Must Read: The math that worked for healthcare reform works for immigration reform.

So I read an article this morning on the Washington Monthly in which the author blasted the Obama speech as a sorry set of excuses to make up for empy rhetoric.

The President's math doesn't add up.

BUT...what really caught my eye, and what many of us here have been noting for a while, is that a big, "comprehensive" bill will be voted on ALL of its parts INDIVIDUALLY. Just like healthcare. So when and if, it reaches the floor, lawmakers will have to vote on every measure proposed invidually. When Dream Act is called out, it will either pass or fail (most likely pass). When additional enforcement funding comes up, it will either pass or fail, etc.

A reply post by user Americanist illustrates it as best as anyone could, please read AND as always, pass it along to as many people as possible:

Do the math, willya?

Take the House as a paradigm: you need 218 votes. There are 255 Democrats and 178 Republicans. On immigration reform, if you have 180 Democrats who will vote for legalization, you might have as many as 10 Republicans who might, just possibly sorta kinda, entertain the possibility of voting yes as well.

So that's not enough. Capisce?

When you get to 200 Democrats, you go down to no more than 5 Republicans. When you get to 210 Democrats, you get NO Republicans.

But when you get to 220 Democrats who will vote for an immigration reform bill, you could get as many as 25 Republicans.

So the effective strategy is obvious: get a majority of the House from WITHIN the Democratic Caucus, first. Do NOT try to get your decisive votes from the Republicans, because they won't give 'em to you.

The same essential dynamic exists in the Senate, only you need 60 votes on several issues (rather than a simple majority as you do in the House - and there, you really only need it twice: on the Rule, and on final passage, although you also need to be able to beat back motions to reconsider.)

If you really have 56 Democrats plus two Independents to move a Senate bill, you can get three or four Republicans.

But if you have only 52 Democrats plus one Independent, you don't get any Republicans.

The key isn't to get Republicans to give Blue Dogs cover. It's to get Blue Dogs directly.

Why doesn't anybody ever do the math? Cuz it interferes with delusions about the substance, e.g., 'we need a comprehensive solution...'

Um: why?

Legalization is the tough vote. The rest is negotiation. So when somebody says there is no way I can vote for legalization: stop bargaining with him (or her). You can't get their vote for the bill you want -- so long as it includes legalization.

So (when you do the math) you realize that there are several different majorities in the House and Senate for immigration reform -- it's just that the majorities for legalization, and the majorities for other parts of the "comprehensive" bill, aren't the SAME majorities. You pick up a vote or ten here, and lose 'em there.

What the 2007 debacle (as well as the ones in '06 and '05, in fact ALL of the past decade or more) shows is that the 'comprehensive' theory is an Epic Failure: you don't make a bill more likely to pass by bundling legalization into a 'comprehensive' bill. That doesn't gain votes, it loses 'em.

And worse, as a simple and WRONG framing, it sets up a simpler and effective response, which the GOP is using: no comprehensive reform UNTIL the border is secure... which neatly sidesteps the truth that the border doesn't cause illegal immigration.

The worksite does.

Posted by: theAmericanist on July 3, 2010 at 10:44 AM

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/arc..._07/024565.php

The legalization part is where we loose votes. Not eveyone will be legalized under the same guidelines (eg, DreamAct, AgJobs, etc). Bundling everything is the wrong strategy. Millions of people will benefit and meet all requirements immediately.

The Dreamers who already meet ALL requirements for DA, will get LPR status immediately.
Non-dreamers who've lived here for decades and who speak English, have payed taxes, etc, etc, will qualify immediately.
Ag workers the same...

RI4A and the CHC know this. I'm almost done with my anti-immigrant Democrats list and their record of votes, and that list is going to all three churches that my family attend regularly and will be passed out to every single member. Then is on to faxing a copy of it to all local "ethnic" papers and Spanish language radio stations. My friend (an American) got a copy of it and will pass it out at the campus where he teaches in Oregon. He's a college professor and cannot believe that this goverment think that it can bull**** us who have grown up here. Then he is doing me a favor and passing it to some community "organizers" (haha, oxymoron) in the Portland area. I am beginning to get really ticked off about this. If I am to be denied a fair chance to get right by the law, not because I don't want to, but because of corrupted pols trying to stay in power, then they should be denied the right to continue to make people's lives miserable.

^^^^ right on DTRT09. I'm glad someone else here see's through the democrats bullshit.

Great Article!

In what universe there are 60 senate votes for legalization?

It's because there aren't, that people go with the CIR formula in the hopes it will become more palatable.

OTOH, if you go with agjobs. dream act and tougher enforcement as separate bills, they might pass, with legalization failing. In that instance, all the undocumented are left hang out to dry without any legislative chips...

it will never get to 60 because to get there we must have tons of enforcement. back in 2007 the advocates said no ("mejor que no pase" is a direct quote) because it went too far for their taste. forget about next year (even more enforcement), we will be lucky to get that 2007 bill right now. and in order to get DREAM, a good amount of those things must be added to the bill. i am all for it. but we as a movement aren't.

