CBO Taketh Away (A Certain Immigration Update)

A daily dose of immigration-related links collected by Fred Bauer
Want to subscribe?  Sign up here.  Or email me to subscribe. 

The key number from the much-blogged CBO report on S. 744 is not $197 billion or $700 billion but 25%: that's how effective the CBO predicts the Gang of Eight bill will be in blocking future illegal immigration:

However, other aspects of the bill would probably increase the number of unauthorized residents—in particular, people overstaying their visas issued under the new programs for temporary workers. CBO estimates that, under the bill, the net annual flow of unauthorized residents would decrease by about 25 percent relative to what would occur under current law...

So the guest-worker programs could, as some have suggested, increase the number of potential illegal immigrants.

And I thought Senator Schumer said that the Gang of Eight bill would end illegal immigration!  This finding complicates the efforts of the Gang of Eight to use this report as a political document.  If this CBO estimate is true, it utterly vitiates the central premise of the Gang of Eight: that this trade of legalization for enforcement is acceptable because it really will be the last one.  The "deal" of S.744 is that it solves the problem of illegal immigration.  CBO says it won't.  That seems kind of important.  (Meanwhile, Texas is experiencing a surge of illegal border crossings.)
Many sympathetic to S. 744 are trumpeting CBO's projection of savings over the short term, but this report has some other economic/budgetary findings, too.

CBO thinks that legalized individuals will gain access to some federal benefits prior to receiving citizenship: "If S. 744 was enacted, executive branch agencies would probably face pressure from states and other stakeholders to provide people who are lawfully present in the United States with the federal benefits that are available to qualified aliens, including assistance provided through Medicaid, CHIP, SNAP, student loans, and Pell grants."

The CBO's 10/20-year window allows it to miss the effects on Social Security/Medicare spending.  But there is a tantalizing hint: in 2014-2023, it estimates that SS/Medicare spending will go up $4 bill because of S. 744---by 2024-2033, it will have increased this spending by $70 billion.

What also has not gotten much press so far is another report the CBO put out on the economic effects of S. 744.  There, the news is slightly more pessimistic over the next ten years.  Some key tidbits: "Relative to what would occur under current law, S. 744 would lower per capita GNP by 0.7 percent in 2023" and "CBO’s central estimates also show that average wages for the entire labor force would be 0.1 percent lower in 2023."  CBO estimates that those at the bottom of the economic ladder would see the greatest wage pressure over the next ten years.  CBO estimates that, 20 years from now, S. 744 will make the average American wealthier, but that's a pretty long economic forecast.

There are reasons to be skeptical about the validity of CBO projections.  As Hot Air's AllahPundit wrote, "CBO scores may be near-worthless as predictive devices, but as political capital they’re very valuable. Remember how excited Democrats were when CBO initially scored ObamaCare as reducing the deficit by $140 billion between 2013 and 2019? A year later, CBO adjusted that downward to $95 billion. A year after that, they adjusted it downward again to … $4 billion."

The timeline on the Senate bill is getting crunched.  Reid may file for cloture within a few days.  Byron York thinks it's because Reid fears falling support for this measure.

Along those lines, I look at a poll showing a thin margin of support for the Gang's bill at the Corner:

Overall, enforcement beats the path to citizenship 62 percent to 36. Independents support enforcement over legalization 65–33; even Democrats only back legalization over enforcement by a single point (50–49), so it is very likely that a majority of Democrats in more conservative-leaning states (e.g., Indiana, Montana, and West Virginia) back enforcement over legalization. Interestingly, support for security over the pathway to citizenship is highest in the Midwest (65–34), a place the GOP will need to lock down to restore its presidential chances, and the Northeast (66–34), where Republicans have been decimated and need to rebuild.

WHICH RULE?

SHORT OF A PROMISE: Earlier on Tuesday, Jonathan Strong hinted that Speaker Boehner may not apply the Hastert rule to any vote on a House-Senate conference bill on immigration:

At a press conference following the GOP meeting, Boehner said he “suggested to our members today that any immigration-reform bill that is going to go into law ought to have a majority of both parties’ support if we’re serious about making that happen. So I don’t see any way of bringing an immigration bill to the floor that doesn’t have the majority support of Republicans.”
When I asked him if the commitment to garnering the support of a majority of Republicans extended to any conference report on immigration, Boehner said, “We’ll see when we get there.”

Later on Tuesday, a Boehner aide clarified this remark to Strong in order to suggest that something like the Hastert rule could apply to the conference report, too.  But Strong sounds a little doubtful: "Boehner said that the immigration bill 'ought to' enjoy the support of a majority of the GOP conference. It’s strong language but short of a promise."

Chuck Schumer's team still holds out hope that Boehner will violate the Hastert rule.  Brian Fallon, Schumer's communications director tweeted, "FLASHBACK: Boehner also boasted he wouldn't pass fiscal cliff w/o majority of GOP. Then he did anyway http://bit.ly/10qjGyO " and "Unlike w/other bills when Boehner violated Hastert rule, his leadership team- Cantor, McCarthy, Ryan-supports #CIR. Fewer knives out."  Is Fallon just saying that to soothe skittish GOP senators?  Or does he have real hope that Boehner could override the will of a majority of Republicans by teaming up with Democrats to pass a "comprehensive" legalization bill.

