Skip to main content

A boy listens to U.S. President Barack Obama speak on immigration reform at Chamizal National Memorial Park in El Paso, Texas, May 10, 2011. REUTERS/Jim Young
ABC News, reporting on the handful of Republicans who have in recent days expressed their support for immigration reform including a path to citizenship or legal status, delivers this nugget:
Both Webster and Shock say they would support a pathway as long as certain pre-conditions are met, bringing the total to 21 House Republicans in support of a measure to bring the 11 million undocumented out of the shadows and into legal status and citizenship.
In one sense, the fact that there are just 21 Republicans publicly taking this position is pathetic. That's less than 10 percent of the Republicans in Congress—it means there's an order of magnitude more Republicans who aren't willing to support reform.

But while Republicans may be in charge of the House, it's not like Democrats don't exist. And if you take the number of Democrats who voted against Steve King's legislation to resume DREAM Act deportations (195), add the number of Democrats who missed that vote but who would vote voted against it had they been present (3), and then then combine that with the 21 House Republicans who say they support reform ... you end up with 219. And that's more than 218, which represents a majority of the House when all seats are filled.

You can slice and dice this issue however you want, but the one thing that's absolutely clear is that the votes are there for immigration reform. A majority exists. And that means the only thing that could stop immigration reform from happening is if Republicans, for purely partisan reasons, decide to kill reform. Gridlock isn't an obstacle: It's a choice.

The math is simple. And the question is even simpler: Do Republicans want to spend the next three years explaining explaining why their biggest "accomplishment" in Congress was overruling the majority to kill immigration reform?

Sign our petition urging U.S. House members to bring comprehensive immigration reform to a floor vote, with or without Speaker Boehner.

Originally posted to The Jed Report on Thu Aug 08, 2013 at 08:26 AM PDT.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  can they walk and chew gum: keep their racist base (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    skillet, Larsstephens

    of LIVs and still co-opt the possibility of new immigrant voters or their social networks  

    The math is simple. And the question is even simpler: Do Republicans want to spend the next three years explaining explaining why their biggest "accomplishment" in Congress was overruling the majority to kill immigration reform?

    Warning - some snark may be above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 "I’m not the strapping young Muslim socialist that I used to be" - Barack Obama 04/27/2013

    by annieli on Thu Aug 08, 2013 at 08:32:38 AM PDT

  •  Somebody get Boehner a glass of water. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
  •  If the "certain conditions" means... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    annieli, ahumbleopinion, skillet, Aunt Pat

    ...even more money for border security, I say we pay this particular "ransom" and move on.

    Do they want to field 50,000 additional personnel on the border?


    Fine. It's as close to a Job creation bill as we get out of these clowns and it brings the issue to closure.

    When you are right you cannot be too radical; when you are wrong, you cannot be too conservative. --Martin Luther King Jr.

    by Egalitare on Thu Aug 08, 2013 at 08:43:22 AM PDT

    •  Interesting theory. However... (0+ / 0-)

      ...since it would...
      ...give the Publicans even more their manifold hypocrisies on the evils of [some] Big Government Spending, and an excuse to try to cut even more from SS, Medicare, etc (while manipulating Obama to take the blame for the latter -- a blame he seems frustratingly eager to accept)
      ...almost certainly put even more undertrained, overarmed, and possibly sociopathic "shoot first, ask questions never" new-hire border-guards on duty, which would...
      ...lead to even more cross-border shootings of innocent Mexican citizens
      ...all in support of a.bill that's likely to lead to further downward pressure on US wages at all levels, but especially at the lower- and un-skilled parts of the labor markets,
      I'm not entirely convinced.
      If the bill were better, and included better controls on the way the border is already being "controlled," maybe.

  •  It's simple for me also: Citizenship or nothing. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Aunt Pat, Batya the Toon, smartalek

    I won't support a guest worker program that employers can use to drive down wages and undermine American workers. A guest worker program is the Holy Grail of the 1%; finally a way to in-source jobs that aren't practical to outsource.

    Make these people my countrymen, don't make them an instrument of wage destruction. We'll all be better for it.

    Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!

    by bigtimecynic on Thu Aug 08, 2013 at 08:55:27 AM PDT

    •  Big time is on this police state/slave (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bigtimecynic, smartalek

      Wages creation bill.The border is already tight.I live and work on the border and travel to Mexico quite a bit.The Ag job wages will go down in Cochise County Az. that is a fact I know first hand from a Pecan grower friend . older American workers of all color with health problems,you Americans with no work history of skills on one side skilled 35 year old ,strong,healthy Mexican skilled labor ers on the other who give no trouble to the boss......a recipe for disaster for American workers.
      pests take back the house and write a new bill..

      •  Amen. I love how we're now supposed to be excited (0+ / 0-)

        ...and working for bills that we should be totally opposed to.
        This is not just a horrific policy, it's political malpractice. The Publicans are trying to hand the Dem's a few major voting blocs -- and they're saying, "hey, we don't want to support you.either!"
        How pathetic is it that we must rely on Publican insanity to save us from Democrats' perfidy?
        Is there anyone left in Congress (other than Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren) to represent the 99%?