You have votes for enforcement; not legalization. Republicans are only needed to cover for the Blue Dogs. I don't trust the Democrats or the president any longer. His speech came too late. That speech should have been given last year when he had 60 votes. Going for health insurance reform and wasting an entire legislative year in it, is just, mind-boggling. That has hindered everything else that can be done. Excuse me, but this is an administration who did a backroom deal to erase the public option and keep employer-based insurance at a time when more and more people loose their employment!!!! Millions of jobs will not come back as their industries adjust to the new economic reality, and these people will not be able to afford quality insurance because the stupid law made sure that they could have it thru employment.

The "immigration" speech had no purpose if you do not also go on that podium and say "I also have this group of people here to introduce the legislation we have written". I mean, come on. I also see signs of them backpedaling on suing the State of Arizona; I mean they are not going to sue. They are loosing seats in November and we will loose our chance at legalization. I see no proof of it otherwise. The Republicans who won't vote for CIR, won't vote for it now or after November, or after the presidential campaign in 2012 or EVER. The speech was also meant to quiet activists for the summer, not even written by the Pres, but by one of his staffers. But really, DreamAct has to be attached to another bill or it's dead. And if you want more proof of this, I leave you this little gem:


DeMint: Will be tough for Obama to get GOP behind his immigration reform

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) indicated Sunday that President Barack Obama will have a difficult time receiving GOP backing for immigration reform.

DeMint said that he would not consider immigration reform before the U.S. borders are secured. DeMint has introduced legislation to complete the fence along the Southwest border.

Obama is holding border security “hostage to his political agenda,” DeMint said on Fox News Sunday. He criticized Obama’s efforts to reform immigration as giving “amnesty” and “voting rights for those who came here illegally.”

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...gration-reform

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...070103574.html

According to hatch (which I'm guessing is going to be the GOP strategy), there is no way in hell comprehensive immigration reform is going to pass under the Obama administration. They know very well that failure to pass comprehensive immigration reform will seriously hurt Obama's efforts to attract the Latino vote in 2012. Obama made a huge mistake waiting this long before "trying" to pass immigration reform. Groups like RI4A and the congressional Hispanic caucus are not being genuine when they keep trying to sell this notion that a comprehensive immigration reform is possible.

Hatch is right. They had 60 senators at one point, then 59. If they wanted something done they could have, but they did not. They like the current situation where they get to play politics with our people.

Here is how President Obama went about last year on healthcare reform:


"Here are the details that every American needs to know about this plan," President Obama said at the beginning of his powerful health-care speech to Congress on Sept. 9. It was a sentence that many Americans had been waiting for — quite the opposite of much that has preceded it in this raucous debate — and he proceeded to lay out the elements of health-care reform that he considers essential. He did this clearly, concisely, using language that was mostly jargon-free — a triumph of speechwriting on this mind-numbing issue. It was also a fighting speech. Obama called the talk of death panels, started by the disgraceful Sarah Palin, "a lie, plain and simple," which drew explosive applause from the Democratic side of the aisle. He promised to "call out" those who told lies about the plan, a powerful threat when it comes from the President. Finally, it was a moving speech that addressed an aspect of health-care reform that is often forgotten — the moral responsibility that we have toward our fellow citizens — by reminding the Congress of who Ted Kennedy was and why this was so important to him. The President made health-care reform a national-character issue, which is precisely what it is.

...And this is what you do when you are serious about winning legislation. Details, dates, figures, amounts, etc. Did he give us that on immigration? Not even close.

Of the 23 Senate Republicans who voted for immigration reform in 2006, five have since lost their seats, six have retired, one switched parties and four more are retiring this year. Meanwhile, Bob Bennett of Utah just saw his nomination as GOP candidate upended by the state's Tea Party, and John McCain of Arizona is facing the toughest Senate race of his career. In fact, many in the immigration world believe that Graham walked away from the negotiating table in part to protect his dear friend McCain, who can ill afford a partisan brawl on immigration. The fact that McCain co-authored and voted for the comprehensive reform bill in 2006 is what got him into such hot water with Arizona Republican primary voters in the first place.
As recently as two months ago, on Air Force One, just as Senate leaders were announcing a new push on immigration reform, the President was caught in a moment of candor. "We've gone through a very tough year and I've been working Congress very hard, so I know there may not be an appetite immediately to dive into another controversial issue," he said of immigration reform.

"That pretty much killed chances of reform [this year]," says Frank Sharry, founder and executive director of America's Voice, a group that supports comprehensive reform.

And this doesn't mention the 16 Democrats who sided with the Repubs to block reform in 2007. And why would you go and say to all media, that you understand and know that they might not want to address immigration reform this year??? Right after that comment, is when Graham said he was out. And please, Mel Martinez ONE republican last year who stayed for 2009 so he could help pass CIR and the Dems and President just dragged their feet. They had him, and could have ahd Graham and McCain to finish legislation, even if they did not vote on it right away.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/politics/ar...#ixzz0spIwLugy




http://www.time.com/time/politics/ar...172&xid=Loomia

http://www.time.com/time/politics/ar...172&xid=Loomia