Paul Ryan’s Immigration Litmus Test

The potential speaker has already promised that he won’t tackle comprehensive immigration reform this year.

Rep. Paul Ryan
AP Photo/Eric Gay
Lauren Fox
Add to Briefcase
Lauren Fox
Oct. 21, 2015, 6:31 p.m.

Paul Ry­an rose in front of his con­fer­ence and made a pledge Tues­day night. He would not push for com­pre­hens­ive im­mig­ra­tion re­form this ses­sion if elec­ted speak­er.

Ry­an’s prom­ise was hardly bold, nor was it sur­pris­ing. A ma­jor­ity of the Re­pub­lic­an Con­fer­ence in the House has shown little ap­pet­ite for tack­ling  sweep­ing changes to the coun­try’s im­mig­ra­tion sys­tem. And, after Pres­id­ent Obama en­acted ex­ec­ut­ive ac­tions to pro­tect “Dream­ers” and their par­ents from de­port­a­tion, the well of good­will has pretty been “poisoned,” as Boehner once de­clared. Ry­an said he was open to in­creas­ing bor­der se­cur­ity and in­tern­al en­force­ment, but he won’t be tack­ling any more-mod­er­ate re­forms in the 114th Con­gress.

In the near-term, the po­ten­tial for Re­pub­lic­an change on im­mig­ra­tion is nonex­ist­ent. Out on the cam­paign trail, Re­pub­lic­ans see that their base is head over heels for prom­ises com­ing from GOP pres­id­en­tial fron­trun­ner Don­ald Trump to build a bor­der wall and de­port il­leg­al im­mig­rants.  Now is not the time for im­mig­ra­tion re­form in the Re­pub­lic­an-con­trolled Con­gress. Nor is a path­way to cit­izen­ship the path to vic­tory for Paul Ry­an.

Ry­an’s vow re­veals just how much he is up against as he makes his case to the House Free­dom Caucus. Every po­s­i­tion Ry­an has ever taken is un­der scru­tiny, but his dy­nam­ic past on im­mig­ra­tion re­form has taken cen­ter stage as right wing ra­dio hosts, com­ment­at­ors and law­makers pro­claim that it’s a lit­mus test for Ry­an’s fu­ture as speak­er.

“Suf­fice it to say that Lu­is Gu­ti­er­rez has en­dorsed Paul Ry­an be­cause of Paul Ry­an’s open-bor­ders and am­nesty po­s­i­tion,” Rep. Mo Brooks, a mem­ber of the Free­dom Caucus, said about the Demo­crat­ic law­maker’s work with Ry­an on im­mig­ra­tion. “That is dis­con­cert­ing with the vast ma­jor­ity of Amer­ic­an voters.”

Trump—the fa­vor­ite of many con­ser­vat­ive voters—blas­ted Ry­an on Wed­nes­day on ABC say­ing Ry­an was “weak on im­mig­ra­tion.” And Breit­bart “un­earthed” a 2013 video this week of Ry­an speak­ing out in sup­port of im­mig­ra­tion re­form and prom­ising that he and Gu­ti­er­rez were “do­ing everything” they could to en­sure that Con­gress took ac­tion.

Ry­an has been clear. After run­ning in 2012 along­side Mitt Rom­ney, who de­clared that im­mig­rants should “self-de­port,” Ry­an has said he would sup­port a path to cit­izen­ship for some of the 11 mil­lion im­mig­rants liv­ing in the coun­try il­leg­ally. He sup­por­ted a com­pre­hens­ive im­mig­ra­tion bill in the House as far back as 2005. Yet, un­like Sen. Marco Ru­bio, who openly cam­paigned for a bi­par­tis­an im­mig­ra­tion bill, Ry­an’s role has been more meas­ured and stealthy. Demo­crats and Re­pub­lic­ans say Ry­an helped clear the way for mem­bers to try and ne­go­ti­ate a bi­par­tis­an House bill in 2013 and they note he was gauging in­terest. Still, they say he was not the face of the ef­fort, nor was he the only prom­in­ent Re­pub­lic­an or con­ser­vat­ive in­volved.

Raul Lab­rador, for ex­ample, a mem­ber of the Free­dom Caucus, had once been part of the group ne­go­ti­at­ing bi­par­tis­an im­mig­ra­tion re­form.

“Some Demo­crats and Re­pub­lic­ans were meet­ing to try and knock something out; even Lab­rador was in that group for awhile,” said Rep. Raul Gri­jalva, a Demo­crat from Ari­zona. “I think the con­tri­bu­tion that Boehner and Ry­an made was that they didn’t im­pede it.”

Gri­jalva says Ry­an “wasn’t writ­ing the le­gis­la­tion.”

Rep. Ren­ee Ellmers, who has sup­por­ted more-mod­er­ate im­mig­ra­tion bills in the past, also said Ry­an’s role was hardly a star­ring one.

“I feel like maybe some people are reach­ing for a reas­on to doubt his cap­ab­il­it­ies,” Ellmers says.

