It's time for immigration reform- LA Times

I guess we'll have to wait for the Schumer-Graham bill to see where CIR is going....

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...,1225823.story

How come they need to wait for the Schumer-Graham bill. Where does the Gutierez bill come in place. Seems like they will just discard it without even considering it.

At least Gutierez had the balls to make one up. Schumer taking forever.

Well the house probably won't discuss it until the senate does just to be on the safe side. And if they did, they'd have to spend more time compromising with the senate anyhow

They are waiting for the Schumer-Graham bill because it will be used as the basis for anything.The House leadership,Senate leadership & White House will be taking all of their cues from those within the Senate compromise circle some articles I have read also said Schumer was a quiet negotiator in the Healthcare debate & since the bill did receive 60 Senate votes I'm willing to see what else Schumer can achieve concerning immigration.

If Schumer can actually pull immigration off in the Senate during an election year with 60 votes he should be considered a great legislator.Imo,the vote still stands at 49-56 Senators so lets see what he can do even if the odds may seem against at the moment.

The House won't take action on immigration reform until the Senate does.
That's the agreement made by the House Democratic leadership and the Senate Democratic leadership. That's probably because some Democratic Representatives expressed concerns about their re-elections next year. Also, the House version has no chance of passing the Congress unless some amendments radically change the language of the bill.

Senator Reid, if I remember correctly, was not that willing to pass the immigration bill back in 2007. He probably didn't want to give a victory to President Bush. Senator Schumer was not one of the co-sponsors of the bill although he voted for the cloture. If they ever bring it again next year and want to really pass it, they might play a more active role and get more involved than in 2007.

Also, Senator Schumer is keeping a low profile on immigration reform because he doesn't want his bill to be destroyed by the media and the right even before it is discussed or introduced. His plan to introduce it was delayed by the delay in health care reform. He wants to get support from some Republicans because making the issue too partisan like the health care reform can be damaging for the Democrats. But, I'm worried he might fail to get enough support (votes) from the Republicans even if he makes his bill less immigration-friendly. Only a few Republicans will support it.
Even though the prospect of immigration reform in 2010 is unclear, our best hope lies on Senator Schumer's negotiation skills and passion and the Democratic leadership's decision.

I haven't had chance to check the forum the past ten days or so, since I've been enjoying time with my family for the holidays; but the following two articles do illustrate, what I've now come to believe are the real chances of immigration reform being accomplished next year. The first is obviously an opinion piece; the second is sourced from "The Hill" D.C. newspaper to validate some of the points of the first piece.

We have to continue to write and make noise regardless of what we are promised, as this past year has made it clear that we now receive a promise every 3-months, quarter or so from the Obama administration and Democratic legislators, in order to quiet aggressive advocacy and accountability for immigration reform.


Opinion: Ruben Navarrette Jr.: Pelosi's immigration reform tactics tacky
By Ruben Navarrette Jr.


San Diego Union-Tribune

Posted: 12/23/2009 03:52:48 PM PST
Updated: 12/23/2009 06:36:26 PM PST


SAN DIEGO — Just in time for Christmas, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has given Latino voters a valuable gift: clarity.

So much of politics is masked in smoke and mirrors. If you convince Latino constituents that the other party is out to get them, you'll become their BAF — best amigo forever. And so it is that most Latinos I know have been led to believe that on immigration reform, Republicans are inherently bad and Democrats are intrinsically good. And, they tell me, any day now, President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats will discover their backbones and deliver what they've promised when pandering to Hispanic groups: comprehensive immigration reform that allows illegal immigrants to work their way to legal status, even if it means jumping through more hoops than Ringling Bros.

How gullible can you get? Democrats only care about one thing, and it's the same thing that Republicans care about: re-election. And any controversial issue that might get in the way — gay marriage, "don't ask, don't tell," and, yes, illegal immigration — usually gets shoved far back in the cupboard.

Still, who am I to tell my fellow Latinos that there's no Santa Claus? I figured I'd let things play out, and they'd learn soon enough that the Democrats were getting ready to sell them out.

Now Pelosi, D-San Francisco, has tipped her hand. Last week, according to the Capitol Hill newspaper The Hill, she privately assured fellow

representatives not to worry about having to address immigration reform and other controversial issues until the Senate acts first. Concerned that voters will react negatively to a proposal to legalize millions of illegal immigrants, Pelosi is promising to protect vulnerable members' seats.

Actually, change that to "protect Pelosi's job." After all, if Democrats lose the majority in the 2010 election, she'll lose her speakership. No more flights on government planes. Once reduced to backbencher, Pelosi might have to do the unthinkable — fly commercial.

