for the new McCarthy-Scalise team.

This, by the way, is a big win for Ted Cruz of Texas and Jeff Sessions of Alabama Both Senators have come out forcefully against the House plan not including DACA. It appears enough Republicans in the House listened.

Think about this for a minute: House GOP Leadership would rather do nothing about the immigration problem than secure the border. Anything they passed would have been blocked by Harry Reid. Anything. Yet they were too scared to come out as the party that supports securing the border. So they scuttled the whole thing rather than take a position popular with the American public.

***

The president and the Senate leadership have made clear they’ll never accept it. So what’s the point of passing it? Leadership’s answer is—well, we’ll get credit for trying to do something. But will they? From whom? The mainstream media? Perhaps for one day. Then the media will focus on what further compromises the GOP leadership will accept in September, on why Republicans won’t go to conference with the original Senate bill or parts of it, and on splits in GOP ranks about immigration. GOP town halls during the August recess will be dominated by challenges about the merits of the bill leadership rushed through—challenges members won’t have an easy time answering and that Republican House and Senate challengers certainly don’t need to be dealing with. Rushing the bill through now will make what Republicans think and don’t think about immigration the lead topic for August. It will take the focus off what President Obama has done about immigration. Rushing through a poorly thought through GOP bill will take the focus off the man who is above all responsible for the disaster at the border—the president.

If the GOP does nothing, and if Republicans explain that there’s no point acting due to the recalcitrance of the president to deal with the policies that are causing the crisis, the focus will be on the president. Republican incumbents won’t have problematic legislation to defend or questions to answer about what further compromises they’ll make. Republican challengers won’t have to defend or attack GOP legislation. Instead, the focus can be on the president—on his refusal to enforce the immigration law, on the effect of his unwise and arbitrary executive actions in 2012, on his pending rash and illegal further executive acts in 2014, and on his refusal to deal with the real legal and policy problems causing the border crisis. And with nothing passed in either house (assuming Senate Republicans stick together and deny Harry Reid cloture today), immigration won’t dominate August—except as a problem the president is responsible for and refuses seriously to address. Meanwhile, the GOP can go on the offensive on a host of other issues.

***

Via RCP.

***


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Report: New House bill on border crisis will limit Obama’s power to expand executive amnesty to new illegals

Report:NewHousebillonbordercrisiswill

Report: New House bill on border crisis will limit Obama’s power to expand executive amnesty to new illegals

posted at 10:41 am on August 1, 2014 by Allahpundit

Still waiting for fuller details but Chad Pergram sees some sort of victory for tea partiers in the making. Initially, Boehner wanted to keep his own border bill separate from Ted Cruz’s and Marsha Blackburn’s bill limiting DACA, Obama’s 2012 amnesty for DREAMers. Only if House Republicans passed Boehner’s bill, the leadership insisted, would they get a vote on Cruz/Blackburn. But that was no real incentive: Either the House itself would have killed the Cruz/Blackburn bill or the Senate surely would have killed it. The only way to make DACA part of the ongoing negotiations in Congress was to add it to Boehner’s own bill, as part of the House’s formal offer to Harry Reid. I.e. “one bill, one vote.”

Mission accomplished?

On the other hand:

Chad Pergram’s the only reporter with details on the bill that I’ve noticed but that’s newsy enough that it’s worth flagging now. I’ll update as more details are known. As for the timetable, Pergram says they’re going to at least pay lip service to formal procedure in passing this thing even though they’ll end up ignoring Boehner’s “three-day rule” for posting the text of a bill before it’s voted on. First comes a vote authorizing the House to take up a “same day rule,” then comes the posting of the bill’s text, then comes a meeting of the House Rules Committee followed by a vote of the House on the new rule, and then finally a vote on the bill itself sometime in the late afternoon or early evening. If all goes well, the GOP will have a new message for the August recess — they’ve now formally warned the president that he should go no further than he’s already gone in granting executive amnesty. If he goes ahead and issues a mega-amnesty for adult illegals in September anyway, it’ll look more like outright defiance of the will of one branch of Congress than Congress “refusing to act” or whatever. That might help, however marginally, in the messaging war that follows.

Here’s your thread, just in case you’re following along on C-SPAN today. Updates to follow. One other point in closing in case it’s ambiguous: Cruz/Blackburn wouldn’t *repeal* DACA, it would simply close it off to new applicants. That’s a concession to the politics here. The GOP’s willing, however grudgingly, to take on Obama’s executive action, but it fears the “anti-Latino” brand enough that it won’t expel kids who are currently in the program.

Update: Speaking of the messaging war, Becket Adams wonders why congressional Republicans don’t do something bold to stress the urgency of the border crisis and cancel their recess in August. If you want to show that you’re the party that’s more serious about illegal immigration, here’s your chance:

This form of protest, which was first suggested by Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren, would not only signal to the American public that House leadership gives “a damn” about the crisis, but it also would likely force the White House and the Senate to act on immigration reform (as failure to do so would invite terrible optics ahead of the November midterm elections). Obviously, getting the Obama administration to act on illegal immigration is more important than mere political posturing, the point of the protest being that it may produce a solution to the crisis.

True, it’s a bit “inside the beltway” to talk about so-called “optics” and midterms, but sticking around the city likely won’t hurt the House Republicans. So why not at least consider the idea? It seems like it could be an easy win, one that could hand a much-needed confidence boost to Republican leaders who have likely forgotten what victory feels like.


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair