68 Votes
They wanted 70, and they got 68. I speak, of course, of the "yea" votes in the Senate on the immigration bill this afternoon. In the political world we occupy today, that is nothing short of astounding. Not only did all 54 Democrats stand together, but 14 Republicans also voted in favor of the bill. That's 10 more than were in the original group which put together the proposal. Which, as I said, is truly astounding in this partisan day and age.
Is the bill perfect? Well, no. But then keep in mind that no bill ever is. Will it do more good than harm? As written, the answer seems to be an unqualified "yes." Sure, Democrats had to toss in 20,000 Border Patrol agents (a doubling of the force) at the cost of $30 billion, but they had to let the Republicans spend a bunch of money to get them on board. Democrats allowed the Republicans to prove once again that their denouncements of deficit spending always ring hollow when it comes to things Republicans want to spend money on. Thirty billion dollars is a cheap price to pay, though, since the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office projects that the bill will save over $900 billion from the federal budget over the next two decades.
I've been following the progress of the immigration debate all year, and have to say that the hurdle the Senate cleared today was monumental. Not only did the bill pass, but it passed with substantial bipartisan support. What other contentious issue has passed the Senate recently with 68 votes, after all? None that spring to my mind, that's for sure. It appears there are at least 14 Republican senators who realize that their party's future could hang in the balance, and voted in favor of all those aspiring to be United States citizens. The Senate has laid out a clear roadmap to citizenship, which will benefit millions. And they did it with 30 percent of the Republicans in the Senate voting for it.
Of course, that means that 70 percent of the Senate Republicans voted against it. Which leads us to what will happen next, over in the House. There are four major hurdles which remain to be cleared before a bill appears on President Obama's desk. The bill could easily die during any of these, in fact -- it should in no way be seen as inevitable, even with 68 votes in the Senate in favor.
The first hurdle will be getting the House to act on anything. John Boehner, as usual, is in a bind as he tries to please the warring factions within his party. Some House Republicans don't want any immigration bill to pass, period. Some would probably be OK voting for the Senate bill, as is. But the largest faction is going to want to write their own bill. This will likely be the route Boehner chooses. Boehner is pinched by the non-existent "rule" which Republicans enjoy hewing to (the "Hastert Rule"), which demands that no piece of legislation move to the House floor without "a majority of the majority" supporting it. So if half the Republicans in the House don't want the bill to move, Boehner is supposed to refuse to bring it to the floor.
To appease this faction, Boehner is going to let the committee process work its will, and then bring what will likely be a whole raft of bills to the House floor. Rather than one comprehensive bill (such as the Senate just passed), Republicans figure that if they work on it piecemeal, they can force Democrats to cast more embarrassing votes than they would with just a single up-or-down vote. Most of these bills will pass, with the "Hastert Rule" majority of Republicans voting for it (and, likely, very few Democrats, since Democrats really want a comprehensive bill). At some point, assumably (this is a big assumption, just to be clear), the House will be content with the bills that it has passed, and will move to get together with the Senate on a "conference committee."
This committee will be responsible for hammering out a single bill that both the House and Senate can approve. This is going to be a monumentally hard task, and may in fact turn out to be an impossible one. The key will be who gets named to the committee. Assumably, the eight senators who came up with the Senate bill will be the ones named, but if Boehner names absolutist hard-liners from the House, then the committee will be designed to fail. The House negotiators will likely take an "our way or the highway" approach, and the Democrats in the Senate will likely balk. Now, if Boehner really does want to see the bill succeed, he will name more-moderate members to the committee -- which is why I say who gets named will be the crucial test of the chances the bill will actually pass or not.
