I'd say it went better than might have been expected anyway. I mean at this point, we have a very high level of pessimism that anything can get passed in the House.
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2013/07/george-w-bush-offers-way-forward-on.html
Brian Beutler's piece today says that while there may be no pulse on immigration reform at this point, it still may not be quite dead at least metaphysically speaking.
No pulse, but metaphysically not quite dead. This gives an idea of the optimism.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2013/07/immigration_reform_has_no_pulse.php?ref=fpblg
Politico had a big piece today that rather than bucking the conventional wisdom as it claimed to do more or less perfectly expressed it: immigration dying a slow death.
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=DAD9A9D3-E121-4FE5-AEEA-C351C475EE94
Despite all this, I've time and again voiced the opinion that I think it will pass. I still do. Really, the math is not very complicated: it comes down to one man. House Speaker John Boehner. Will he or won't he bring it up for a vote? I've felt all along that he ultimately will-which is not to preclude lots of theater before hand where he insists that the Senate bill is a non-starter-as he has in fact done-and tried to offer the House's 'own bill.'
In all this, the only optimist today was George W. Bush. Unfortunately his reason was that he thinks all we need is a benevolent spirit: where is that to be found among the House GOP? Having said that, what we're hearing from today's House is not wholly pessimistic.
By definition, they did-of course-insist that the Senate bill is a non-starter and that they won't even consider it-of course, that's because it could pass today if it simply went up to a floor vote in the House.
However, what we also heard at the House close door meeting today is that doing nothing is not an option. I find this encouraging at least. The House leadership was quite clear today that simply doing nothing is out of the question:
"Top House Republicans might not have a plan yet for immigration reform, but they have a message: doing nothing isn’t an option."
"In more than an hour of presentations and comments in a Capitol basement room, leaders ranging from Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) to Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said that the chamber cannot sit idly by and allow the rest of Washington to strive to fix the immigration system, while House Republicans sit on their hands."
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/07/immigration-house-republicans-93969.html#ixzz2YgUzJf5O
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2013/07/george-w-bush-offers-way-forward-on.html
Brian Beutler's piece today says that while there may be no pulse on immigration reform at this point, it still may not be quite dead at least metaphysically speaking.
No pulse, but metaphysically not quite dead. This gives an idea of the optimism.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2013/07/immigration_reform_has_no_pulse.php?ref=fpblg
Politico had a big piece today that rather than bucking the conventional wisdom as it claimed to do more or less perfectly expressed it: immigration dying a slow death.
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=DAD9A9D3-E121-4FE5-AEEA-C351C475EE94
Despite all this, I've time and again voiced the opinion that I think it will pass. I still do. Really, the math is not very complicated: it comes down to one man. House Speaker John Boehner. Will he or won't he bring it up for a vote? I've felt all along that he ultimately will-which is not to preclude lots of theater before hand where he insists that the Senate bill is a non-starter-as he has in fact done-and tried to offer the House's 'own bill.'
In all this, the only optimist today was George W. Bush. Unfortunately his reason was that he thinks all we need is a benevolent spirit: where is that to be found among the House GOP? Having said that, what we're hearing from today's House is not wholly pessimistic.
By definition, they did-of course-insist that the Senate bill is a non-starter and that they won't even consider it-of course, that's because it could pass today if it simply went up to a floor vote in the House.
However, what we also heard at the House close door meeting today is that doing nothing is not an option. I find this encouraging at least. The House leadership was quite clear today that simply doing nothing is out of the question:
"Top House Republicans might not have a plan yet for immigration reform, but they have a message: doing nothing isn’t an option."
"In more than an hour of presentations and comments in a Capitol basement room, leaders ranging from Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) to Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said that the chamber cannot sit idly by and allow the rest of Washington to strive to fix the immigration system, while House Republicans sit on their hands."
"The message from GOP leaders, delivered behind closed doors but described by multiple sources present to POLITICO, is a bit sharper than it has been previously."
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/07/immigration-house-republicans-93969.html#ixzz2YgUzJf5O
This suggests what the parameters are that we might see. It's probably going to be piecemeal along with even more draconian border security measures. However, it's a start. Most of the conservative intelligentisa supports doing something. Indeed, the WSJ basically supports the Senate bill and if anything opposes the draconian calls in it for doubling border security with 30 billion more in funding.
