The Hastert Rule

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has a commitment from Republicans to see a Senate debate on the future of nearly 700,000 immigrants currently protected by the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program in the next three weeks. But the real hurdle for immigration reform is in the House of Representatives.

It all comes down to a promise Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) made in 2015, before taking over the speaker’s office: He assured the most conservative members of his conference — the very ones who ousted his predecessor John Boehner — that he would not let an immigration bill pass without the support of the majority of House Republicans.


It’s called the Hastert Rule, an unwritten Republican leadership principle named after former Republican House Speaker Dennis Hastert. (Yes, the same Dennis Hastert who went to prison for a bank fraud conviction related to him molesting young boys.) And it has dictated how the immigration debate has lived and died in Congress over the past decade.

At the height of the government shutdown, Senate Democrats were demanding assurances from Ryan and President Donald Trump that a bipartisan DACA deal would make it not only out of the Senate but through the House and to the president’s desk. By the end of the shutdown, these calls had ultimately quieted.

When the “majority of the majority” rule is violated, it’s usually on must-pass pieces of legislation, like spending bills or emergency disaster relief funding.


The Hastert Rule could make or break a DACA deal


Boehner’s refusal to bring up the “Gang of Eight” immigration bill for a vote is a fresh memory for Democrats who want assurances that whatever bipartisan immigration bill is finally given a vote, and passed, in the Senate will then make it to the president’s desk.

But for now, Ryan has only doubled down on his commitments to conservatives. During the House’s government spending fight last week, Ryan promised the House Freedom Caucus, a group of 40 ultraconservative lawmakers, that Republican leadership would whip votes for a conservative, partisan immigration bill.

Meanwhile, Trump, who continues to engage immigration hawks in negotiations, has assured Congress’s hardliners — like the Freedom Caucus’s Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) and Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) — that he wouldn’t approve of an immigration bill without their blessing. No proposal put forward by Meadows and Cotton has received bipartisan support.

With conservatives still at the negotiating table, Democrats want GOP leadership to attach an immigration bill to a “must-pass” spending or budget bill to ensure that it gets a vote in the lower chamber and sees Trump’s signature.

“We have to have in our own mind some way to ensure that the House feels a need to bring up the issue as well,” Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) told reporters.

But while Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has agreed to allow for a vote on immigration in the Senate, he has been unable — or unwilling — to bind the House and Trump in that process. And outside of assuring Democrats that Republicans are negotiating immigration in earnest, Ryan has made no promises.

There are a lot of immigration proposals. None have enough support.

Before the government shutdown, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi reportedly asked Ryan to hold votes on two immigration bills and see which one passed: a bipartisan agreement put forward by Reps. Will Hurd (R-TX) and Pete Aguilar (D-CA), and Rep. Bob Goodlatte’s (R-VA) conservative proposal.

Ryan refused — likely because the bipartisan one would pass without the majority of the majority. As Vox’s Dara Lind and I explained, the problem in Congress right now isn’t a lack of proposals on immigration; it’s a lack of the right kind of support:

It’s that the ideas that have been presented are either too far to the left to satisfy “a majority of the majority” among House Republicans or too far to the right to attract any Democratic votes in the Senate.
In the Senate, there is an agreement between Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Durbin that would offer legal status, and eventual citizenship, to young unauthorized immigrants, give about a year’s worth of funding for the border “wall,” and eliminate the diversity visa lottery, but it was panned by the White House and conservatives for being too liberal. There are a handful of other bipartisan proposals that follow a similar framework, including the Hurd-Aguilar proposal in the House.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...ail-house-ryan

If Ryan is really on his way out as speaker of the house, like the rumors say, he might be able to bring something up that doesn’t have the majority of the majority’s support. If he’s not planning on leaving his leadership role, what happens if Trump backs a bill that the Freedom Cucks don’t approve?

I have theory, we took the senate hostage for a promise on a vote, what if we take the house hostage for a house vote and a presidential vote.

That’s not really possible. Republicans have enough of a majority that they don’t really need Democrat votes to pass another CR in the House.

Lol they can’t pass a Cr without the senate

That's assuming Ryan gives a shit about us.

(He doesn't)

What Ryan and the morally-bankrupt House GOP are doing is as unAmerican as it comes.

We have earned our way. Not passing Dream Act is severely impacting our communities which of course includes our employer.

Stop playing with people's lives.

The Hastert-Rule and Filibuster have killed legislation time and time again....simply because that is what lawmakers wanted.

They will use the same rules to find a way again.

I think we can get like 115 GOP votes if they are allowed to vote on their own rather than be directed by leadership.