Home » The GOP’s present stance on an immigration bill…

Comments

The GOP’s present stance on an immigration bill… — 47 Comments

  1. The GOP needs to position itself as having viable ideas as well as demonstrating that they have always been willing to address meaningful immigration reform. An offense is always better than attempting to block and run defense against the Democrat’s usual thinly veiled non-negotiable approach on the issue of amnesty for illegals.

    If the GOP get outs in front of the issue with clear improvements that meet with the approval of those who want to be “allowed out of the shadows”, and show how it is reasonable, they could avoid losing ground.

    The GOP will never win the hearts and minds of the Progressives and radicals in La Raza, however they could just make inroads into the independents and avoid being painted as uncaring.

    Hopefully the leadership did some test marketing this time.

  2. Gov. Walker is on Hannity right now. Let’s see if he says anything about this. If he’s for it, then I’m really puzzled. Boehner, Cantor, even Ryan I attribute to self-interest. But Walker?

  3. Life inside the Beltway echo chamber can be very seductive, and my guess is that inside the Beltway Republicans talk mostly to each other and reinforce each others “brilliant,” and “realistic,” ideas–constituents calling from outside the beltway likely being regarded as annoying, unlettered, and and ignorant rubes and of little consequence, except for the few key months leading up to each election, when they can be conned into voting for these supposedly conservative Republicans.

    So, who are they going to listen to, their fellow inside the Beltway Republicans and the RNC or, the great unwashed?

  4. Right you are Wolla Dalbo. I am sure jobs and the economy are highest priority for the public and especially for young people who cannot find good jobs now and are fearful about their future. The idea that the GOP needs to go on offense not with the top priority but with a low priority is a joke.

  5. I’m partial to Sean Trende’s idea that the Republican leadership is actually sort of neutral about winning big in 2014:

    This isn’t to suggest that the GOP leadership is affirmatively doing this to minimize Republican gains. What I am saying is that they are closer to neutral about big gains than we might think, given the problems that the surge in base enthusiasm caused for them after the 2010 elections. So if they check agenda items like this off the list now and still get a landslide, great. But if they end up cooling off the base’s enthusiasm and get a narrow, establishment-based Senate majority and keep the House, well, that’s not the end of the world either. In fact, it would mean a more docile caucus in both Houses, which is good for those who run those Houses.

  6. I think the most obvious answer is bribery or blackmail, but since i don’t go for obvious answers, I ‘m waiting for more data from my Obama Whisper sources.

  7. I am going with Trende’s reason number 2.

    “The idea that the GOP needs to go on offense not with the top priority but with a low priority is a joke.”

    Exactly. The plight of illegal aliens is at the bottom of the list.

  8. P.S.–Perhaps I’ve somehow missed their impassioned speeches, constant references and harking back to the Founding Fathers and the principles upon which they founded this country, and their strong defenses of bedrock Conservative principles, but it seems to me that, except for occasional lip service, and a very small handful of Congressional Republicans, most Congressional Republicans don’t even bother to speak of such essential guiding principles.

    And it is these guiding Conservative principles–strict construction of and adherence to the Constitution, small, limited government, Federalism, fiscal conservatism, minimal government spending, no deficit spending and the smallest possible public debt, low taxes and the fewest possible regulations, capitalism, the rule of law and equal justice before the law, strong national defense, personal responsibility, strong family values, the least possible government interference in individual’s lives, and the widest possible individual freedom, etc. that should be guiding their decisions and lawmaking.

    As I see it, if they were guided by these principles they would not, under any circumstances, be offering any sort of immigration bill except one that cracked down on illegal aliens and encouraged legal immigration by immigrants who had talents and/or education that would be of obvious benefit to this country.

  9. Trende’s speculations are interesting and I too have been somewhat puzzled by Boehner, et al’s tone deafness.

    Like Ann above, what resonated most with me in reading trende’s article was; “The last thing the leadership wants is another crop of Ted Cruzes and Rand Pauls in the Senate, nor does it want another dozen Tea Partiers in the House.”

