Haley Barbour: Immigration Timeline In Congress 'Overly Optimistic'

Ianus · 03-20-2013, 01:11 PM

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2915917.html

Quote:

WASHINGTON -- Former Govs. Haley Barbour (R) and Ed Rendell (D), members of a Bipartisan Policy Center task force on immigration, had a word of warning on Wednesday for optimistic lawmakers: passing reform may be a long process, possibly even stretching into the 2014 election year.

"Having been in the White House in '86, the last time we did this, I know it is complex and contentious," Barbour said at a briefing with reporters, referring to the last passage of major immigration reform, when he was political director for President Ronald Reagan. "There are a lot of issues, a lot of which don't get written about in the press, and to me it's a little bit overly optimistic to be talking about what we're going to get done this spring or before the August recess."

Barbour, the former governor of Mississippi, and Rendell, the former governor of Pennsylvania, said they weren't so sure that timelines set out by Congress were achievable. The so-called gang of eight working on immigration reform in the Senate is aiming for a bill next month, passage later in the spring, and then getting the bill through the House by August at best, or at least the end of the year.

The task force is anticipating a longer time frame, although its members said they would welcome quicker movement. They plan to issue recommendations in late 2013 or early 2014, based on the possibility that immigration reform won't have already passed by then.

"At one point, when we first signed on, I was hopeful that we would lead the pack on immigration," Rendell said. "But now it looks like this is going to be a much longer and tougher slog."

One of the issues that must be dealt with is whether there should be a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants already in the United States. Barbour said he's "very comfortable" with including one, but didn't want to get into specifics about how it would work. Rendell also said he supports a pathway to citizenship, so long as it also includes increased enforcement and is not automatic. But Barbour said those views do not necessarily extend to the task force as a whole, the membership of which hasn't yet been fully made public. The other members of the group that have been announced already are former Rep. Howard Berman (D-Calif.), President Bill Clinton's Housing and Urban Development Secretary Henry Cisneros (D), and President George W. Bush officials Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff. Other members will be announced within the next week.

A bill that includes a pathway to citizenship likely wouldn't get through to the president, but House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) would depend on Democrats to pass it through the lower chamber, Rendell said. That could involve breaking the so-called Hastert Rule, in which speakers don't pass a bill without majority support from their own party. Boehner has broken it before, but there's some question over whether he would do it again. If he did, Rendell said, then immigration reform would almost certainly pass, even if it included a pathway to citizenship that many Republicans oppose.

But he said it's important for supporters of a path to citizenship to understand that there are legitimate reasons behind those who oppose one. It's understandable for people to worry that the 1986 immigration law -- which granted amnesty but did not sufficiently stop future unauthorized immigration -- could be repeated, he said.

"For a lot of the people who are against [a] pathway to citizenship, they're not being mean," Rendell said. "They're worried about, 'Okay, these 11 million, in many cases, serve in the military or pay taxes or whatever, but what about if we open it up and these guys get to stay, what about the next group and we can't afford those people coming in? What are we going to do about it?'"

The question of cost will also be important, Barbour and Rendell said: Should legalized immigrants receive health care under Obamacare and other benefits? Will reform improve the economy, as they think, or will it come at a higher cost? That's why it's vital to include measures that prevent future unauthorized immigration, they said.

In Barbour's perspective, immigration would be one step to improving the economy, which also could be politically beneficial. He said he doesn't "delude" himself into thinking it would fully solve the GOP's problem with Latino voters, but it would certainly help.

Still, he and Rendell cautioned that while reform may be a political boon for Republican presidential candidates and those running for statewide office, House members are in a different political situation. The House simply doesn't have the same electoral imperative because some Republicans live in districts where the Latino vote doesn't make much of a difference, Rendell said.

That doesn't mean he wouldn't want immigration reform to move fast if he were running for a political office, which could give a glimmer of hope, he said.

"There are so many moving parts that this is something that inherently can't be done quickly," Rendell said. "It just can't be done quickly. But if I think it could be done before the year is out. ... If I were running for the Senate, I'd want this issue to be decided before the clock ticks to 2014."

EditorInChief · 03-20-2013, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ianus

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2915917.html

I honestly prefer the Republican approach to immigration reform: A piece-by-piece approach, instead of a whole package.

This issue is too complex/important/emotional to be completed in just a couple of months. The Democrats are just being irresponsible.

The logical approach should be: 1) Legalization plus border security, 2) AgJobs, 3) Family-based and employment-based, 4) Other issues.

Demise · 03-20-2013, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EditorInChief

I honestly prefer the Republican approach to immigration reform: A piece-by-piece approach, instead of a whole package.

This issue is too complex/important/emotional to be completed in just a couple of months. The Democrats are just being irresponsible.

The logical approach should be: 1) Legalization plus border security, 2) AgJobs, 3) Family-based and employment-based, 4) Other issues.

Problem with piecemeal being that they will demand border security first, and once that is done they will stall and downvote any legalization attempts till this congress ends.

bigdreamer2010 · 03-20-2013, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EditorInChief

I honestly prefer the Republican approach to immigration reform: A piece-by-piece approach, instead of a whole package.

This issue is too complex/important/emotional to be completed in just a couple of months. The Democrats are just being irresponsible.

The logical approach should be: 1) Legalization plus border security, 2) AgJobs, 3) Family-based and employment-based, 4) Other issues.

