Could the House GOP Torpedo Immigration Reform?

     There's been a decent amount of concern about this. Greg Sargent over at the Plum Line has written a few articles expressing concern over the last few days and this morning there's news that the schedule of those slated to speak before the House on immigration today are some major opponents of reform.

     "How serious are House Republicans in taking up sweeping and comprehensive immigration reform? Democrats and outside observers are taking one look at the House Judiciary Committee’s GOP witness list for Tuesday’s immigration hearing and starting to worry."

    "On the list is Michael Teitelbaum, a senior official at the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation and a skeptic on the need for increased legal immigration, even in the case of the top flight scientists and engineers both Republicans and Democrats believe need a smoother path to U.S. citizenship."

    "More liberal immigration policies for scientists and engineers is politically significant because it brings business and industry, especially high tech industries, into the sometimes-fragile coalition of immigration reform advocates."

    “My main concern with Michael Teitelbaum is that his position in the past has been that we don’t need any more worker visas,” Tamar Jacoby told TPM Monday. Jacoby, president of ImmigrationWorks USA, a reform advocacy group backed by industry, said that Teitelbaum is known for opposing visas for unskilled workers as well as STEM workers. She said seeing his name on the GOP witness list was worrying for reform advocates.
Teitelbaum dismissed Jacoby as “a politician.”
     http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/02/michael-teitelbaum-guest-workers.php?ref=fpb

     I like that one: he dismisses Jacoby as a politician as if he's not...

     "Teitelbaum was a GOP appointee to the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, a bipartisan group established by Congress in 1990 that dissolved in 1997. He admits that he is skeptical of the call for guest worker programs and STEM visas, saying they’re rarely “temporary” and could cost Americas jobs. But says he’s going before the Judiciary Committee on Tuesday to reiterate the findings of the commissions."

      "From Teitelbaum’s prepared testimony:

Since the time of the Commission there have been claims about general “shortages” of scientists and engineers. There also has been a lot of research completed on this topic by independent groups such as the RAND Corporation, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Commission on Professionals in Science and Technology, and by a growing number of respected university researchers. Almost all have concluded that the evidence does not support claims of generalized shortages of STEM workers in the US workforce. Yet I would add that shortages can and do appear in some particular STEM fields, at particular times and in particular places. To me this means that proposals to expand the number of visas for STEM fields should focus carefully and flexibly on those fields that can be shown to be experiencing excess demand relative to supply in the U.S. labor market.
 

       
      Certainly his views are somewhat disconcerting. It would seem that the value of guest workers for highly skilled scientists and engineers should be a no-brainer; to be sure there are legitimate labor concerns about this that he plays to.

      While immigration may lead so some worker displacement-I don't think this can be denied-it's a net positive for the economy and I believe, society. One of our real advantages over both Europe and Japan is that we are a nation of immigrants. A large part of Japan's problem is they have a declining population but their social mores are very opposed to immigration. While Abe's early policies at least have some positive correlations to look at, if he and his countrymen weren't so provincial he could do a lot more to revive the stagnant Japanese economy.

     So yes, it's a little disappointing to have him on the list. Still I think you can assume too much about what that really means. You could argue that he's a bone the House GOP is throwing Tea Partiers. Here's Greg Sargent also expressing concern more generally:

    "Today, the GOP-controlled House Judiciary Committee will hold hearings on the bipartisan immigration reform proposal that’s being assembled by a group of House Dems and Republicans. We don’t know what’s in this proposal, since it’s being guarded with extraordinary secrecy, but one thing is becoming quite clear: Unlike the Senate plan, the House proposal won’t contain a path to citizenship."

     "It’s another reminder of just how hostile House Republicans are to the idea, casting doubt on the prospects for real reform. GOP Rep. Bob Goodlatte, the chair of the House Judiciary Committee, made this as clear as you could want in an interview:

Mr. Goodlatte, 60, has established a solid record of opposition to any measures he regarded as amnesty for illegal immigrants. But he said the Judiciary hearings would include scrutiny of proposals to offer legal status to most of the immigrants living illegally in the country.