    I imagine that “the problems that the surge in base enthusiasm caused for them after the 2010 elections” scared the cr*p out of the GOP establishment. The GOP’s repeated betrayal of its conservative base must have made them exquisitely sensitive to political tremors within their base and so “cooling off the base’s enthusiasm” has to be a high priority. The attraction and desire for “a more docile caucus in both Houses, which is good for those who run those Houses” has to be a major focus for Boehner, McConnel and their GOP establishment allies.

    In the article linked to, I was also struck by Cantor’s expression as he watched Boehner make his pitch on why the GOP should be concentrating on legalization of illegals.

    Cantor’s expression appears to communicate puzzlement and doubt. As if he’s desperately hoping that Boehner knows what he’s doing, while greatly doubting it.

    That also reminded me of another picture where expression and body language can reveal far more than intended.

    These are NOT confident, happy faces. There’s little doubt that they know the abyss that lies under the political tightrope they are walking.

  10. Obama can not be trusted to enforce any law the Congress passes. He would ignore or modify any law the Republicans supported. The record is clear on that.

  11. I tend to agree to some degree with Trende – the confederacy of dunces McCain, McConnell, Boner, Graham, etc, would rather be leaders in the minority than also-rans with the majority. A stronger conservative presence would threaten their current postitions.
    Personally, I dislike the ‘establishment’ Republican leadership as much as the Democrat leadership. They’re just as useless, irresponsible, corrupt, and unresponsive to the people who elected them as the Democrats. Their interest is first and foremost in themselves, and clinging to power and control until they resemble walking corpses.
    So their strategy to keep people like me away from the polls is a winner on their part. I will actively vote to throw their useless asses out in a primary, but I won’t vote for one of these bozos who continues to support things that defy the will of the voters who put them there. It makes me madder to have a “conservative” support issues I oppose than for a Democrat to do so. At least they’re honest about their positions. The establishment Republicans are nothing but weasels who haven’t got any core beliefs.

  12. It’s #5 and #2. Win-Win. A party purge and big donor money. Actually not much of a mystery if you’ve heard how McConnell, McCain, and Boehner have described the Tea Party, conservatives, and libertarians.
    NEWS FLASH: there are plenty of big government Republicans. It’s a scrimmage – same team, different jerseys. Of course they hate advocates for smaller government. They are banking on unhappiness with Obama/Obamacare to bring angry base Republican voters to the polls. Boy are they going to be surprised to find out that amnesty is a deal breaker.

  13. southpaw: No, they have core beliefs. They believe they are smarter than you, they believe they know how to spend your money better than you do, and they know better how to manage every aspect of your life.

  14. I am sure people can come up with all sorts of exotic, convoluted, and likely counter-intuitive explanations for why the Republicans in Congress are so fixated on immigration and likely some form of amnesty for illegal aliens, when the most pressing, the most urgent problems–and the ones that constituents are so worried over and care about–are so obviously jobs and our economy.

    It truly is baffling, like watching someone stepping off of a cliff, a cliff you know they see, and that they have been warned about, but–against all logic–they step off it anyway to their doom, alienating the millions of conservative and other voters they need to ever have any chance of winning a Presidential election.

  15. Geoffry Britain:

    But if “The last thing the leadership wants is another crop of Ted Cruzes and Rand Pauls in the Senate, nor does it want another dozen Tea Partiers in the House,” then they would oppose the immigration bill, not support it. Supporting it is the best way to get the conservative base, which they need on their side to get elected, turn on them and try to primary them, or not vote for them at all in the general even if the opposition primary candidate is unsuccessful.

    Nope, that reason makes no sense at all to me. They are doing the opposite of what would get them what they want. If anything, this is guaranteed to get more people to support Tea Party candidates and fewer to support these “establishment” types.

  16. Why are “they” doing this? “They” is like six guys.

    Fire them. “They” are not the GOP.