Many on the left seem to think that Boehner could very easily break Hastert in order to push a "comprehensive" bill: see Greg Sargent on why he thinks Boehner is bluffing here.  Harry Reid seems confident that Boehner will budge, too.

David Drucker of the Washington Examiner, who has pretty solid sources and is a keen Hill watcher, thinks that Boehner probably will apply Hastert to both any initial House immigration bill and a conference report on an immigration bill.  As he wrote in an email, "I can't imagine [Boehner] backs a strong GOP bill in House and lets it get gutted in Conference and then runs a bill that only gets supported by less than half of his Republicans."  

LOOKING FOR A MAJORITY:  Is Boehner hoping to get enough of his caucus to go along with the Gang of Eight?  Chris Frates wonders:

As a senior GOP leadership aide put it, “Our conference is all over the place. Our goal here is to try and find that little slice of land where we can walk through and we’re not crucified on either side.”
Republicans on and off the Hill say Boehner, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, and House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy all want to do something on immigration. Boehner “really wants to get that done but he has to be real quiet about it because if he puts his name on it and his brand on it, like he did with the big (fiscal-cliff) deal, then it’s probably going to die under its own weight,” a former GOP leadership aide said.
So House leaders have been meeting privately with members, making the case that inaction on immigration will be more costly than doing something. Weeks into the debate, it remains a hard sell among reform opponents, particularly members who do not want to offer citizenship to people here illegally. They worry that any House legislation—such as a tough border-security bill most of them are after—will ultimately be watered down in negotiations with the Senate.
“What will have to happen, and is happening in private discussions, is that we have to convince these guys if we’re going to go to conference, we’re not going to cave on our principles,” a senior House GOP aide said. “That is the sales job you have to make to those guys.”

(Also on Tuesday: a House immigration enforcement measure made it through a day of mark-up...)

SENATE VOTES
The Danged Fence: Thune's fence amendment (which would have required that some border fencing be put in place before legalization) failed 39-54.  The Gang stood unified against this measure.  (And Arizona's voters in 2010 thought Sen. McCain wanted to complete that danged fence!)  R's against (in addition to Gang): Ayotte and Murkowski.  D's for: Manchin and Pryor.  Interesting votes: Collins and Kirk voting for the fence.
Improved Visa Enforcement: Vitter's amendment to demand a visa-tracking system be in place before legalization failed 36-58.  Again, the Gang opposed.  Other non-Gang R's opposed: Ayotte, Collins, and Murkowski.  D's in favor: Pryor.
TAKEAWAY: The Gang won't let any amendment pass that makes legalization dependent upon enforcement.  The legalization must be unequivocal.  Could the continued failure of pro-enforcement amendments signal to some undecideds that the Gang will never agree to any amendment that really increases the enforcement profile of this bill?



ELSEWHERE ON THE WEB: Andrew Stiles wonders where Ted Cruz is....TNR's Isaac Chotiner warns Rubio and Republicans that the hope of taking immigration "off the table" is going to be disappointed....Philip Klein: CBO says S. 744 will expand Obamacare....Laura Ingraham: Why is Rep. Sam Johnson @SamsPressShop still part of the corrupt House Gang of 7? An insult to US workers. #CantFixMustDitch 202-225-4201...Mickey Kaus says it's time for opponents of S. 744 to unleash YouTube and gives out a list of Senators to think about:

Hammer-ready (Have indicated they’ll vote for Schumer-Rubio)
Ayotte (who was spectacularly ignorant of the bill’s provisions)
Begich (already getting testy!)
Graham
Landrieu (do it for North Dakota!)
Murkowski (voted against border fence)
Persuadable (Still wavering)
Alexander
Chambliss
Coburn
Collins
Corker
Hagan
Heller
Hoeven
Isakson
Pryor

(Link to this issue here.)

Is One Out of Four Good Enough?

The key number for the recent CBO report on S. 744 is not $197 billion or $700 billion but 25%: that's how effective the CBO predicts the Gang of Eight bill will be in blocking future illegal immigration:

However, other aspects of the bill would probably increase the number of unauthorized residents—in particular, people overstaying their visas issued under the new programs for temporary workers. CBO estimates that, under the bill, the net annual flow of unauthorized residents would decrease by about 25 percent relative to what would occur under current law...

So the guest-worker programs could, as some have suggested, increase the number of illegal immigrants.

And I thought Senator Schumer said that the Gang of Eight bill would end illegal immigration.

See also Stephen Dinan's write-up about the CBO report here.

(Look out for more on the CBO report in tomorrow morning's A Certain Immigration Update.)