If anything does emerge from the conference committee, then the last two hurdles will come into play. Because both the House and the Senate will have to vote on whatever compromise legislation the committee comes up with. The Senate, assuming the bill hasn't been absolutely gutted by the committee, will likely approve the compromise. But this is where Boehner may cause a revolt in his own party -- because he may bring the compromise legislation to the floor of the House even if a majority of Republicans don't approve of it. By breaking the self-imposed Hastert Rule, Boehner may in fact put his own speakership on the line, but that's a separate issue. Again, assuming that the changes made in committee aren't too drastic, the way the bill will probably pass the House is with an overwhelming number of Democrats voting for it and a handful of Republicans who can actually predict their own party's future chances of ever winning back the White House.
That's a lot of hurdles left to be cleared. I don't mean to dampen the excitement today's Senate vote has raised, but we've still got a long way to go on this issue. Boehner will likely take the month of July to move on the House versions of the bills, and then of course Congress takes the entire month of August off. September is when the battle will truly be joined. The conference committee will have no real timeline, but if Republicans are serious about passing a bill then they will want the vote to be as early as possible (so it doesn't spill over into the 2014 midterm election season). The conference committee is going to be the real test, though.
Still, even with all of that ahead of us, today was indeed a red-letter day for immigration reform and for aspirational citizens. The Senate proved that it is not as broken as everyone says it is, and 14 Republicans bravely voted for getting something done rather than the same old gridlock. This gives the bill a whole lot of momentum as it heads over to the House next month. It's pretty hard to argue that a bill with 68 votes is anything less than truly bipartisan. Which is indeed something to celebrate.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
I just have one thing to say...
"ICE officers and USCIS adjudications officers have pleaded with lawmakers not to adopt this bill, but to work with us on real, effective reforms for the American people.
The Schumer-Rubio-Corker-Hoeven proposal will make Americans less safe and it will ensure more illegal immigration—especially visa overstays—in the future. It provides legalization for thousands of dangerous criminals while making it more difficult for our officers to identify public safety and national security threats.
The legislation was guided from the beginning by anti-enforcement special interests and, should it become law, will have the desired effect of these groups: blocking immigration enforcement
We urge all lawmakers to oppose the final cloture vote on Thursday and to oppose the bill."
-Immigration and Border Patrol Agents
That's all I need to know...
Michale
CW,
In a previous commentary, you asked about the context of Boxer's quotes opposing the exact kind of immigration program she supports now..
http://www.boxer.senate.gov/en/press/releases/060707.cfm
As Data would say at the poker table in Geordi's quarters.
"Read them and cry"
Since you love facts so much, how about that CBO report? Savings of $200 billion in first decade, $700 billion in second, to federal budget. Short-term disruptions in labor market, limited to a few years, after which improving conditions from there on out. Short pain, long-term gain. What's not to like? The CBO is non-partisan, so as a professed independent, you should respect their figures, right?
The CBO also said that unemployment would rise and wages for low end jobs would sink..
One group of Americans are seeing their unemployment at 25%!!! in the here and now..
Along comes 10, 20, 30 million new workers vying for the SAME jobs...
What do you think is going to happen to that 25% Unemployment rate?? It's likely going to double..
These are AMERICANS that are going to suffer and suffer hard...
Democrats claim to speak for them..
Apparently, Democrats only speak for them if it's in their political best interests to do so...
You're from Florida, so I assume you have an opinion. I notice that in no part of the negotiations (that I'm aware of) has this issue even been raised. So what do you think of "wet feet/dry feet"?
Cuba is a special case... A debt is owed to Cubans. Having said that, I will admit that said debt should have a finite lifespan and that an expiration date SHOULD be applied..
Also, I have to say that while I found it offensive, I also had to laugh at your phrase "undocumented Democrats," just because it was indeed funny. So, while in total disagreement in general, credit where it's due.
Credit should go to Jay Leno.. He has come up with quite a few zingers in the last few weeks..
The time of POTUS ass kissing is over.. At least, with Leno...
So what do you think of, instead of freakin' DOUBLING the size of the Border Patrol (already our biggest federal police force), putting the same money to good use to hiring agents at ICE, and cutting down the backlog to 2 years instead of 20? Still haven't heard that proposed by anyone in Washington -- the backlog is there because politicians refuse to spend the money on the problem that it so obviously deserves.