    The real GOP, aka the4 Tea Party crowd, has been saying that for 3 years now.

    Fire the SOBs. They are nothing.

  17. Mike:

    So, why can 6 guys lead the rest? I thought Boehner wasn’t supposed to bring a bill to the floor without the majority of Republicans supporting it. Of course, he can break that “pledge.” Or maybe the majority does support it, for some reason? Or maybe it won’t pass, and this is all for show, to placate the moderates? It’s just a guessing game—for us, anyway. I’m assuming Boehner et al know why they’re doing what they’re doing.

    Also, “they” can’t be fired till 2014. And by then it will probably be too late to stop this particular bill.

  18. They can’t.

    Breitbart: “…It is hard to imagine Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) moving forward after yesterday’s closed-door showdown. According to estimates from those who were in the room—both in favor of moving forward and against—the dozens of GOP lawmakers who spoke were at least 80-20 against bringing a bill to the floor this year.”

    They are effective;y fired now. Boehner is collecting a paycheck. That’s all.

    In fact, Congress has been fired. It’s fired itself by caving to Der Obamafuhrer and shamefully ceding the people’s House to a tyrant.

    But the good news is Obama has been fired as well. He’ll wreck the pace on his way out, but he is done.

    We have no problems that chastised true Americans can’t solve very quickly – once the trash is put out to the curb. And they are trash. They made themselves that way.

    The single greatest sign of good things to come in America is the low esteem in which Congress and the fascist anti-President are held. I have not heard one person in years even dare to defend Obama and the Dems, not Boehner and his craven crowd of 2 or 3.

    There are better days to come. The takers are about to take a hit.

  19. Mike:

    Well, I hope you’re correct.

    About the vote, that is. I hope they don’t have the votes to pass it in the House.

    The problem is this: unless Boehner keeps his pledge and doesn’t even bring it to a vote in the House, it could pass even with only 20% of Republicans supporting it. The composition of the House is 200 Democrats to 232 Republicans, for a total of 443. If the bill were brought up for a vote, and all 200 Democrats were to vote for the bill, and only 20% of the Republicans voted for it, that would be 46 Republicans for it for a grand total of 243 “aye” and 200 “nay.” It could pass with even less than 20% Republicans supporting it, if all the Democrats do.

    When I do the math, that’s what I get.

  20. Highly unlikely. That sort of thing hasn’t happened since the Rs took the House.

    My guess is this was all planned to prepare for 2014. They just needed a sense of the issue, so they made some noise, got the data they needed, and the thing will die in the next few weeks.

    We are rounding the corner to the back stretch of the November Elections at this point. There will be no major deals between now and then.

  21. Of course all this speculation assumes that Boehner and his cohorts have not “somehow” (as if by magic?) been co-opted by subterranean Progressives and become complicit in accomplishing their own defeat and demise.

    If this is not the case, and if instead any or some parts of all of Trende’s speculations are correct, then the Republicans are about to outsmart themselves.

  22. Mike:

    That’s what I’m thinking, too, but it seems risky in terms of alienating conservatives more and more, and increasing the level of distrust in the party. Everyone on the right is afraid they’ll actually cave and pass it. That’s how high the level of distrust already is.

    And it won’t gain a single bit of Democratic, moderate, or Hispanic support.

  23. Exactly right. Boehner has already broken the Hastert rule several times. Also, they are thinking about voting for this after the primaries are over. So they won’t get punished. Neo, I think you are ignoring the demoralizing effect of this. Some people will get fired up but others will give up. We know third party isn’t a viable option. And if the Republicans want to purge their base and rake in cash from the CoC (committing party suicide and transforming the country), why bother.
    This is their reaction to the Tea Party returning them to the majority? Not thank you but a rebuke.
    This is way more than six guys, Mike. Otherwise, Boehner would have already lost the speakership. And President Executive Action is far from done. He might be just getting started. In my America more than half the country is taking from the government. Not only are they not going anywhere, their ranks are going to grow. No offense but I’d like some of what you’re smoking.