Rep. Mick Mul­vaney, a mem­ber of the House Free­dom Caucus who worked closely with Ry­an in 2013 on im­mig­ra­tion, says that Ry­an’s role has been over­blown and mis­char­ac­ter­ized.

“What I think is get­ting lost in a lot of the shuffle is we were only ask­ing three ques­tions. The ques­tion we took when we were ac­cused of be­ing for am­nesty was to our mem­bers: ‘Do you want to do im­mig­ra­tion now, later, or ever?’” Mul­vaney says. “ That’s it. We were not whip­ping a spe­cif­ic bill for or against. We were simply try­ing to gauge the at­mo­sphere of the con­fer­ence on tak­ing up im­mig­ra­tion go­ing in­to an elec­tion cycle. So to me, the im­mig­ra­tion thing is a red her­ring. “

Gu­ti­er­rez says Ry­an clearly un­der­stood the need to ex­pand the Re­pub­lic­an Party’s base after his bid as vice pres­id­ent. Ry­an spoke along­side Gu­ti­er­rez at the City Club of Chica­go in April 2013, just months be­fore the Sen­ate passed its im­mig­ra­tion bill.

“Did Paul Ry­an play a role in try­ing to bring about a con­sensus? He did,”  Gu­ti­er­rez said. “He is for an im­mig­ra­tion sys­tem that al­lows a path­way to cit­izen­ship for people.”

But Ry­an’s as­sur­ances that he would not push for any­thing bey­ond maybe a bor­der or in­tern­al-se­cur­ity bill in the up­com­ing months speaks to both the tim­ing con­straints of this le­gis­lat­ive ses­sion as well as keen aware­ness that im­mig­ra­tion is a li­ab­il­ity for him. For mem­bers of the Free­dom Caucus, a primary chal­lenge from the Right—not frus­tra­tion from minor­ity voters back home—is of para­mount con­cern.

“I have a whole list of is­sues, and his po­s­i­tion on am­nesty is one of them,” says Rep. Wal­ter Jones, a con­ser­vat­ive from North Car­o­lina.

Rep. Steve King, a con­ser­vat­ive from Iowa, says he be­lieves Ry­an when he prom­ises not to tackle com­pre­hens­ive im­mig­ra­tion re­form this ses­sion of Con­gress, but he still is sup­port­ing Daniel Web­ster out of fear Ry­an may try and pur­sue im­mig­ra­tion re­form down the road.

“I think it does come in­to play. It comes in­to play with the next pres­id­ent,” King says. “If the next pres­id­ent is an open-bor­ders pres­id­ent and you have an open-bor­ders speak­er, it would be about im­possible to stop an am­nesty agenda at this point.”

What We're Following See More »
INDICTMENTS NOT PROOF OF COLLUSION
Rosenstein Holds Presser On Russian Indictments
3 days ago
THE DETAILS
Source:
CONTRADICTS TRUMP’S DENIALS
U.S. Indicts 13 Russian Nationals For Election Interference
3 days ago
THE LATEST

The indictment, filed in the District of Columbia, alleges that the interference began "in or around 2014," when the defendants began tracking and studying U.S. social media sites. They "created and controlled numerous Twitter accounts" and "purchased computer servers located inside the United States" to mask their identities, some of which were stolen. The interference was coordinated by election interference "specialists," and focused on the Black Lives Matter movement, immigration, and other divisive issues. "By early to mid-2016" the groups began supporting the campaign of "then-candidate Donald Trump," including by communicating with "unwitting individuals associated with the Trump Campaign..."

Source:
“QUEEN FOR A DAY”
Gates Said to Be Finalizing a Plea Deal
3 days ago
THE LATEST

"Former Trump campaign adviser Rick Gates is finalizing a plea deal with special counsel Robert Mueller's office, indicating he's poised to cooperate in the investigation, according to sources familiar with the case. Gates has already spoken to Mueller's team about his case and has been in plea negotiations for about a month. He's had what criminal lawyers call a 'Queen for a Day' interview, in which a defendant answers any questions from the prosecutors' team, including about his own case and other potential criminal activity he witnessed."

Source:
ZERO-FOR-TWO
Another Defeat for Immigration Legislation in the Senate
3 days ago
THE LATEST

"The Senate on Thursday rejected immigration legislation crafted by centrists in both parties after President Trump threatened to veto the bill if it made it to his desk. In a 54-45 vote, the Senate failed to advance the legislation from eight Republican, seven Democratic and one Independent senators. It needed 60 votes to overcome a procedural hurdle. "

Source:
DISPUTE ASSERTION OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE
House Intel Panel Could Charge Bannon with Contempt
3 days ago
THE LATEST

"The House Intelligence Committee has scheduled a Thursday meeting to hear testimony from Steve Bannon—but it's an open question whether President Donald Trump's former chief strategist will even show up. The White House sent a letter to Capitol Hill late Wednesday laying out its explanation for why Trump's transition period falls under its authority to assert executive privilege, a move intended to shield Bannon from answering questions about that time period." Both Republicans and Democrats on the committee dispute the White House's theory, and have floated charging Bannon with contempt should he refuse to appear.

Source:
×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login