"If Republicans insist on passing more border-security measures, then House fiscal hawks should at least cut out the $30 billion of waste in the Senate bill. This could be strategically paired with guest-worker programs for agriculture and other workers, as well as speeding up green cards for those who have been waiting lawfully in line for years to become Americans."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323368704578595733476062490.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop
The Journal has been on the right side of this issue. Interestingly this editorial tries to give Republicans a way to fight back if the House Dems only want to vote on the Senate bill.
"House GOP leaders say they aren't sure they have the votes to pass these measures. They thus may need Democratic votes, and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi may command her troops to vote no on anything but the Senate bill. Let them. If Silicon Valley Democrats want to vote against high-tech visas, that's their choice. If the Hispanic caucus wants to vote down the Dream Act and more farm workers, then so be it. Democrats can then take responsibility if these measures fail."
What's a little puzzling here is WSJ is trying to say that the House GOP can ignore the Senate bill and vote on their own bill if they want, yet WSJ clearly seems to like the Senate bill.
"Republicans should also be willing to debate and vote on the issue of legalizing 11 million illegal immigrants. We support this path to citizenship, and many House Republicans also claim to support it eventually, someday, just not as in the Senate bill. Mr. Boehner should challenge his Members to come up with the terms they would support, because the alternative is "self-deportation" that isn't going to happen."
The path to citizenship is the locus of the differences. If the House GOP could live with that, what is there left to object to in the Senate bill? If anything it sounds as if WSJ is trying to sweeten the medicine for House GOPers by adding a few zingers at the expense of 'Sillicon Valley Dems' and the Hispanic caucus. Yet, the Journal basically agrees with these groups at least on this. What we have is a need on the part of the House to be opposed to the Senate bill where that kind of serves as a foil against which they can put out a more 'conservative' immigration bill.
"Rep. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), a conservative rising in prominence, warned the room about the dangers of going into a formal conference negotiation with the Senate. Conservatives are concerned that the House will get jammed into accepting the Senate bill in its current form.
Of course, that's exactly what we do want to happen. Still, if we get there-again, I'm an optimist on this-it will be by baby steps. First the GOP has to feel like it has it's own bill that does the Dream Act and maybe even pace the WSJ it's own bill that allows a path to citizenship for 11 million undocumented workers.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323368704578595733476062490.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop
The Journal has been on the right side of this issue. Interestingly this editorial tries to give Republicans a way to fight back if the House Dems only want to vote on the Senate bill.
"House GOP leaders say they aren't sure they have the votes to pass these measures. They thus may need Democratic votes, and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi may command her troops to vote no on anything but the Senate bill. Let them. If Silicon Valley Democrats want to vote against high-tech visas, that's their choice. If the Hispanic caucus wants to vote down the Dream Act and more farm workers, then so be it. Democrats can then take responsibility if these measures fail."
What's a little puzzling here is WSJ is trying to say that the House GOP can ignore the Senate bill and vote on their own bill if they want, yet WSJ clearly seems to like the Senate bill.
"Republicans should also be willing to debate and vote on the issue of legalizing 11 million illegal immigrants. We support this path to citizenship, and many House Republicans also claim to support it eventually, someday, just not as in the Senate bill. Mr. Boehner should challenge his Members to come up with the terms they would support, because the alternative is "self-deportation" that isn't going to happen."
The path to citizenship is the locus of the differences. If the House GOP could live with that, what is there left to object to in the Senate bill? If anything it sounds as if WSJ is trying to sweeten the medicine for House GOPers by adding a few zingers at the expense of 'Sillicon Valley Dems' and the Hispanic caucus. Yet, the Journal basically agrees with these groups at least on this. What we have is a need on the part of the House to be opposed to the Senate bill where that kind of serves as a foil against which they can put out a more 'conservative' immigration bill.
"Rep. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), a conservative rising in prominence, warned the room about the dangers of going into a formal conference negotiation with the Senate. Conservatives are concerned that the House will get jammed into accepting the Senate bill in its current form.
Of course, that's exactly what we do want to happen. Still, if we get there-again, I'm an optimist on this-it will be by baby steps. First the GOP has to feel like it has it's own bill that does the Dream Act and maybe even pace the WSJ it's own bill that allows a path to citizenship for 11 million undocumented workers.
Much of it is just psychosomatic. Still this is the process it has to go through.
No comments:
Post a Comment