And what's this nonsense about waiting for the Senate to act? You might think this is about seeking cover from the upper chamber. Not so. If House Democrats feel vulnerable and think that the immigration debate could cost them support back home, then they're going to avoid it like H1N1 whether the Senate has taken action or not.

What Pelosi is counting on is that by passing the buck to "the world's greatest deliberative body," the deliberation will turn into dithering, delay and derailment. Then the House can skirt the issue that Rahm Emanuel, former Pelosi lieutenant and current White House chief of staff, has called "the third rail of American politics." You touch it, you die.

Pelosi is throwing cold water on the prospects for immigration reform just as Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., has introduced an immigration bill that, while not perfect, at least starts the conversation. As Gutierrez was trying to get the legislation on its feet, Pelosi cut it off at the knees. That's not a good look.

The Hill quoted Rep. Gerry Connolly, D-Va., president of the freshman class of representatives, as being in agreement with Pelosi's abdication of leadership. Connolly said that "freshmen, particularly, are not enamored of the idea of being asked to walk the plank" on a controversial issue such as immigration reform.

That freshman had better bone up on his studies before midterms. What Connolly calls walking the plank, I call Democrats having to walk it like they talk it. And if they don't have the courage to do this, at least stop trying to throw Latinos off the scent by making it seem as if the powerless and hapless GOP is to blame for derailing comprehensive immigration reform. It isn't. Not this time. This debacle is on the Democrats.

In fact, here's my theory: The real reason Democrats are stalling is because, on this hot-button issue, they're not comfortable being in power. They know they're destined to lose seats in Congress in next year's elections.

And when they do, and a few prominent Republicans become the new faces of the opposition, Democrats will accuse them of killing immigration reform.

It's brilliant and cynical and slimy. But it only works if Latinos get lost in the smoke and mirrors.

http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_14058828


Speaker Pelosi to shield vulnerable members from controversial votes
By Jared Allen - 12/16/09 06:00 AM ET
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has privately told her politically vulnerable Democratic members that they will not vote on controversial bills in 2010 unless the Senate acts first.

After a year of bruising legislative victories that some political analysts believe have done more to jeopardize her majority than to entrench it, Pelosi is shifting gears for the 2010 election.



The Speaker recently assured her freshman lawmakers and other vulnerable members of her caucus that a vote on immigration reform is not looming despite a renewed push from the White House and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. The House will not move on the issue until the upper chamber passes a bill, Pelosi told the members.


But according to Democrats who have spoken to Pelosi, the Speaker has expanded that promise beyond immigration, informing Democratic lawmakers that the Senate will have to move first on a host of controversial issues before she brings them to the House floor.


“The Speaker has told members in meetings that we’ve done our jobs,” a Democratic leadership aide said. “And that next year the Senate’s going to have to prove what it can accomplish before we go sticking our necks out any further.”


Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), the president of the freshman class, said that Pelosi came to last Wednesday’s freshman breakfast to deliver that message, and that it was met with wide spread approval.


“I think freshmen, particularly, are not enamored of the idea of being asked to walk the plank on a controversial item if the Senate is not going to take any action,” Connolly said.


Pelosi’s promise could dim the prospects for other White House priorities as well, including the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) — known as “card check” — and the repeal of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” prohibition on gays serving openly in the military.


“There’s not going to be a ton of stuff legislatively next year either way,” a House leadership aide said. “But on EFCA — even though the House has demonstrated its ability to pass it — and on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, the Senate is definitely going to have to act first.”


The House passed EFCA during the last Congress, but members who voted on that bill were well-aware it had no chance to be signed into law by President George W. Bush.


After passing a series of expensive bills, including the $787 billion stimulus, Democrats are vowing to reduce the federal deficit next year.


There certainly will be difficult votes for Democrats next year, ranging from raising the debt limit to funding the troop surge in Afghanistan. Those types of “must-pass” bills are expected to clear both chambers of Congress.


Some liberals are concerned that there will be fewer Democrats after the 2010 elections and that the White House should ramp up, not slow down, its agenda. They have also made the case that President Barack Obama and congressional leaders must move left to ensure that the Democrats’ base will show up next November, and argument immigration reform proponents have been making with increased intensity in recent weeks.


Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and administration officials recently agreed that, on the heels of the House taking the lead on a climate change bill that was declared dead on arrival in the Senate and a healthcare bill that’s taking on a more centrist form with each passing day, the Senate would have to pass an immigration reform bill before the House would vote on its own.


