Is the Ambiguity in the Senate Immigration Reform Plan By Design?

     I've already been on the record as saying I think this gets done. I've also argued that Cassandra's aren't always right and often aren't.

     http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2013/01/eating-lunch-with-nanute-cassandras-not.html

     So in a way-I believe I have the answer to the math question before knowing how to get it. I just believe that

     A). The Kristol Premise is correct. Elections have consequences and that the GOP has to work with Obama even though it's the last thing they want to do. We've already seen them cave on the fiscal cliff, Sandy relief, and the debt ceiling. Then you add in B

    B). They have to get immigration reform or certainly can't obstruct it.

    So I reason it has to happen. Yes there are going to be recalcitrant GOP House members. But if anything less than on the other things I've mentioned-this is something that many Republicans do want. If you could get enough Republicans to raise taxes on the rich you should have no trouble getting enough on something like this.

    What's more they really need to have some GOP votes for this.

    Ok, There is some liberal concern about language from the Gang of Eight about a commmission that has to agree that the border is safe-never mind many believe it already is. This could be a problem, However, as long as it's constructed right it won't be. The Democrats say it won't be.

    It doesn't sound too bad either by the way McCain describes it:

    "On CBS this morning, John McCain said the “final decision” about whether the border is secure will be made by the Department of Homeland Security, which suggests a diminished role for this commission, while remaining inconclusive on precisely how this process will work. But in an interview with Ed Morrissey late yesterday, Marco Rubio suggested he won’t support a path to citizenship unless the commission does sign off on border security, a position he reiterated in another interview. There’s no clear agreement even among Republicans about the role of this commission.
Meanwhile, Dem Senate aides tell me that the commission’s role is designed to be purely advisory and nonbinding. At the same time, Chuck Schumer’s office declined to respond to my request for clarification on this point."

     http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/01/29/the-morning-plum-confusion-envelops-senate-immigration-plan/

     Ok, so there's some ambiguity. Maybe this is a good thing. After all if this commission won't be able to put a path to citizenship on hold indefintely-which is my strong suspicioun-maybe you want enough ambiguity so Rubio can justify it to his constiuency. Maybe we don't want too much clarity in this case.

    My best guess is that this is just a start. The President will speak today, though he won't release his own bill-as he doesn't need to, the White House has spoken against the commission. Maybe the final agreement will be a comrpomise between the White House position and the Senate proposal for the commission.

    I think by the end of the process we won't have someting that will short circuit the whole process. Listen to what immigration groups are saying:

    "That’s a legitimate worry, according to Frank Sharry, the executive director of America’s Voice, a group advocating for immigration reform. But he tells me that on a conference call yesterday, Democratic Senators reassured immigration advocates that this commission won’t be constructed in a way that will hold up the process for too long."

     "As Sharry put it, Democrats realize that they can’t “allow the commission to have a real veto” over setting in motion the path to citizenship. He noted that Dems see the commission as “something that gives the Republicans a talking point” to claim they are prioritizing tough enforcement, giving themselves cover to back a process that “won’t stop people from getting citizenship.” However, Sharry added: “The details of this are going to matter hugely, and we’ll have to fight like hell on the individual provisions.”

     "That said, Sharry concluded: “This is a left of center framework.” Indeed, the very fact that a path to citizenship for the 11 million is being discussed seriously by Republicans is alone a reminder of just how much the ground has shifted in this debate. This reflects just how much of a jolt the 2012 elections gave Republicans by bringing them face to face with the prospect of demographic doom."

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/01/28/the-morning-plum-the-ground-shifts-on-immigration/