Calling legalization of those immigrants “the most difficult side” of the immigration issue, Mr. Goodlatte said the committee would consider options to give “some kind of legal status to bring people out of the shadows,” offering them a chance at “being a fuller part of our society.” He said the committee would examine proposals that would allow most of the 11 million illegal immigrants to become citizens relatively quickly, as well as plans that would only offer limited legal status to far fewer people.

     "So what we’re debating here is “some kind of legal status,” and a chance at “being a fuller part of our society.” Translation: Only second class legal status will be acceptable to House Republicans.

GOP Rep. Eric Cantor, meanwhile, said this morning that he thinks Marco Rubio’s plan (which contains a path to citizenship, contingent on strict enforcement triggers) is “the right direction,” but he stopped short of endorsing that path. (Curiously, this comes on the same day that Cantor is set to give a speech “softening” the GOP’s image, something which has suffered in no small part from its immigration policies.)"

 

     "There are two ways of looking at this. One is that this could end up killing reform. The two critical pillars of reform are enforcement and a path to citizenship. Without both, the whole thing collapses. So by stopping short of accepting citizenship, House Republicans are putting immigration reform in jeopardy, right?"

 

     http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/02/05/the-morning-plum-immigration-reform-in-jeopardy/ 

 

    However, Sargent does regroup, and I think get it right:

 

    "Yes, but all is not lost. The other way of looking at this is that House Republicans have not ruled out supporting a path to citizenship. Republicans have spent the past few years describing any kind of legal status as unacceptable “amnesty.” So hopeful Dems are noting that the fact that the door is now open to legal status is itself a sign of just how much the ground has shifted in the immigration debate."

 

    "What’s more, if a sizable number of House Republicans need to be brought along slowly to a place where they can ultimately accept a Senate compromise that includes citizenship, this would be the way to do it. House Republicans could agree to something that doesn’t include citizenship, in order to avoid angering the hard liners. Meanwhile, the Senate could ultimately reach a broad bipartisan compromise on a package that does. At that point, the pressure might mount on the House GOP leadership to allow a vote on it — in spite of vociferous conservative opposition — just as it did in the fiscal cliff fight. And then it could perhaps pass the House, mostly with Dem support."

 

    "All in all, though, this is a reminder of just how difficult the path to real immigration reform remains."

 

     The main thing is that the Hastert Rule is RIP. That I think is the key. To the answer to the title of this post, in theory they can kill it. However, I don't see it happening in reality. This House GOP is very different from the last-even though superficially they have only 8 fewer seats and a still sizable majority. The problem is that this majority is no longer operable.

 

      The last House was able to more or less hold the 2 years of 2011 and 2012 hostage from anything getting done. If you haven't noticed, we've already seen a lot done. What's the difference? The previous House enforced the Hastert Rule-that any legalisation must have a majority of Republican votes to come to the floor.

 

       This was an unprecedented bar and a very high one. With it now dead, most important legislation will come up for a vote and get the smattering of GOP support necessary to pass it with overwhelming Democratic support.

 

       This is why asking how many Republicans support a path to citizenship in the House is the wrong question. It can only be torpedoed if there is literally no Republican support. That wasn't the case even with higher taxes on the rich, the debt ceiling and Sandy relief. If anything, there is more Republican support for immigration reform.

 

       Necessarily so. Some liberals have argued that the GOP is wrong to see it as a panacea to the problem the party has with Latino voters. True. Although we can trace the huge drop in Latino support the last 2 elections to the more Draconian mood the party has had starting in 2007 towards any immigration reform.

 

      I don't think it will be a panacea and the GOP I do agree will continue to struggle for years as they have the wrong ideas. Yet, immigration has become a lightning rod and they need to take it off the table. In that sense you might even expect to see more Republican votes in the House than you saw for the fiscal cliff deal-that garnered 85 Republicans.

 

      Again, the Post Hastert Rule House GOP is different. Any analysis must start at recognizing this.