We all saw the Senate Immigration Reform Bill pass last week with 68 votes which included all 54 Democrats/Independents and 14 Republicans. We also know that only 60 votes were needed to end debate on the bill (i.e., obtain cloture to end the filibuster) to proceed to final passage. Furthermore, we know that the original bill that was placed on the Senate floor had at least 58 cloture votes (54 Democrats. + 4 Republicans from the "Gang of 8"), and that Republican Senator Ayotte announced her support for the bill before the "Border Security" amendment was tacked on, giving it at least 59 of the 60 cloture votes needed. Assuming for the moment that Dems. could have garnered at least 1 more Republican vote without the Border Security amendment (perhaps with a little pork type amendment to persuade an on-the-fence Republican), the question I am posing in this Diary is this:
Was the addition of the Border Security amendment a Strategic Blunder or Stroke of Genius?
Join me after the jump /\ where I will present both sides and speculate on what might happen to the Senate Bill.
For those who might not be aware, the Border Security amendment to the Senate's Immigration Reform Bill was proposed by the bill's supporters to address border security concerns raised by Republicans. In a nut shell, it doubles the number of border security officers and adds hundreds of miles of new border fence between the US and Mexico, as well as a number of other additional security measure (e.g., cameras, drones, helicopters and a number of other items to make any private military or security contractor salivate). It also requires that these additional border security measures be put in place before proceeding with the process of legalizing the 11 million undocumented immigrants already in the US. However, it does not require any specific results from these increased border security measures before beginning the legalization process, unlike the previous Republican "poison pill" amendment which would have required proof of around a 90% reduction in illegal border crossings before any legalization could begin (of course there is really no such "proof" that Republicans would accept).
In agreeing to this Republican proposed amendment, the Senate Democratic Leadership and Gang-of-Eight strategy was to win over more Republican votes in the Senate so that the cloture and final passage votes in the Senate would garner substantial Republican votes and result in around 70 "yes" votes or at least more than 2/3s. The idea being that if the Bill received around 14 Republican votes in the Senate, it would put pressure on enough House Republicans for Boehnor to bring it to the floor and secure passage in the House.
So was this a strategic blunder or stroke of genius? Lets discuss the strategic blunder angle first shall we.
Strategic Blunder:
On the surface, there is a strong argument to be made that the addition of the amendment was a blunder since Boehnor has announced that he will not bring the Senate bill (as is) to the House floor unless it had a majority of Republican House members supporting it, which it doesn't of course (i.e., invoking the so called "Hastert Rule", which is not really a "rule" at all). So with or without the Border amendment, Boehnor was not going to give the Senate Bill a vote in the House. However, since Boehnor and other Republican Leaders in the House do not want to see Republicans branded as the sole party that killed Immigration Reform (for purely electoral reasons, of course), they probably want to put some sort of bill on the House floor that they will label as "immigration reform" and which a majority of House Republicans will vote for. Chances are that it would be something like a bill which quadruples border security (double that in the Senate amendment) with military and electric fence along the entire southern border, and which will only allow the immigration legalization process to start once the influx of new undocumented immigrants is slowed to a trickle, and will not include a path to citizenship (well, maybe a very narrow path analogous to having a camel fit through the eye of a needle).
[Aside - Not sure if such a bill could even get through the House if it only garners a slim majority of Republican House members. Remember, there are a substantial number of House Republicans in fear of a primary challenge who won't vote for any legislation that has the words "immigration" and "reform" in the same bill. Therefore, Boehnor could need some Democratic votes in the House for passage. If so, will he get them? Remember, this would be an odious bill that many Dems. will find it hard to vote "yes" on. However, he can hope that enough Dems. will hold their noses and vote for it just to get it to conference with the Senate.]
Assuming Boehnor gets a House Bill passed and both the House and Senate vote to go to Conference to resolve the differences on their different bills, what is there left for Senate Dems. to offer to get whatever Boehner considers as sufficient support of Republican House members? This is where the strategic blunder of the Senate's Border Security amendment comes in. The point being that we could have passed the Senate Bill without it and gone to conference with the House anyway, leaving the Border Security amendment (or something similar to it) as a bargaining chip. But as happened often in the past, Senate Dems. have put forth compromises to Republicans before they have to, only to see them rejected immediately and leaving them little, if any room for bargaining down the road. Therefore, if the House passes its own bill with a majority of Republican support, I really don't see what further concessions the Senate could give to the House that could gather a majority of Republican votes in the House without losing Dem. votes in the Senate. In this scenario, putting forth what most Dems. (if not all) would consider as our "bottom-line" position on border security in the Senate amendment before going to Conference, could be the strategic blunder that contributes to the immigration legislation's demise.
Stroke of Genius:
The usual route to get a Senate Bill to the House floor passes through the House Leadership, or more specifically, the Speaker. However, if that route is blocked, as it is in this case, there is a second, albeit more difficult route to get a bill to the House floor that the Majority Leadership is not willing to act upon. That is the "Discharge Petition". It allows any bill to be brought to the House floor through a petition that must be signed by at least 218 House members (a simple majority). The idea being that if a majority of House members want to see a bill brought to the floor, it should be allowed since there is therefore assumed to be a majority for its passage.
According to this Washington Post Article, rumors are circulating that a Discharge Petition may be brewing to get the Senate Immigration Bill to the House floor.
According to the House Clerk there are 201 Democrats in the House. Assuming that they would all be willing to sign such a Discharge Petition (which is by no means a lock), you would need at least 17 of the 234 Republicans to also sign on in order to get the Senate Bill (as is) to the House floor. Now don't get me wrong, this is a long shot at best. But there are a number of factors in play that might make it possible.
First, the Republican's Corporate Masters want this bill, because of the legalization of its immigrant labor force. There are a number of non-Tea Party Republicans in the House who obey these masters and would like to see some sort of legalization bill get passed. Second, a Discharge Petition gives Speaker Boehnor and other Republicans in the House Leadership a way out of their "rock-and-a-hard-place" dilemma between the electoral pragmatists in their Party and the Tea Party ideologues. They can publicly (weakly) oppose such a petition while privately allowing it will succeed. Lastly, and this is where the "genius" of the Senate's Border Security Amendment would come in, those Republicans who might consider signing the Petition could use the amendment and the the 14 Republican Senators who supported it and the overall Senate Bill as providing political cover, especially if they are Republicans from Districts where a successful Tea Party Primary challenge is not likely.
Will 17 House Republicans risk Tea Party wrath and sign a Discharge Petition? Frankly, its unlikely. But if Dems. can get even a very few to sign on, that, coupled with the Senate Border Amendment and the 14 Republican Senators who voted for the Senate Bill, will put a lot of pressure to come to a final bill in Conference that looks a lot like the Senate Bill. Faced with the possibility of having the Senate Bill brought to the House floor (as is) through a Discharge Petition or having a House/Senate compromise bill slightly different than the Senate Bill, the Republicans would much rather end up with the latter. If this plays out, the addition of the Senate's Border Security amendment and the added Senate Republicans it garnered would end up looking like a stroke of genius.
Well, what do you think? Strategic Blunder or Stroke of Genius? Or do you simply want to see how things play out next week. Take the poll and/or add your comments.