  •  So, what are the preconditions? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Aunt Pat

    A 2000-mile Berlin Wall?  A border security budget larger than the military budget of most countries?  In other words, full employment for those who may fall off the Iraq/Afghanistan gravy train.

  •  Would 21 Republicans support discharge petition? (0+ / 0-)

    I think the golden question might be, "Are all 21 House Republicans in favor of the Senate bill willing to go around the Hastert Rule?"

    i just baptized andrew breitbart into the church of islam, planned parenthood, the girl scouts and three teachers unions. - @blainecapatch

    by bobinson on Thu Aug 08, 2013 at 09:10:43 AM PDT

  •  The fact that immigration reform is (0+ / 0-)

    going nowhere in the House has nothing to do with the bigots or those fearful of "the browns" - it's entirely on the back of John Boehner, and he knows it.  The number of Democrats who would vote for the Senate's bill combined with the number of Republicans who are not lunatics could pass this bill.  And that frightens John Boehner more than the House loonies do.  One of their cohorts might run against him next fall, or one of them might run against him for Speaker.  Horrors!

    "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." - H. L. Mencken

    by SueDe on Thu Aug 08, 2013 at 09:11:51 AM PDT

  •  the preconditions (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    they would support a pathway as long as certain pre-conditions
    If those conditions are subjective, unrealistic or impossible to meet, then this means nothing and Repubs are just jerking people around again.
    Webster’s support does come with a list of prerequisites, including border security with 90% operational control verified by the Government Accountability Office, and e-verify— both measures already included in the Senate bill passed in June.
    There are folks who think the preconditions already in the Senate bill are either extreme burdens on new immigrants or are simply unworkable.
    Schock, of Illinois, announced on Tuesday at a town hall that he also would support a pathway to citizenship as long as certain requirements are met: a secure border, back taxes paid, no criminal history, a probation period, and must go to the back of the line (i.e, behind those waiting in their home country and following legal channels).

    I'm not liberal. I'm actually just anti-evil, OK? - Elon James White

    by Satya1 on Thu Aug 08, 2013 at 09:12:23 AM PDT

  •  GOP doesn't want immigration reform. it's (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    too useful for selling division racism, keeping wages down, and voter ID/suppression. it has been a regular political tool on talk radio for the last decade.

    this is just another issue they play with. it doesn't serve them to resolve this.

    This is a list of 76 universities for Rush Limbaugh that endorse global warming denial, racism, sexism, and GOP lies by broadcasting sports on over 170 Limbaugh radio stations.

    by certainot on Thu Aug 08, 2013 at 09:15:20 AM PDT

  •  Of course not... (0+ / 0-)

    This is a rational argument and we're not talking about people interested in reasonable governance. Their only concern is political expediency.  Republicans will not vote for any immigration reform much less will Boehner defy the Hastert rule---they are all in safe districts and fear from the Right/Teabaggers and the "leadership" is already under threat, so why would they do anything but deny and punt?  Jed is making far too much sense.  Game's over.

  •  You Keep Calling This 'Immigration Reform' (0+ / 0-)

    Fine, call it what you want, but that pile of crap the Senate passed doesn't 'reform' anything.

    Yesterday, all nine of the so-called 'Dream 9' were released after being detained for 17 days at the Eloy Detention Center.

    All nine are citizens of Mexico and all nine applied for asylum in U.S. claiming that they had a 'credible fear of persecution' if they were forced to remain in Mexico.

    Among the nine was 37-year-old Claudia Amaro. Claudia Amaro was brought to U.S. at seventeen, and so does not qualify for DACA. Claudia Amaro lived in the U.S. illegally for 20 years, and after her husband was deported following his pleading guilty to using a fraudulent Social Security card and making false statements Claudia Amaro returned to Mexico six years ago.

    Amaro herself had been charged with falsely representing herself as a U.S. citizen, but the charge was dropped.

    So, after having returned to Mexico six years ago, Claudia Amaro shows up at the Nogales port of entry and demands entry to the U.S. claiming that she has a 'credible fear of persecution' if she stays in Mexico, was yesterday released into the U.S., will at some point obtain a permit to work legally in the U.S., and likely her case will not come before an immigration judge for years.

    Whether inside the U.S. or outside, this is the bar that is now set for Mexican nationals to claim asylum in the U.S.

    This is an example of what your going to get with your so-called 'immigration reform'.

    I won't be coming home tonight, my generation will put it right - Genesis 9:3

    by superscalar on Thu Aug 08, 2013 at 09:33:56 AM PDT

  •  wow (0+ / 0-)

    legislation that will treat immigrants of color just like the white immigrants from europe were treated and welcomed onto america, no prejudice or racism here just plain old america hate and bigotry.

  •  Legalizing people is disgusting. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    One is reminded of a time when some people were bastards because their parents did not have their relationship properly certified. If we are committed to the proposition that humans are God's creation, what justification is there for requiring their presence to be legalized?
    Do some humans have authority over God's creation? If so, is that not hubris to the nth degree?

    We organize governments to deliver services and prevent abuse.

    by hannah on Thu Aug 08, 2013 at 11:22:51 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site