Thread: Are immigration reformers talking down chances so opponents will drop guard?

By Byron York | FEBRUARY 3, 2014 AT 8:30 AM
Washington Examiner



Republican Rep. Paul Ryan, a leading House advocate of immigration reform, sounded decidedly cautious when asked on ABC Sunday whether Congress can pass a reform bill to send to the president this year. "I really don't know the answer to that question," Ryan said. "That is clearly in doubt."

That certainly appears to be true — after all, a large number of House Republicans oppose some significant parts of the GOP immigration reform principles unveiled at the party's retreat last week. So there is plenty of reason to take Ryan's statement as a plainly factual assessment of the situation.

But Ryan's words still set off suspicions among opponents of immigration reform. They've heard such pessimistic talk from reform advocates before and believe it has been an effective rhetorical tool for supporters of Gang of Eight-style reform.

In this way: If the public hears constantly that immigration reform is in trouble on Capitol Hill, that it has little or no chance of passage, then conservative activists, reassured that there's no threat, aren't likely to mobilize against it. What's the need? It's going to fail anyway. But if the public hears that immigration reform is steaming ahead, that the House leadership is determined to pass a bill, or bills, that will end up in conference with the Senate's already-passed Gang of Eight comprehensive immigration reform measure -- if the GOP base hears that, it will recognize the risk, speak out, and at the very least make things more difficult for immigration reform advocates.

So better to talk down the chances of the reform's success. "The best way to pass a bill is to tell people a bill is unlikely to pass," says one Hill aide closely involved in the issue. "What if Ryan had gone on TV and said, 'Read my lips, we're going to pass a bill'? Can you imagine how much more difficult it would be is for Republicans when they go home to town halls?"

The aide recalls how Senate GOP Gang of Eight leader Marco Rubio often stressed the downside of his bill's chances. Recalling a closed-door meeting in which Rubio discussed the bill with skeptical colleagues, the aide remembers, "Rubio said, 'Look, there's no way the bill will pass as it is right now. The Democrats are going to lose about five of their own, and it just won't pass.' Rubio would go on Hannity and say the same thing -- Oh, we've got so much work to do, we don't have the votes."

One result of that kind of talk was that conservatives who opposed reform didn't see an active threat until the Gang of Eight bill was on the verge of passage. "The phone lines in Congress didn't melt down until after Corker-Hoeven [the amendment that assured enough Republican support for passage], and everybody realized the countdown had begun," the aide says.

Now, some Hill conservatives — maybe those of a particularly suspicious bent of mind — see something similar beginning. "When Ryan says things like it's going to be tough to pass, I don't see that as meaning Ryan and the $10 billion coalition that is trying to pass the bill is calling things off," says the aide. "I think it's saying to conservatives to leave us alone while we work on it."

The bottom line is that a popular perception that immigration reform is in imminent danger of defeat will tend to motivate those who want to pass it and not motivate those who want to stop it. That is not saying Paul Ryan wasn't giving his best assessment of the bill's chances at the moment. But that assessment also happens to help the cause.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/are-im...rticle/2543330

By Peter Kirsanow
February 3, 2014 4:23 PM
national review

Byron York has an interesting column today speculating that amnesty supporters may be purposefully talking down the chances immigration reform will pass so amnesty opponents will drop their guards just long enough for a Gang of Eight–style bill to sneak through. York notes amnesty opponents didn’t begin melting down congressional phone lines last spring until the vote on the Corker-Hoeven amendments signaled enough Republicans were on board that passage of the Gang of Eight bill was imminent. When the threat of passage faded, so did the number of irate phone calls, allowing amnesty to move forward under the radar.

Although plausible, this approach suffers from at least three infirmities. First, it presumes against all evidence that House Republicans have an actual strategy on immigration reform. Second, conservatives, having witnessed at least ten months of Republican rhetorical squishiness and pandering on amnesty, are already on high alert for Republican duplicity on the issue. Third, the House Republicans’ Principles on Immigration Reform released last week were so transparently cynical they caused any residual trust for Republicans on the issue to evaporate.

Instead of the incoherent principles put forth last week, Republicans would be better served going into the 2014 midterms setting out a much simpler set of three “principles:”

1) Enforce current immigration laws and build the 700 mile fence mandated by the Secure Fence Act of 2006.

2) See # 1 above.

3) Fire anyone who doesn’t do 1 & 2 above.

Then concentrate on jobs, the economy, national security, Obamacare and general fiscal sanity. And, before passing any new immigration legislation, wait until there’s someone in the White House who recognizes the distinction between Section 1 of Article I and Section 1 of Article II of the Constitution.

Regardless of where you stand on immigration reform, the seemingly endless attempts by our elected representatives to hoodwink the American people should infuriate you. Congressmen seem utterly undeterred by the fact that trust in government today is at a nadir. They remain intent on doubling down on duplicity, on fooling us rubes in flyover country. They haven’t quite come to grips with the idea that the Obamacare debacle has eroded the public’s trust in all politicians, not just those from the party of big government.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...peter-kirsanow