There’s no telling when an immigration bill will come to the House floor, what it will say, or who will support it.
Only one thing’s for sure: Steve King will vote no.
And he’s not alone.
The Iowa Republican has organized a small but growing number of conservatives who are committed to voting against any House immigration bill — no matter what it says — because they fear the Senate will inevitably find a way to add “amnesty” to the equation.
King won’t say how many members he’s got on board, except that it reached “fairly deeply” into the GOP caucus. Lobbyists say it’s somewhere between 20 and 70 members. Even at the low end of that range, it’s enough to prevent any Republican-led immigration bill from passing.
King’s “immigration whip team” began in January, when he learned that a group of House Republicans and Democrats were secretly negotiating an immigration bill that he was certain included a path to citizenship.
“I talked to Lou Barletta and said, ‘We’d better prepare ourselves,’ ” he said.
The House’s “Gang of Eight” has since splintered, with little chance of its carefully negotiated proposal making an impact in the broader immigration debate. But the House Judiciary Committee has readied four conservative immigration bills that make up the “piece-by-piece” solution to immigration, and the House Homeland Security Committee has completed work on a border-security bill.
“I say to the sponsors, ‘Paint for me a scenario by which any of these five pieces of legislation could become law without sacrificing the rule of law.’ They’re answer to me is, ‘You’re to help with that. You’re to solve that,’ ” he said.
King solves it by saying no to everything.
Although King says he’s supportive of the reform efforts in principle, he adds that they can only lead to a conference-committee compromise that he’d find unacceptable. “We’ll lose in every scenario I can think of,” he said. “There’s nothing to be gained.”
The core of King’s “whip team” is relatively small, with Barletta and Mo Brooks, R-Ala., among them.
Ira Mehlman, a spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, says there are a “significant number of members who are really concerned that anything that they come out with would be hijacked as a vehicle to push amnesty.”
There has been no indication that the House will vote on any immigration legislation this fall beyond the statements of House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R”‘Wis., who said in July that the House would vote on immigration in October. That October window of opportunity was always narrow, however, and now it is likely that lawmakers will be preoccupied with a debt-ceiling showdown next month instead.
From King’s perspective, that’s great. “Each day that has passed without floor action has been good for the rule of law and good for the rule of sovereignty,” he said.
The Senate bill that passed in June included a 13-year path to citizenship for unauthorized immigrants that met certain criteria. It has been widely rejected by the House, with Speaker John Boehner instead seeking a “piece-by-piece” approach to the issue.
But Boehner has also been quiet about what he wants to do on immigration, spending most of his time assuring members of his caucus that they won’t bow to the Senate position. King, by contrast, is one of the most outspoken members on immigration, who has more than once caught flak for using colorful language to make his point that illegal immigrants harm the country and contribute to crime. House Republicans publicly distanced themselves from him after he commented in July that many children of illegal immigrants are forced to work in the drug trade and have “calves the size of cantaloupes.”
Yet even if his GOP colleagues are less inclined to talk about immigration, they tend to sympathize with King’s views opposing any form of legalization. They also fear that business groups that favor a path to citizenship will pressure House leaders so much that they will agree to act on the issue.
It’s theoretically possible for Boehner to get an immigration bill through the House without King and his compatriots.
The Homeland Security Committee’s border-security bill could bring some Democratic votes, particularly because they are discussing inserting it into a broader comprehensive immigration bill that would also include a path to citizenship. But GOP leaders cannot count on Democrats’ assistance with just that bill because they also won’t support any immigration legislation that doesn’t include a path to citizenship.
King, for his part, is proud of his ability to give voice to concerns among his less outspoken colleagues. “Long been my role,” he said. “If something cries out for attention and people are ignoring it, I will step up and do my best to turn it into an issue.”
- 1 Trump Couldn’t Possibly Win—Except That He Probably Will
- 2 More Zika Money Is Coming, But Timing Remains Unclear
- 3 Clinton Goes After Walker, Rubio, Paul on Equal Pay
- 4 Why Did Lee Harvey Oswald Defect to the USSR Before He Killed the President?
- 5 Verizon’s AOL Deal Could Lead to New Privacy Problems
What We're Following See More »
Foreign Policy takes a look at the future of mining the estimated "100,000 near-Earth objects—including asteroids and comets—in the neighborhood of our planet. Some of these NEOs, as they’re called, are small. Others are substantial and potentially packed full of water and various important minerals, such as nickel, cobalt, and iron. One day, advocates believe, those objects will be tapped by variations on the equipment used in the coal mines of Kentucky or in the diamond mines of Africa. And for immense gain: According to industry experts, the contents of a single asteroid could be worth trillions of dollars." But the technology to get us there is only the first step. Experts say "a multinational body might emerge" to manage rights to NEOs, as well as a body of law, including an international court.
Not to be outdone by Jeffrey Goldberg's recent piece in The Atlantic about President Obama's foreign policy, the New York Times Magazine checks in with a longread on the president's economic legacy. In it, Obama is cognizant that the economic reality--73 straight months of growth--isn't matched by public perceptions. Some of that, he says, is due to a constant drumbeat from the right that "that denies any progress." But he also accepts some blame himself. “I mean, the truth of the matter is that if we had been able to more effectively communicate all the steps we had taken to the swing voter,” he said, “then we might have maintained a majority in the House or the Senate.”
Ronald Reagan's children and political allies took to the media and Twitter this week to chide funnyman Will Ferrell for his plans to play a dementia-addled Reagan in his second term in a new comedy entitled Reagan. In an open letter, Reagan's daughter Patti Davis tells Ferrell, who's also a producer on the movie, “Perhaps for your comedy you would like to visit some dementia facilities. I have—I didn’t find anything comedic there, and my hope would be that if you’re a decent human being, you wouldn’t either.” Michael Reagan, the president's son, tweeted, "What an Outrag....Alzheimers is not joke...It kills..You should be ashamed all of you." And former Rep. Joe Walsh called it an example of "Hollywood taking a shot at conservatives again."
In a sign that she’s ready to put a longer-than-expected primary battle behind her, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (D) is no longer going on the air in upcoming primary states. “Team Clinton hasn’t spent a single cent in … California, Indiana, Kentucky, Oregon and West Virginia, while” Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-VT) “campaign has spent a little more than $1 million in those same states.” Meanwhile, Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Sanders’ "lone backer in the Senate, said the candidate should end his presidential campaign if he’s losing to Hillary Clinton after the primary season concludes in June, breaking sharply with the candidate who is vowing to take his insurgent bid to the party convention in Philadelphia.”
The team behind the bestselling "Clinton Cash"—author Peter Schweizer and Breitbart's Stephen Bannon—is turning the book into a movie that will have its U.S. premiere just before the Democratic National Convention this summer. The film will get its global debut "next month in Cannes, France, during the Cannes Film Festival. (The movie is not a part of the festival, but will be shown at a screening arranged for distributors)." Bloomberg has a trailer up, pointing out that it's "less Ken Burns than Jerry Bruckheimer, featuring blood-drenched money, radical madrassas, and ominous footage of the Clintons."