President Obama called again for immigration reform on Thursday. He’ll probably do it next week too. And the week after that.
But until supportive Republicans come up with a plan for convincing their colleagues to advance some piece of legislation, immigration reform will not—cannot—advance beyond the rhetoric the president employed on Thursday.
There is certainly a path forward. It’s narrow but navigable.
Ask Florida’s Mario Diaz-Balart, one of the few House Republicans who desperately wants to legalize undocumented immigrants and create a new visa system that will allow future arrivals to come here legally.
He knows the sales pitch can’t include the words “comprehensive” or “path to citizenship.”
His strategy is to get half of the House Republicans—roughly 118 lawmakers—to tell House Speaker John Boehner they can live with some kind of adjustment of status (Note: not “legalization”) for the unauthorized population.
Then, Diaz-Balart would see House leadership put a series of single-issue immigration bills on the floor—one on border security, one on agricultural workers, one on electronic verification, one on nonfarm guest workers, one on undocumented youth who were brought here as kids, and one on “a process where people can get right with the law.” (Hint: That last one is legalization, but the words matter.)
“We’re going to require floor time” for all those measures, Diaz-Balart said. “Time is our biggest hurdle.”
It’s entirely possible that not all of those bills would pass on the floor. (Certainly, lots of Republicans would chafe at anything that smacks of legalizing people who live here without papers.) But as long as a few of them pass, with Democrats’ help, that’s enough to get talks going with the Senate.
Boehner has already pledged to stay away from a conference committee with the Senate on a big bill, like the one the upper chamber passed in June that included a path to citizenship. But the speaker has left open the door to presenting the Senate with a package of smaller bills.
The people closest to the situation say House action on anything immigration-related is a path fraught with peril. But one thing is certain: It has nothing to do with what Obama says.
What We're Following See More »
Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”
“We haven’t seen a true leftist since FDR, so many millions are coming out of the woodwork to vote for Bernie Sanders; he is the Occupy movement now come to life in the political arena.” So says Bill Maher in his Hollywood Reporter cover story (more a stream-of-consciousness riff than an essay, actually). Conservative states may never vote for a socialist in the general election, but “this stuff has never been on the table, and these voters have never been activated.” Maher saves most of his bile for Donald Trump and Sarah Palin, writing that by nominating Palin as vice president “John McCain is the one who opened the Book of the Dead and let the monsters out.” And Trump is picking up where Palin left off.