Author Topic: Scarborough: The worst thing the GOP could do before the midterms is pass immigration reform  (Read 240 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Rapunzel

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 71,719
http://hotair.com/archives/2014/01/27/scarborough-the-worst-thing-the-gop-could-do-before-the-midterms-is-pass-immigration-reform/

Scarborough: The worst thing the GOP could do before the midterms is pass immigration reform
posted at 4:01 pm on January 27, 2014 by Allahpundit

Via John Nolte, a rare moment of hope for border hawks that the coming sellout might not happen after all. If even Morning Joe, who hosts the establishment’s favorite political chat show, thinks it’s a bad idea to move on amnesty now, maybe even the moderates in the GOP caucus will think twice. The argument for standing pat is compelling: Turnout among casual voters is always much lower during the midterms than it is during presidential election years. As such, the supposedly inevitable electoral blowback from Latinos (who’ve traditionally turned out at low rates) over congressional paralysis on immigration is more likely to strike in 2016. That gives Republicans two more years to worry about amnesty. It’s conservatives whom the party needs to turn out in November and there’s arguably no surer way of alienating those voters than with a big immigration sellout now. Why not put the whole thing off until next year, when Republicans will (probably) control the Senate and can write a tougher bill — theoretically — than they could now with Harry Reid?

And yet, per the Journal, it sounds like they’re ready to do it anyway:

   
Quote
House leaders hope to bring legislation to the floor as early as April, the people close to the process said, after the deadline has passed in many states for challengers to file paperwork needed to run for Congress. Republican leaders hope that would diminish chances that a lawmaker’s support for immigration bills winds up sparking a primary-election fight…

    Legislation being drafted would reject a “special path” to citizenship for illegal immigrants, which was included in the Senate bill, the people familiar with the process said. But it would grant legal status for all illegal immigrants who meet qualifications, allowing them to work and travel without fear of deportation.

    The legislation under development also would allow this group to tap into existing paths, available to any newcomer, to gain permanent legal residence, also known as a green card. Once someone has a green card, they are eligible to apply for citizenship.

    At the same time, the legislation would make substantial changes to immigration law to clear impediments from those existing paths. Without those changes, illegal immigrants would face big backlogs and requirements that they return to their home countries before applying for a green card.


Don’t put too much stock in the timeline there. Byron York interviewed a bunch of House Republican leaders to see if it’s true that the leadership might try to pull a fast one after the primaries. The consensus seems to be no, for the simple reason that this issue is already on conservatives’ radar. If the big fear is that the base will stay home in November in protest of an immigration deal, then waiting a few months to do it won’t achieve anything. On the contrary, Boehner et al. should prefer to do it as quickly as possible in hopes that memories will fade by election day. If you believe GOP Rep. Mike Coffman, the Speaker himself seems to agree, saying, “There’s no good time to do it, so let’s just get it done now.” More interesting to me are the details above about the leadership rejecting a “special” path to citizenship while at the same time doing everything they can to put newly legalized illegals on an accelerated path to citizenship through “normal” channels. If you’re going to make illegals eligible (at some point in the future) for green cards and you’re going to streamline the process so that they don’t face the backlogs that they do now, why not go ahead and create a special citizenship path? Sounds like the difference between the two is largely semantic, a way to reassure conservatives that the party hasn’t given illegals any breaks even while they’re busy revamping the immigration system to fast-track them.

Here’s the new editorial from NRO echoing Scarborough’s (and Bill Kristol’s) call for the House GOP to do nothing on immigration. I don’t think that’ll happen. They’ll pass a border security bill, I assume, and some sort of smaller concession to Latino voters like the Kids’ Act just to make sure it’s not too easy for Democrats to demagogue them before November. Remember, though: All of these calculations will change instantly when the new Congress is seated in January. There’s no way that the party will risk the next presidential election without some sort of wider amnesty. The only mystery is whether there’ll be a single candidate in the Republican field in 2016 who opposes the idea. Cruz might, to woo tea partiers. But he’ll be the only one.
“The time is now near at hand which must probably determine, whether Americans are to be, Freemen, or Slaves.” G Washington July 2, 1776

Offline Rapunzel

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 71,719
Stopped clock is correct twice a day and today the clock is Scarborough........  the GOP is going to blow any chance in November if they pass this.....
“The time is now near at hand which must probably determine, whether Americans are to be, Freemen, or Slaves.” G Washington July 2, 1776

Online Once-Ler

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,307
  • How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Trump
Stopped clock is correct twice a day and today the clock is Scarborough........  the GOP is going to blow any chance in November if they pass this.....
It is always nice to have a stopped clock on your side.
Jeff B/DDHQ‏@EsotericCD More 6mo into 1st year of Trump's term & he's already looking into pardoning himself & his family We bought this ticket, we're takin' this ride.

Offline MBB1984

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 853
You know it is a terrible idea if Scarborough thinks it is bad.  Even if you like amnesty, which I do not,  it is a bad idea to pass it now because:

1.  Obama is one the ropes and the voters are upset over Obamacare.  Passing amnesty redirects the attention from Obamacare.
2.  In conjunction with 1., passing amnesty gives Obama a victory, a legislative legacy.  Obama now has the appearance of leadership, inspiring the democrat base to turn out in force.
3.  in conjunction with 2., the GOP looks increasingly like an Obama lap dog, weak, tepid, uninspiring and the GOP base stays home.
4. In conjunction with 3., amnesty creates a GOP civil war, dividing the GOP and causing internal strife.  With no unity, the GOP turns on each other and loses whatever political gain they have accomplished to date
5. In conjunction with 4, massive energy and resources are focused on the GOP civil war and amnesty, energy and resources that could be directed to more important, vital Conservative issues.
6. A strong turnout by Hispanic voters in the midterms, "thanking" the democrats for Obama's leadership and accomplishment.

I really cannot think of any positive point to passing amnesty.  And, this analysis omits the obvious dangers of passing amnesty, a failed idea since 1986.


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf