If there is evidence that GOP lawmakers have been hit with a wave of widespread conservative recess rage designed to warn them off of immigration reform, I haven’t seen it. But does that necessarily bode well for reform’s chances?
There are two schools of thought on this. The first holds that if Republican lawmakers don’t catch an earful from opponents, they will conclude the base doesn’t much care if it goes through, and it may happen. The opposite view holds that the reaction from the right doesn’t much matter — if lawmakers don’t get heat from proponents, they can safely let it die (as they secretly want to) this fall.
Today brings news that another House Republican has come out for something approaching comprehensive reform, with caveats. GOP Rep. Mark Amodei of Nevada tells the Reno Gazette-Journal that he supports allowing undocumented immigrations to apply for citizenship with strict conditions attached: a 10 year probationary period; learning English; background checks; and proof of a job that shows no dependence on U.S. aid. The key quote:
Quote:
“At the end of 10 years, if you want to become a citizen, you go to the [federal immigration system] and start the process just like anybody else,” Amodei said in an interview. “I don’t think that’s amnesty.”
Amodei come from a purple district, but one expert tells the Gazette-Journal that this wasn’t an easy position to take and could draw a primary challenge.
Proponents are looking to Republicans like Amodei to see which of the above schools of thought will prove right. They will see him as a sign — along with statements from other GOP Congressmen such as Joe Heck, Aaron Schock, Daniel Webster, Jeff Denham, and Dave Reichert — that at least some House Republicans see a need to seriously grapple with the issue. Amodei’s claim that citizenship with tough conditions is not “amnesty” is notable. The key question remains whether Republicans will try to find a political route from “all legalization equals amnesty” to “bringing undocumenteds out of the shadows with strict conditions and accountability is better than the unacceptable status quo of de facto amnesty.”
Amodei also came out against the Senate bill and called for a piecemeal approach. But his position contains the seeds of consensus. A crucial question remains whether Republicans — as part of a piecemeal approach — will try to pass at least something that deals with the problem of the 11 million undocumented immigrants. That could get us to conference, which foes of reform are desperate to prevent. (Given his apparent desire to want to address the 11 million, Amodei’s perch on the Judiciary Committee, which will be central, is also noteworthy.)
The odds of anything significant happening in the House remain steep. The core question is whether movement among lawmakers like Amodei mean there will be a real push for action this fall inside the House GOP conference — on the grounds that inaction isn’t an option — or whether they are merely making nice noises designed to make it look like they want action while biding time to let reform quietly die later.
Update: Ace Nevada journalist Jon Ralston informs me that I’m wrong to call Amodei’s district purple; it’s a real GOP district.
This sounds exactly like the Senate bill and even more interesting Rep. Amodei is the 218th[195D+23R] vote potentially for a path to citizenship.