  24. @10:13 written before the last couple of entries. Apology for saying Neo was ignoring an aspect of this. Should have known better.
    And yes hopefully negative feedback will force them to drop this. Call Boehner’s office if you live in a blue district and your own congress person is useless.

  25. Supporting [an immigration bill] is the best way to get the conservative base, which they need on their side to get elected, turn on them and try to primary them, or not vote for them at all in the general even if the opposition primary candidate is unsuccessful.

    Sean Trende’s point, though, was not that the Republican leadership doesn’t want to win in 2014, but rather that they’re neutral on the question of winning big. Mostly because a smaller win would mean fewer Tea Party headaches to worry about down the line.

    That would imply that the leadership is pretty confident that they will keep the House and have a good chance to take the Senate, even if they do alienate the base.

    It all does seem terribly risky to me, though.

  26. Ann:

    It makes no sense at all. The more they alienate the base before the 2014 election, the more of them will be primaried, and the more risk they have of losing even seats they think are safe.

  27. Yeah, crazy risky. So probably not their plan.

    But what about this: Boehner may be playing a PR game with this. You know, get the idea out there that Republicans are at least interested in doing immigration reform, even if it’s incremental and not comprehensive like what the Democrats want, and yet not have any intention of doing anything decisive this year.

    Rand Paul did something like this as well, I think, on Meet the Press last Sunday: “We don’t agree on the whole comprehensive package with the Democrats, but I’ll bet you about half of it we agree on. The question is: are we willing to narrow our focus and go after things that we can agree to and get them done, or are we going to stay so polarized that we always have to have our way or the highway?”

    And Sen. Schumer said about Boehner’s just released “principles” of immigration reform: “While these standards are certainly not everything we would agree with, they leave a real possibility that Democrats and Republicans, in both the House and Senate, can in some way come together and pass immigration reform that both sides can accept. It is a long, hard road but the door is open.” That’s sort of Schumer saying Republicans really aren’t racists after all, isn’t it?

    Or does this fall under that “some hidden Machiavellian but brilliant agenda” that we’re all pretty sure they’re not capable of planning and carrying out?

  28. Occam’s Razor does not apply to this.

    There are two explanations consistent with the “idiocy.”

    Blackmail is one. The Left, which is firmly in control on all pertinent levels, would never stint to use and actively pursue blackmail. This explains some.

    The Republican non-Tea Partiers are not people of character. They may have some degree of belief, but it is expendable.

    The other explanation is the real major one, not provable other than the lack of an alternative explanation.

    The Republican party has been long since been infiltrated by Leftists who know exactly what to say and do in the jurisdictions when and where they make sense to do and say what is necessary.

    The Republican “leadership” is not as stupid as they seem.

    As with all of life, look at what people do, not what they say.

    The Republican “leadership” is straight out participating in BO’s transformation of this country.

    It is not idiocy. It is opportunity.

  29. Ann: “But what about this: Boehner may be playing a PR game with this. You know, get the idea out there that Republicans are at least interested in doing immigration reform, even if it’s incremental and not comprehensive like what the Democrats want, and yet not have any intention of doing anything decisive this year.”

    That’s my interpretation. Some Rs, who are thinking about what’s going on, have decided they can’t always be the party of NO. They need to appear to have better ideas. What I see is that they want some assurances the border will be more effectively closed/enforced. One idea Rand Paul has floated is to measure border security and set a level at which the Rs could agree to allow a percentage of illegals to apply for green cards. It would be a year by year process and would only be completed when the border was really closed. This throws a bone to the Chamber of Commerce and makes some progress on solving the problem of border control and how to handle the 11 million illegals. If the administration wants to get green card status (not citizenship) for the illegals, they would have to get serious about border enforcement. It is a reasonable proposal. If the dems don’t buy it, then they can’t claim the Rs had no proposals.

