Thread: 5 players who could stop immigration reform

5 players who could stop immigration reform

By SEUNG MIN KIM | 5/6/13 5:06 AM EDT

The Senate deal makers on immigration reform have moved quickly to blunt criticisms that could derail its success.

Now the real test of their offense begins.

The legislative slog starts this week, when the Senate Judiciary Committee begins marking up the bill. There will be no shortage of obstacles in what will be the chief policy battle on Capitol Hill this year, and any one factor could complicate the fragile path toward immigration reform.

(Also on POLITICO: Gang of Eight plots path to Senate supermajority)

These key players and how they handle the immigration debate strategically could make the difference between a bill that reaches President Barack Obama’s desk and a legislative death like the last effort six years ago.

Here is POLITICO’s list of who to watch:

1. Jim DeMint and The Heritage Foundation

This is the kind of policy fight for which Jim DeMint was hired.

The former South Carolina GOP senator and tea party hero took over last month as president of the 40-year-old conservative think tank, and got straight to work. He has blasted the Gang of Eight’s proposal as “amnesty,” criticized negotiators for drafting the bill in secret and is trying to highlight the bill’s potential costs if millions of undocumented immigrants are made eligible for federal benefits.

(PHOTOS: 20 quotes on immigration reform)

If DeMint and Heritage — with its policy analyses and feisty advocacy arm — can help keep the right unified on immigration, it could force Democrats and the White House to accept amendments they don’t like in order to get something through — or simply kill the bill.

Heritage has been here before. The group helped sink previous immigration efforts by focusing on costs. Senior research fellow Robert Rector released a study in 2007 saying that immigration legislation could cost taxpayers $2.6 trillion.

Monday, Heritage said immigration reform could cost $6.3 trillion on new spending on entitlements and social programs.

But Heritage is getting pushback from conservatives and economists on both sides who say that adding millions of new taxpayers and streamlining the legal immigration process will spur growth and benefit the economy.

(PHOTOS: Pols react to immigration deal)

Former Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin authored a study released last month arguing that immigration reform would boost GDP per capita by more than $1,500 and slash more than $2.5 trillion from the cumulative federal deficit.

Even Grover Norquist, the man behind the GOP no-tax pledges, wants an immigration bill.

“I believe that free markets lead to economic growth and prosperity for all,” Norquist said on Capitol Hill last week. “This includes free and flexible labor markets, which will benefit not only those who wish to come here to pursue the American dream but also those of us blessed enough to have been born in the United States of America.”

2. Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)

The House Judiciary Committee chairman will oversee that chamber’s pathway to immigration reform, and he has outlined an approach that, so far, sets up a procedural — and philosophical — clash with the Senate.

In a Republican Conference that stresses regular order, Goodlatte’s step-by-step, take-it-slow strategy will be key. Last month, he unveiled two conservative-friendly measures: a temporary agricultural guest worker bill and an E-Verify requirement for employers.

He promises there’s more to come but hasn’t committed to any timetables. He also does not personally support what he calls a “special” pathway to citizenship. Ensuring eventual citizenship for the 11 million illegal immigrants is a marquee priority of Democrats and a critical component of the Gang of Eight’s plan.

Goodlatte is a former immigration lawyer who took over the chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee earlier this year. The Virginian, now in his 11th term, roundly criticized the 2007 Senate immigration proposal and introduced an alternative that had a heavy focus on security and law enforcement while making English the country’s official language.

Democrats and immigration reform advocates say a comprehensive approach is the only way to ensure that more contentious measures — such as a pathway to citizenship — actually get to the president’s desk.

Jeff Sessions and Chuck Schumer spar over immigration

“Republican movement toward a piecemeal approach will validate the real concern in the Latino community that Republicans don’t care about what happens to the Latino community and immigrants,” said Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-Calif.), a key House immigration negotiator and a member of House Democratic leadership.

3. Red-state Democrats

Fifteen members of the Senate Democratic Caucus voted down the final attempt on the 2007 comprehensive immigration reform bill and most hailed from red states with constituents skittish about a pathway to citizenship.

Of the 15, 10 remain in the Senate. And the 2014 election cycle will loom large over the immigration debate, with a host of Democrats up for reelection in conservative territory.

