I really do believe it's a forgone conclusion. I've actually been bullish on it for awhile. Nothing I've heard lately makes me less so. The Senate GOP has extracted something of a pound of flesh to be sure with Corker-Hoeven Amendment that is likely to pass the Senate tonight:
"Harry Reid just announced he’ll hold a key cloture vote tonight on the Corker-Hoeven amendment, which would dramatically beef up the Senate immigration bill’s border security provisions. It is expected to pass by a comfortable margin, which in turn all but ensures that the Senate bill will pass this week — a major step forward for reform."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/06/24/conservatives-gird-for-major-defeat-on-immigration/
The security measures in the amendment are way over done. At this point the border is totally secure and we've likely reached the point of diminishing returns-where further security measures are unlikely to make it even more secure-the fence idea is particularly wasteful as it covers the whole border rather than the points most susceptible to those trying to cross illegally. It's also not at all what we want from a civil liberties stand point. The Wall Street Journal editorial page-yes, that one-has really nailed it lately on this issue:
"Though peace between the U.S. and Mexico has been unbroken since the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848, Senate Republicans are making contingency plans in case of another Pancho Villa. In an amendment to the immigration bill that comes to the floor Monday, they now promise a "border surge" akin to the military campaign in Iraq and Afghanistan."
"Which is to say, the 1,190-page agreement brokered by Bob Corker of Tennessee and John Hoeven of North Dakota does not merely appropriate martial tropes and metaphors that used to be reserved for war. Messrs. Corker and Hoeven say the plan will "maximally secure" the border, while New York Democrat Chuck Schumer calls it "a breathtaking show of force." He means that as a compliment."
"Harry Reid just announced he’ll hold a key cloture vote tonight on the Corker-Hoeven amendment, which would dramatically beef up the Senate immigration bill’s border security provisions. It is expected to pass by a comfortable margin, which in turn all but ensures that the Senate bill will pass this week — a major step forward for reform."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/06/24/conservatives-gird-for-major-defeat-on-immigration/
The security measures in the amendment are way over done. At this point the border is totally secure and we've likely reached the point of diminishing returns-where further security measures are unlikely to make it even more secure-the fence idea is particularly wasteful as it covers the whole border rather than the points most susceptible to those trying to cross illegally. It's also not at all what we want from a civil liberties stand point. The Wall Street Journal editorial page-yes, that one-has really nailed it lately on this issue:
"Though peace between the U.S. and Mexico has been unbroken since the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848, Senate Republicans are making contingency plans in case of another Pancho Villa. In an amendment to the immigration bill that comes to the floor Monday, they now promise a "border surge" akin to the military campaign in Iraq and Afghanistan."
"Which is to say, the 1,190-page agreement brokered by Bob Corker of Tennessee and John Hoeven of North Dakota does not merely appropriate martial tropes and metaphors that used to be reserved for war. Messrs. Corker and Hoeven say the plan will "maximally secure" the border, while New York Democrat Chuck Schumer calls it "a breathtaking show of force." He means that as a compliment."
"At a cost of some $40 billion, the plan would station 20,000 new border agents on top of the 18,500 already in service—the equivalent of one agent covering a little over three football fields. The Border Patrol would build another 350 miles of fencing, doubling the current length of wall. America's southwestern edge will be divided into nine zones, each of which will be monitored with state-of-the-art military technologies including drones, camera systems, radar, ground sensors and more that were developed in the Iraq and Afghan theaters."
As the WSJ points out, though, the one virtue of this overkill is we see once and for all who just opposes immigration per se and always will:
"At least the Corker-Hoeven plan has the virtue of smoking out the politicians who have been using the "border security first" demand as cover for their real objection, which is to immigration per se. Alabama Republican Jeff Sessions complains that the effort still isn't adequate because its "focus does not seem to be on the interior" of the U.S. Does he also want to send drones over Iowa meat-packing plants?"
The WSJ has certainly been on the right side of this issue-as many conservatives have been; the only actual intellectual case against this was that embarrassing piece by the Heritage Foundation which was not only wildly wrong but also was written by a real live eugenicist.
In any case, while the further heightened border security is unnecessary, wasteful, and further violates civil liberties at least at this price we have a bill that will sail through the Senate.
The only person who can defeat this is John Boehner-by refusing to allow it up for a vote I don't think he does that. He knows that this would be a disaster for the GOP. After all, they would get the blame. The Dems could use this to spike turnout in 2014-which is not to say that this is their preferred alternative. They want to pass this because it's the right thing. The GOP will get killed if it fails.
"Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) made a push Sunday for his fellow Republicans to get behind immigration reform, saying if it faills the GOP will be blamed and "our party is in trouble with Hispanics."
As noted above, there are really no principled arguments left against immigration reform. The intellectual arguments all go for reform-whether economic, political, or ethical. Greg Sargent makes this same point. We have Senator Jim Cornyn now opposing the Hoever-Corker Amendment that was written to address his qualms about not enough border security.
"Yes, Cornyn, who himself proposed adding 5,000 border patrol agents, now opposes Corker-Hoeven because of the potential cost of that proposal’s additional agents…even though the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office finds the Senate bill will substantiallyreduce the deficit."
"This comes after Senator Ted Cruz arguedthat Republicans should oppose the immigration reform bill in the name of undocumented immigrants, and after Senator Jeff Sessions argued that Republicans should oppose the immigration reform bill in spite of its projected economic benefits, because they will supposedly go only to business owners. Meanwhile, Sessions and around a dozen other opponents just fired off a letter to Harry Reid demanding still more time to debate the bill. Of course, Sessions has openly made it known that the call for procedural delays is all about stalling long enough to build up public opposition in hopes of killing it. As he puts it: “The longer it lays in the sun, the more it smells, as they say about the mackerel.”
I think Sessions' argument is the best one of all: we have a Republican complaining about disproportionately helping business owners. This from the supply side party. I thought the key to long term sustainable growth was to disproportionately benefit business owners!!
No comments:
Post a Comment