I completely agree. As I have said MANY times, resources should be applied in creating and maintaining a program that helps our immigration problems from all over the world..
However, the thrust of this current abomination is to get as many illegals into this country from Mexico as quickly as possible so as to give Democrats an edge in the 2014/2016 elections..
That is the ONLY reason that Democrats and Obama are pushing this legislation..
The **ONLY** reason...
You can bet that, if illegals swung GOP, the political roles would be reversed.. Dems would be fighting this tooth and nail and the GOP would be pushing this with everything they had..
This simply can't be denied..
Self-interest is fueling this.. Not altruism..
And that is simply pathetic...
Michale
However, the thrust of this current abomination is to get as many illegals into this country from Mexico as quickly as possible so as to give Democrats an edge in the 2014/2016 elections..
At one point when we were discussing similar legislation, you had stated that those imported under legislation would not be eligible to vote.. At the time, I withdrew my objection to the legislation.
Now we know that it just isn't so..
The current legislation will be an electoral bonanza for Democrats...
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/immigration-reform-could-upend-electoral-college-90478.html?hp=t1
So, does anyone want to try and convince me that there is no blatant Party self-interest in this legislation??
I'll be standing by....
This legislation is NOT good for the country. It is NOT good for border security...
This legislation is ONLY good for the Democratic Party.
Michale
Since you love facts so much, how about that CBO report? Savings of $200 billion in first decade, $700 billion in second, to federal budget. Short-term disruptions in labor market, limited to a few years, after which improving conditions from there on out. Short pain, long-term gain. What's not to like? The CBO is non-partisan, so as a professed independent, you should respect their figures, right?
My apologies.. I didn't answer your question..
This is the same CBO that said ObamaCare wouldn't add to the deficit, right?? The same CBO that said it wouldn't raise insurance premiums, right?
This being the case, I don't know if it's a good idea to use CBO predictions. They have a worse track record than the Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) predictions...
And THAT says something.. :D
So, yes.. I would agree with you that the CBO is independent..
They just ain't always right... :D
Michale
This will either die or be given a poison pill in the House.
And back we are again to the situation where you have one Chamber acting like adults and getting things done with the other full of maniacal lunatic morons spending their time in 2013 trying to ban abortion/Obamacare.
In other words..
When a chamber does what you like they are "acting like adults"...
When a chamber does what you don't like they are "maniacal lunatic morons"...
Just wanted to make sure we're clear on that. :D
spending their time in 2013 trying to ban abortion/Obamacare.
Considering all the evidence that is piling up as to how bad Obamacare is going to be, I think efforts to repeal it are efforts well spent..
As to the majority of Americans...
Michale
Nope. When 1/3 (or more - as in other recent Senate cases) of Republicans can work like adults to reach a compromise then the Chamber is acting like an adult; when a Chamber full of Republicans can't even consider the idea of compromise but would rather instead hold 40+ votes on abolishing Obamacare, then it is acting like a bunch of maniacal lunatic morons. Simple.
But hey I'm just someone who doesn't like Government waste. Like a ridiculous over-the-top e-verify system. But Republicans clearly love Government waste and over-the-top regulation (as long as it is them doing it).
But hey I'm just someone who doesn't like Government waste.
And yet, you support Democrats..
One statement kinda belays the other.. :D
Michale
Haha I'm a fiscal Conservative when it comes to balancing the budget. I believe a program shouldn't be allowed to exist if the costs of the program outweigh the benefits to society. This ridiculous e-verify system does not pass the test. Have you any idea how much money such a wide ranging regulatory movement would cost? You could probably build 2 coast to coast electrified border fences for the same cost if you REALLY cared about illegal immigrants taking US jobs...
But I'm a fiscal Conserative in the default, accounting, rational, logical sense - that is I believe in balancing the budget through revenue and cuts; not a 'fiscal Conservative' in the modern Republican party sense - give massive tax cuts to the wealthy, spend lots of money on the military, pursue insignificant cuts elsewhere and believe that with a wave of your magic wand the budget will be balanced (becuz 'job creators' or some other retarded logic)
Haha I'm a fiscal Conservative when it comes to balancing the budget.