Democratic Sen. Mark Begich, who is running in red Alaska, said in an interview that he’s “holding judgment” on the Gang of Eight legislation and keeping an eye on how Congress will pay for the bill. “We have a habit around here of passing legislation and never worrying about how it’s paid for, and then we wonder why it didn’t work,” Begich said.

Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) voted against the 2007 bill. She has not committed to backing the new Gang of Eight’s legislation but praised it for attempting to generate additional revenue.

Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.), who announced last week that he would retire after the 2014 midterms, is known to be an independent operator. In 2007, Baucus said he could not back “amnesty for illegal immigrants.”

Fellow Montana Democratic Sen. Jon Tester rejected the 2007 legislation on similar grounds. And Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), one of the top 2014 targets for Republicans, voted against the plan as well.

But reform advocates say the politics have changed. President Barack Obama’s overwhelming 2012 win of the Latino vote propelled immigration to the top of Washington’s agenda this year, stirring momentum not seen in years.

Public opinion has shifted as well: A December 2007 New York Times/CBS News poll found that 38 percent of Americans believed immigrants illegally working in the United States should be allowed to stay and apply for citizenship. Now, it’s 56 percent, according to the same poll.

4. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.)

The former federal prosecutor has quickly emerged as the noisiest critic of the Gang of Eight on Capitol Hill, repeatedly lamenting that the legislation “fails to live up to every major promise.”

Sessions says leaders are going too fast. He protests the more expansive DREAM Act provisions. Trillions of dollars would be racked up in entitlement costs, he says. He predicts a surge of new immigrants under the legislation, a bad move in an era of stubbornly high unemployment. He’s likened it to the much-maligned Obamacare, warning that the effects of the immigration bill won’t be known until it’s enacted into law.

It’s unclear how many Senate Republicans will latch onto Sessions’s message, but his persistent critiques will continue. And Sessions holds a senior role on the Judiciary Committee, putting him in a position to push conservative amendments during the markup.

Other influential figures on the right such as Utah Sen. Mike Lee and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz also sit on the panel, and with Sessions could force efforts to morph the legislation into a more conservative-friendly proposal.

”We’re examining this legislation and found a lot of surprising facts,” Sessions said at a Judiciary Committee hearing last month. “I’m not sure the bill sponsors fully understand it or not, and I think it could prove fatal to this legislation.”

5. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.)

Make no mistake. Rubio is all in for the bill, and much of his political future hinges on the success of the legislation the young senator helped draft.

That’s why everyone is watching every move he makes.

Were he to go wobbly or lose his support with the GOP base, congressional Republicans wouldn’t take long to abandon ship.

Asked what would happen if Rubio withdrew his support, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) replied: “I think it would kill the bill.”

Rubio has forcefully defended the bill – particularly from attacks by fellow conservatives – while emphasizing an open, transparent process allowing fellow lawmakers and the public to thoroughly vet the legislation.

He flooded the airwaves with seven Sunday morning TV show appearances in one day last month to sell the 844-page package, at the same time stressing that it will need changes and improvement from the initial draft. His office frequently blasts out “Myth vs. Fact” emails about the Gang of Eight’s immigration plan to the news media.

More recently, Rubio has forecast doom for the bill’s chances in the House and even the Senate if changes — particularly border security measures — aren’t made.

“There’s always the potential that any law can change in a way that people can’t support it,” Rubio told POLITICO. “But I don’t anticipate that.”

And last week Rubio said adding language allowing gay Americans to sponsor their foreign-born partners for green cards could help kill the bill as well.

The other three Republicans on the Gang of Eight — Sens. Jeff Flake and John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina — are important as well, but Rubio is the only presidential contender of the bunch who would personally benefit from helping out the GOP’s image among Latinos.

“All eight deserve a lot of credit for doing what many thought was unimaginable,” Hatch said. “But there’s no use kidding. He’s been the key guy on this bill, and if it passes, it’s going to be in large measure because of Marco Rubio.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...#ixzz2SXzqnips

They left this guy out.

http://www.alipac.us/f12/could-texas...-plans-277892/