When you do it piece by piece you have less of an incentive to complete a "comprehensive" bill. This isnt happening over the course of a few months. There was a comprehensive bill in the senate in 2007 so you can say they are just picking up where they left off 6 years ago.

It's not only democrats that want a comprehensive bill which is obvious since half of the senators working on the bill are republicans. The only people calling for a piecemeal approach are some house republicans who happen to be the same ones that are against a pathway to citizenship.

EditorInChief · 03-20-2013, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigdreamer2010

When you do it piece by piece you have less of an incentive to complete a "comprehensive" bill. This isnt happening over the course of a few months. There was a comprehensive bill in the senate in 2007 so you can say they are just picking up where they left off 6 years ago.

It's not only democrats that want a comprehensive bill which is obvious since half of the senators working on the bill are republicans. The only people calling for a piecemeal approach are some house republicans who happen to be the same ones that are against a pathway to citizenship.

Being comprehensive improves urgency???? --- This is a mis-conception!

Some of the issues that are being added to CIR are themselves very controversial: LGBT, STEM visas, Ag temp workers, H1B visas, etc. When any of those is added to the CIR, it effectively reduces its chance of passage.

The right leverage for Legalization should be border security and E-verify. As long as border security and E-verify are in the bill, that is enough to trade for legalization.

Adding irrelevant stuff to CIR only complicates the entire issue and makes CIR more difficult to pass.

bigdreamer2010 · 03-20-2013, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EditorInChief

Being comprehensive improves urgency???? --- This is a mis-conception!

Some of the issues that are being added to CIR are themselves very controversial: LGBT, STEM visas, Ag temp workers, H1B visas, etc. When any of those is added to the CIR, it effectively reduces its chance of passage.

The right leverage for Legalization should be border security and E-verify. As long as border security and E-verify are in the bill, that is enough to trade for legalization.

Adding irrelevant stuff to CIR only complicates the entire issue and makes CIR more difficult to pass.

I'm not sure where I said urgency was an issue. The big ticket item is a pathway to citizenship. You can speculate as much as you want that a secure border and e verify is enough leverage for a path way to citizenship, but the facts are net illegal immigration is at 0, Secretary Napolitano has said that there haven't been this few attempts to cross the border since the 1970's and e-verify is more widely used today than any time in history. But your immigration hawks like Goodlatte are not calling for a pathway to citizenship..

I'm also not sure where you're getting that LGBT is being added and how STEM visas are controversial. There's also a broad consensus on the need for AG workers its just the # of the them is the issue. And everyone knows the importance of h1-b visas.

sammy123 · 03-20-2013, 04:08 PM

god man..these republicans want to keep stalling until its already too late. why wait later when they can do everything all at once? lets say they do stall the bill around 2014, watch them find more excuses not to pass it because of midterm election. in other words, i get the sense that these republican just want to do it during lame duck session of next year so it doesn't cost them their seat. sigh.
don't get me wrong, i don't want them to rush the bill that will produce something stupid. i want them to work it out carefully. but stalling it next year is going to push CIR even further is TOO late. its not a good sign for our parents who are aging

EditorInChief · 03-20-2013, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigdreamer2010

I'm not sure where I said urgency was an issue. The big ticket item is a pathway to citizenship. You can speculate as much as you want that a secure border and e verify is enough leverage for a path way to citizenship, but the facts are net illegal immigration is at 0, Secretary Napolitano has said that there haven't been this few attempts to cross the border since the 1970's and e-verify is more widely used today than any time in history. But your immigration hawks like Goodlatte are not calling for a pathway to citizenship..

I'm also not sure where you're getting that LGBT is being added and how STEM visas are controversial. There's also a broad consensus on the need for AG workers its just the # of the them is the issue. And everyone knows the importance of h1-b visas.

By urgency, I meant to say a path to citizenship.

Border security and E-verify are sufficient leverage for a path to citizenship.

I am afraid those other issues can only make things worse:

LGBT is opposed by many religious leaders
STEM and H1B will only create more competition for high-paying jobs, so they are not liked by unions
Ag Jobs programs may lead to more undocumented workers, so they are not liked by unions, either

These other issues can only make the passage of CIR more difficult.

VeryNicePerson1 · 04:55 PM

Articles like this worry me.

I go a day seeing hopeful articles like Pelosi predicts passage before Summer, Boehner proud of the House almost at completion of their bill, Senate bill possibly revealed in April...

...and then here comes the article out of nowhere, "Whoa whoa slow down, this shit will probably not pass until Election Year 2014!!!" It's even more ridiculous considering election years will bring even more stall tactics.

But we must endure and keep hope alive nonetheless!!!

Although, what I am curious about is if this continues on month after month with no progress, how will the impatience of Obama and other politicians affect the flow of the debate? Will Obama just get fed up and release his bill for a vote? Will CIR be pushed for the vote anyway to get an early passage?...etc...

bertdude7 · 03-20-2013, 07:55 PM

Yeah anything that's in anyway resembling a blog I will discard. Plus yeah it needs to be a whole package, or else once border security is passed, GOP will only vote down anything else. They only want border security, they hide behind this "so-called issue" but in reality its not an issue. Illegal immigration is at an all time low.

They need you!

Forum links

Resources

Join our list

National calendar of events

September

Haley Barbour: Immigration Timeline In Congress 'Overly Optimistic'