  30. Similar to parts of some of the responses here:

    (Too) many Republicans want little more than a seat at the table where the majority power brokers dine. That seat is more secure as a member of a permanent minority party. Being in the majority party is, as a few here have pointed out, outside their comfort zone. They’d have to deal with people who really *mean* what they’ve been proclaiming: what to (too) many Republicans is essentially only facile rhetoric, to be dusted off when and as needed to mollify the hoi polloi.

    —— —— ——

    Once any sort of a compromise bill is achieved and voted in, I guarantee you the very next week, if not the very next day, Chuck Schumer will be on tee vee [where else?] proclaiming that this or that about the compromise bill is unfair or something — and the obedient baying hyenas will chime in “raaacist” or some such inevitable chorus.

    So there’ll be more debate and legislation. A leftie’s work is never done . . . as the ratchet move inexorably left. Move towards what?? For that, do see . . .

    http://neoneocon.com/2014/01/25/the-war-on-the-1-and-the-war-on-the-opposition/

  31. I agree with Geoffrey Britain (again!)
    I agree with Neo-neocon: this seemingly makes no sense…and the leadership must be aware of the effect on the base since they have adequate polling.

    However, what’s the downside for the leadership? If they lose the fight with the Tea Party, they will have cushy jobs with the Chamber of Crony Capitalism waiting for them. (and it’s a dangerous thing to fight someone with nothing to lose)
    I think Boehner feels trapped in an unpleasant situation: he has leadership without power, he has a position with no respect.
    I just don’t think of Boehner as a “happy warrior,” the kind of person that lives for the struggle.
    So I’m not sure he hasn’t decided to just get it all over with…and that’s the thing about [political] suicide: it does relieve the suffering.

    BTW, note that Boehner is a proxy for all the old guard, including McConnell. The young (-er) up-and-comers like Cantor may not be very comfortable with this arrangement…hence, Cantor’s look of unease.

    So that’s my answer #6:
    The old guard are tired of the struggle, and just want to rule. They are willing to gamble on a risky strategy to quell the uprising in order to rest. Personally, there is also little risk to failure as their sinecures will have already been secured.
    This is a policy formed of ego.

  32. While I’m psychoanalyzing (which is ironic, coming from me):

    Politicians at this level don’t get married to positions. Inflexibility means they can be nailed down, and quite possibly crucified.

    I don’t think the establishment gives a fig about immigration reform. But the Chamber of Commerce does.

    In order to fight the insurgency, the establishment will need all the power they can get (which they half-foolishly believe equates to money). So they have latched on to the one issue that will garner them the most financial support from business.
    They are playing what they believe is the only hand capable of winning.

    And note, they really do hold the base in contempt. That is why they reject adopting the base’s position and becoming one with the Tea Party. Hobbits, indeed.

  33. If further proof is required that the establishment sees the Tea Party insurgency as their main threat, review the Cuccinelli campaign and the GOP “support” of it.

    They’ll burn the house down before they let the Hobbits have their say.

  34. After re-reading my posts, I can condense:

    Motivation: The establishment deserves to rule (i.e Ego)

    Method: In order to rule, the establishment must stamp out the Tea Party insurgency or neuter it.

    Tactics: In order to stamp out the Tea Party, the establishment will need resources (money). They can’t get money from individuals because they *are* the Tea Party, so they must get money from crony business. Crony businesses care mostly about, and hence will only donate for, immigration “reform.” Thus, the establishment will adopt immigration reform even though it may inflame the base.

    Backup Plan: If the establishment loses, they will pass through the revolving door and enter K street as lobbyists.

  35. I vote for the most straightforward 1 or 2, Hispanic vote and big business. Whatever one thinks of the GOP leadership they have not distinguished themselves by their Machiavellian brilliance.

    This is not inconsistent, of course with wanting to blow off the Tea Party. *Maybe* courting big business makes sense but why go after the Hispanic vote before your own base?