Key House Democrats have said that Pelosi needed to solicit that promise from Reid in order to quell an emerging two-front rebellion in her caucus — from Hispanic Democrats who had grown tired of hearing false promises, and from vulnerable Democrats tired of being forced to support contentious bills facing certain death in the Senate.

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/72...tes%3Fpage%3D2

I think the votes are there to pass immigration reform. It definitely has to be bipartisan. I would estimate that 7-12 republican votes will be needed. But if Sen. Reid can hold democrats together, I can see only 5 votes being needed. The retirement of moderate senate republicans will definitely be helpful.

If I'm not mistaken, once there is the same bill in both the Senate and the House, they both need to pass in order to become law. And with Senator Schumer introducing his version of a CIR soon that will be exactly what will need to happen for the CIR to pass. It's going to be just like the health care reform. But obviously the House of Reps will be a tougher battle since there is 435 people in there with their own opinions towards immigration.

Why they do this you ask? Beats me. I think we should of rammed it in the senate, before Guitierrez introduced his in the House, and passed it now with the advantage of the 60 democrats we have in there.

The problem was that we didn't have Guitierrez in the Senate to have made that happen.

I honestly really have no hopes for CIR. Not that, that means we should give up the support for it. But I believe the DREAM act is our real cause and as we speak there IS a DREAM act bill sitting in the Senate, and none at the house, which means we have a good chance of getting it through just by winning the senate's vote.

Representative Gutierrez introduced his own bill just this month. Having him in the Senate would not have changed anything. Everything was about the health care bill in the Senate, anyway.

Also, if the Senate can pass Senator Schumer's bill, it might be much easier for the House Democrats. If the House Democrats decide to adopt Senator Schumer's bill instead of passing their own bill (Representative Gutierrez's bill), then they can always pass it after the Senate passes it. In other words, both chambers don't have to pass a bill at the same time. The Senate can pass a bill first and send it to the House, which can discuss and pass the same bill. Or, the House can pass a bill first and send it to the Senate, which can pass the same bill. If we can somehow get 60 or more votes in the Senate, the best scenario is that the House Democrats can adopt the Senate bill without changing anything and pass it. If that can ever happen, the Democrats won't need 60 votes again to pass it like they have to do for the health care bill right now. And, I think that's what the House Democrats will do if the Senate every passes one. They can always throw away Representative Gutierrez's bill and vote for Senator Schumer's bill. The House Democrats will wait for the Senate, anyway.

But, that's not likely to happen. Senator Schumer will have to make some kind of compromise to persuade some moderate Democrats or Republicans. Even after that, the Republicans might oppose everything if we are unfortunate enough.

The fact that there are more people in the House doesn't mean that it will be more difficult to pass it there. (Of course, that does not mean the passage of an immigration reform bill is easy in the House. I don't know how many Conservative or moderate Democrats will vote against it.) The Senate rule is the problem for us. We need to break the filibuster to begin and close any debate. That is why there were so many critical votes in the Senate during this messy health care debate. If all the Democratic Senators were for the CIR or the DREAM Act, we wouldn't have this problem. But, some Democratic Senators are not immigration-friendly. So, the fate of any immigration reform (or the DREAM Act) lies on how many Democratic Senators defect and how many Republican Senators replace those Democrats.

But, for now, our problem is that even the introduction of Senator Schumer's bill is uncertain. So, we need to contact the Democratic leadership and Senator Schumer until they introduce his bill and move it to the Senate floor. Then, we should begin to contact other moderate Senators.

I was being philosophical when I said things might have been faster if Gutierrez was in the senate. Because if he was, I don't know who would introduce the bill in the house, and hence it would be a senate only bill. But of course that's far fetched of me to think, because either ways something as big as Immigration would have to show up in both Houses. And either ways Immigration would have no place to sit while that war on health care was going on.

But to clarify, neither house needs to adopt each others bills, once there is a bill in both houses with the same concept the houses must work the differences out so that the bills are identical(wasted two hours last night reading the articles in the house.gov website lol). Anyways what that means is that, If the debate begins early in the House of Reps about the CIR Gutierrez introduced, then it could give the senate an insight of what to expect from opposers of the bill. Hence giving Schumer a chance to adjust his bill before he introduces. Now that is all in theory of course, who knows wtf those politicians really have in mind.

Also.. it is harder for THIS particular bill to pass in the House... Because... Like i said before, there IS 435 minds with their own opinion on this. Immigration is a touchy subject with these politicians, it ain't no health care debate where they are just standing by their parties and were trying to get 1 republican vote. Its like you said it yourself, there are moderate democrats who aren't fond of immigrants. So yea, out of 435 people, we are gonna need 218 to win the vote, and we all know the republicans aren't going to be the only ones voting "no".