More than a few people are scratching their heads over what would seem to be a reversal by Speaker John Boehner on immigration.
It’s been no secret that he has long wanted and thought it was important for the Republican Party to do something to address the immigration issue, and by extension, the GOP’s growing and pervasive problem with minority voters. It also matters that some elements of the business community, notably the high-tech sector, are frustrated by our incoherent immigration and visa process, with H1-B visas being a prime example. After the recent House GOP retreat in Cambridge, Md., Boehner and his leadership team released a set of principles outlining their desired approach to immigration. They demonstrated a desire for progress and, one would think, optimism about the House finally dealing with the issue. The Senate has already passed a comprehensive immigration bill.
Now, however, Boehner has begun backing off, saying he is pessimistic about doing anything this year. What gives?
Beyond the expected pushback by ardent foes of immigration reform, the argument grew louder, with some Republican members asserting their distrust of President Obama, saying things like: The Obama administration doesn’t enforce many current laws; why should we trust this executive branch to enforce border protection and other provisions favored by conservatives and Republicans — specifically, those that the administration and Democrats might not be enthusiastic about?
The irrepressible Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York suggested in response that any new immigration bill be timed to go into effect on Jan. 1, 2017, when Obama is on his way out the White House door, to address Republicans’ trust issues. (It should be noted that this is another example of Schumer recasting himself as a consummate legislator and statesman, repressing his other persona as campaign strategist and fundraiser par excellence.) It was an artful way to address GOP concerns.
But the Obama-won’t-enforce arguments really mask a deeper resistance to backing any immigration law that could possibly lead to a path to citizenship for those in the country illegally and — more important — anything that could possibly be construed in a television or radio ad as “supporting amnesty for illegal aliens.” For Republicans, the fear of being attacked from the right and having to defend themselves from a more conservative primary challenger is, in some cases, real or entirely possible. Even those not facing the immediate threat of such a challenge foster a deep concern that it could happen.
Although a certain amount of paranoia is natural for any elected “‹official, it is particularly prevalent now among Republicans, who are enmeshed in a civil war between the Republican Party establishment and the GOP’s tea-party/most conservative elements. Those in competitive districts or states also have to keep getting their base out to vote in general elections — although most base voters, particularly conservatives, vote no matter what, even in midterm elections.
But the fear of a primary also has a calendar component. As of now, only seven states (Alabama, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Texas, and West Virginia) are past their candidate filing deadlines. Two more (Maryland and North Carolina) have deadlines between now and the end of February. The biggest number of filing deadlines, 19, fall in March (Nebraska has a Feb. 18 deadline for incumbents, March 3 for nonincumbents). So, 26 states will pass their deadlines by the end of March, five more each in April and May, and nine in June; the last two are Delaware in July and Louisiana in August. As each month goes by, the filing deadlines in more states and for more members will have passed, thus leaving many home free from a 2014 primary challenge.
The dates for the primaries — which most members will likely win and a very few, if any, will lose — start lining up next month: Illinois and Texas in March; 11 states in May; 18 in June; 14 in August; and four in September. Louisiana holds its primary on the national general-election day, Nov. 4, with runoff elections Dec. 6.
No doubt House GOP leaders are mindful of the filing deadlines and primary dates for members of their conference, calculating whether there is a magic time when they could bring up immigration with a maximum chance of passage (with one option obviously a lame-duck session). While it could be that Boehner really has had a change of heart about bringing immigration up this year, it could also be that his backing off is a strategic retreat, or a feign, to defuse at least some of the opposition until the optimal time comes.
One other factor is worth keeping in mind (not that House members would care that much). At least one member of the Senate GOP leadership has privately said the reason Republican senators were so willing to pass an immigration bill last year was not the 2014 Senate elections, but the 2016 elections.
Not only a presidential-election year, 2016 is when 24 Republican Senate seats will be up (seven in states carried by Obama) and Democrats will have only 10 seats up.
For House Republicans, in their carefully drawn, ideological, and partisan cul-de-sac districts, the need for the party to get immigration off the table isn’t that pressing, but for winning and holding a Senate majority, and getting 270 electoral votes, the concern is not theoretical.
CORRECTION: A previous version of this story had incorrect information for the number of primaries being held in June and September.
What We're Following See More »
"Republican megadonor Foster Friess has told party leaders in Wyoming that he plans to run for governor," and is expected to make an announcement this afternoon. Friess has donated "millions of dollars to Republican candidates and causes over the last decade, according to federal campaign finance records," including over "$1.7 million to boost Santorum's [presidential] campaign" in 2016. Gov. Matt Mead (R) is term-limited, and "a handful of Republicans are running in an open primary to succeed him in one of the reddest states in the country."
Four Palestinian protestors have been killed by Israeli fire near the Gaza-Israel border, bringing the death toll to 38, in what marks the "fourth consecutive week of Gaza's March of Return mass protests." The marches are part of a "month-and-a-half-long protest organized by Hamas near the border fence," which organizers have said will not stop before May 15. The marches are intended to emulate anti-apartheid protests in South Africa, and to commemorate the forced expulsion of Palestinians from their homes in 1948, during the establishment of the State of Israel.
"Former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe is looking to sue for defamation, wrongful termination and other possible civil claims, his lawyer told reporters Friday." McCabe's attorney Michael Bromwich said that his team "hasn't managed to find any witnesses to corroborate McCabe's version of the story," although they have not had enough time to do so. "McCabe’s lawyers are also seeking ways to release the emails between McCabe and Comey, which would offer insight into their communication about the leaks to the Wall Street Journal."
"The Democratic National Committee filed a multimillion-dollar lawsuit Friday against the Russian government, the Trump campaign and the WikiLeaks organization alleging a far-reaching conspiracy to disrupt the 2016 campaign and tilt the election to Donald Trump. The complaint, filed in federal district court in Manhattan, alleges that top Trump campaign officials conspired with the Russian government and its military spy agency to hurt Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton and help Trump by hacking the computer networks of the Democratic Party and disseminating stolen material found there." The DNC is seeking "millions of dollars in compensation to offset damage it claims the party suffered from the hacks," and is arguing the cyberattack" undermined its ability to communicate with voters, collect donations and operate effectively as its employees faced personal harassment and, in some cases, death threats."
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency have fined Wells Fargo $1 billion dollars for convincing customers to buy insurance they did not need, and could not afford. "In October, the bank revealed that some mortgage borrowers were inappropriately charged for missing a deadline to lock in promised interest rates, even though the delays were Wells Fargo's fault." The bank has also apologized for . "charging as many as 570,000 clients for car insurance they didn't need," and found that about 20,000 of those customers "may have defaulted on their car loans and had their vehicles repossessed in part because of those unnecessary insurance costs."