  36. I’m sort of leaning toward JJ’s opinion here. I think they will try to set things up so that border closing precedes legalization. We already have Obama saying that he is not dead set on a path to citizenship. Maybe they will try to get even more concessions before any bill is finalized.

    It’s all a puzzle.

  37. Anyone who lives farther than 200 miles from the Mexican border should have little or no say in immigration policy. Most of the points made from within the beltway are theoretical and specious.

    Come on down and learn for yourself why nothing should preempt a secure border!

  38. Tonawanda: I think you are correct. I think it is by no means idle foolishness to consider the possiblity that the Left has infiltrated the Republican leadership. They do that kind of thing all the time, both openly (running conservative “Democrats” as candidates in conservative districts) and by subterfuge (running effectively fake candidates in order to split their own opposition). If it were true, it would be the simplest possible explanation for what we are seeing.

    And, as I said earlier, I think that if you and I are both wrong and Boehner and the others have some kind of convoluted strategy at the bottom of this (as the saying goes, it’s “too clever by half”), then the Republicans are about to outsmart themselves.

  39. When Sarah Palin campaigned as vice President, people should have already realized that there were Republicans that needed purging given the amount of internal sabotage that went on during the McCain campaign and staff regulations.

    If people were waiting for GOP politicians to betray them, they were waiting a bit too long to change their mind.

    For a review of why the Left considered it more important to crush the 501 Tea Party orgs than to crush Eric’s ROTC campus movement:

    501(c)(3) organizations are either a public charity, private foundation or private operating foundation with open membership whereas 501(c)(4) organizations are civic leagues or associations operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare or local associations of employees with limited membership.

    When it comes to lobbying and political activity, 501(c)(3) organizations can appeal directly to legislative bodies and representatives and may support issue-based legislation. However, they must notify the IRS of their intent to lobby by filing form5768, which formally informs the federal government that one has elected to use the expenditure test to have the organization’s lobbying activity measured. Under this test, lobbying capacity is typically limited to spending less than 5 to 20% of the organizational budget on lobbying activities, depending on the size of your organization.

    501(c)(4) organizations can engage in unlimited lobbying so long as it pertains to the organization’s mission. 501(c)(3) organizations are not permitted to engage in political activity, endorse or oppose political candidates, or donate money or time to political campaigns, but 501(c)(4) organizations can do all of the above.

  40. They need to appear to have better ideas.

    They won’t win a war with better ideas. And if they aren’t fighting a war to win it, they have higher priority things to worry about than better ideas.

  41. it seems their are a lot of theories about why the Republlicans would push an issue that’s way down the list of importance in opinion polls to the top. One I heard that I heard from a regular on a Fox’s “Journal Editorial Report” last year, when Boener first started kicking the idea around was: “it’s just who he is”. The idiocy factor IS a possibility. He has shown on numerous occasions a willingness to reach across the aisle for no good reason, to blunder repeatedly and not learn from the mistake, fall into traps that anyone could see, and then after making a fool out of himself, go and pout about not be appreciated for doing his best without a majority.
    In his heart, I think he’s a guy who wants to appear to be doing the right things, but he’s unable to figure out what those are himself. He’s not ideologically rooted in anything, he’s just an instinctive operator, who gets elected in his own district by bringing home the pork. Look it up- he is for all intents and purposes a democrat when it comes to delivering the goodies to his district – lots of government contracts and programs – more than the average district by far. He’s not opposed to wasteful govt spending, he’s a major contributor in his own district.
    But as a politician on the national stage, he’s clueless, gullible, stubborn, out of touch, and a Dunce. That’s a simple enough explanation.

  42. Well that might be a simple enough explanation on its own, southpaw (although I am not entirely persuaded), but it doesn’t explain the following he has among House Republicans at this point.

  43. Short term: inoculate the GOP against whatever loon candidates the Tea Party base might stick them with. “Hey, MSM, don’t judge us by those whacko birds”
    Long term: Replace the base. Both ambitions are as naive as they are sneaky.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>