I'll repeat..
"And yet, you support Democrats".... :D
Michale
Haha I don't really support Democrats. If I was American and had to choose a party I'd probably choose them or a 3rd party. But I'll repeat:
I believe a program shouldn't be allowed to exist if the costs of the program outweigh the benefits to society.
This statement is fiscally Conservative. Where we probably differ massively in views is what our ideas of 'benefits to society' are. For example you probably believe that the military provides a massive benefit to society and the US should continue to shove butt-loads of money into it. I don't.
There are plenty of things Democrats do that I don't think pass this test. Particularly hoaring themselves out to Corporations (like most politicians in America), drone strikes, continuation of military spending, continuing to torture people etc. But pretty much everything Republicans do or propose doesn't pass this test - especially the bat-shit crazy (often previously failed) ideas that make up the current modern Republican party...
I believe a program shouldn't be allowed to exist if the costs of the program outweigh the benefits to society.
On the surface, that's a laudable and logical process..
Yet, WHO decides the benefit to society?? :D
This statement is fiscally Conservative. Where we probably differ massively in views is what our ideas of 'benefits to society' are.
I guess I should finish reading your comments BEFORE I respond.. :D
For example you probably believe that the military provides a massive benefit to society and the US should continue to shove butt-loads of money into it.
You had me at 'butt-loads'... :D
Sorry, inside/family joke :D
Particularly hoaring themselves out to Corporations (like most politicians in America),
And whoring too!! :D Again, apologies. Spelling lame :D
drone strikes, continuation of military spending, continuing to torture people etc.
And, at the time that Democrats were against all that, they made it sound like it was a huge moral/ethical objection..
We come to find out that it was simply a politically convenient objection... Not a true moral stance..
But pretty much everything Republicans do or propose doesn't pass this test - especially the bat-shit crazy (often previously failed) ideas that make up the current modern Republican party...
You won't catch me disagreeing with you... Well, much anyways..
But give me a bona-fide and damn-proud-of-it asshole over a hypocritical have-to-stick-their-ass-in-the-air-to-find-which-way-the-political-winds-are-blowing asshole any day of the week...
Michale
Lol thanks, I guess I don't use the word whoring that often to be as aware of it's correct spelling!
We come to find out that it was simply a politically convenient objection... Not a true moral stance..
Some, not all. A lot of 'liberals' who aren't really liberal and give the name-tag a bad name are (and continue to be) in this boat.
But give me a bona-fide and damn-proud-of-it asshole over a hypocritical have-to-stick-their-ass-in-the-air-to-find-which-way-the-political-winds-are-blowing asshole any day of the week...
The idea that all Republicans are ideologically pure and Democrats just going with the crowd is nonsense and you know it. Both sides have their politicians doing what politicians do.
But I'd rather have a party with more people who apply the 'is this good for society as a whole' test on things like healthcare, immigration, prison, taxation etc than a party with more people who apply the 'is this good for my donators' test on these things. And I'm not saying Democrats don't fall into the latter, I'm saying far more Republicans do. In fact almost their entire ideological beliefs are built around this principle, with a dash of crazy bible hypocrisy thrown in...
Some, not all. A lot of 'liberals' who aren't really liberal and give the name-tag a bad name are (and continue to be) in this boat.
If you can show me one besides Dennis Kuchnic, then..... :D
But I'd rather have a party with more people who apply the 'is this good for society as a whole' test on things like healthcare, immigration, prison, taxation etc
But that's just it.. Democrats are doing what's best for the country.
Democrats are doing what they think is best for Democrats..
The country (and the people) be damned..
Michale
But that's just it.. Democrats are doing what's best for the country.
Grrrrrr
But that's just it.. Democrats aren't doing what's best for the country.
Michale