Changing Rules

Jonathan Strong reveals that Speaker Boehner may not apply the Hastert rule to any vote on a House-Senate conference report on immigration:

At a press conference following the GOP meeting, Boehner said he “suggested to our members today that any immigration-reform bill that is going to go into law ought to have a majority of both parties’ support if we’re serious about making that happen. So I don’t see any way of bringing an immigration bill to the floor that doesn’t have the majority support of Republicans.”
When I asked him if the commitment to garnering the support of a majority of Republicans extended to any conference report on immigration, Boehner said, “We’ll see when we get there.”

This means, of course, that the House could vote for a pro-enforcement measure only to have it go to conference with something like S. 744.  Boehner seems to be suggesting here that he could override the will of a majority of Republicans by teaming up with Democrats to pass a "comprehensive" legalization bill if it came out of conference.

You Can't Cut It (A Certain Immigration Update)

A daily dose of immigration-related links collected by Fred Bauer
Want to subscribe?  Sign up here.  Or email me to subscribe.
The "bombshell" of Ryan Lizza's New Yorker article on immigration echoed through the political world on Monday.  Perhaps the most damaging quote from this article was the following by a Rubio aide:

‘There are American workers who, for lack of a better term, can’t cut it,’ a Rubio aide told me. ‘There shouldn’t be a presumption that every American worker is a star performer. There are people who just can’t get it, can’t do it, don’t want to do it. And so you can’t obviously discuss that publicly.’

Also damaging, as Hot Air notes, is Lizza's reporting about the White House's heavy hand in crafting the Gang of Eight bill.

It's clear that Rubio's office realizes the danger of these remarks; it immediately pushed back against them, alleging that Lizza took them out of context.  So Lizza posted a bigger excerpt of the exchange on Twitter:

RL: Well their argument is, what, that they have American workers for these jobs, they don’t need this program.
Rubio Aide 1: Yeah. I mean, one of the problems you have with this, “Oh there’s American workers who are unemployed.” There are American workers who, for lack of a better term, can’t cut it. There shouldn’t be a presumption that every American worker is a star performer. There are people who just can’t get it, can’t do it, don’t want to do it. And so you can’t obviously discuss that publicly because. . .
Rubio Aide 2: But the same is true for the high-skilled workers.
Rubio Aide 1: Yes, and the same is true across every sector, in government, in everything.

Does this context really improve the quote much?

These revelations pose a few problems for the immigration bill.  The statements by Rubio's aide comes precisely at a time when anxiety about the immigration bill's effects on the poor/unemployed is starting to rise.  If the GOP really is going to become the party of economic opportunity for the broad middle, "American workers...can't cut it" seems a troublesome slogan.

Also, Lizza's report seems to suggest that this immigration bill is President Obama's bill.  Lizza implies that the White House has veto power over many sections of the bill.  Rubio and some other senators supportive of the Gang of Eight have been criticizing the administration's handling of the IRS, Benghazi, and other issues---only to be working hand in hand with the administration to establish what one official calls "one of the top five legislative accomplishments in the last twenty years."  In terms of legislative accomplishment, it seems as though the president's team would view the Senate immigration bill as a perfect companion to Obamacare on the trophy shelf.

Also, this controversy moves the immigration debate from concerns about electioneering and process to the fate of the American worker.

FALLOUT: Mark Krikorian: "Survival of the Fittest: Vote GOP" not exactly a winning campaign slogan...Geoffrey Norman: a lot of people who can't cut it work on Capitol Hill....Conn Carroll: "Everyone in Washington knows personnel is policy. Rubio can no more distance himself from this aide’s statement than Obama can distance himself from the supposedly “rogue” IRS agents in Cincinnati."....Jonathan Chait: "The Rubio aide quote is not only a piece of shocking candor, but also the biggest single blunder the pro-reform coalition has committed so far. Party elites may nod along when they read it, but there’s a reason nobody in politics ever says anything like this."


BY THE WAY: Has big labor chosen to support the Gang of Eight bill rather than defend the dignity of workers?  Messages to the AFL-CIO press team about the "can’t cut it" remarks got crickets in response. 

ELSEWHERE ON THE HILL: David Drucker reports that Boehner is likely to apply the "Hastert rule" to immigration after all...

House Speaker John Boehner is not going to bring a comprehensive immigration-reform plan to the floor if a majority of Republicans don't support it, sources familiar with his plans said.
"No way in hell," is how several described the chances of the speaker acting on such a proposal without a majority of his majority behind him.
Boehner, R-Ohio, does not view immigration in the same vein as the fiscal cliff last December, when he backed a bill that protected most Americans from a tax increase even though less than half of the GOP lawmakers were with him, said multiple sources, who spoke anonymously to allow greater candor.
With economists warning that the deep cuts and higher taxes needed to avoid the fiscal cliff could devastate an already ailing economy, Boehner felt compelled to compromise with President Obama and allow taxes to rise on the wealthiest taxpayers. He feels no such urgency about immigration reform, lawmakers said.

In the aftermath of Lizza's article, the Speaker might be even more inclined to follow that rule. (Is the grumbling among some of the rank-and-file part of the reason for this switch?)

Big question: does this news make it easier for Senate GOP to support S. 744 or harder?  Easier: It lets senators believe that some firewall still exists in the House.  Harder: It says to uncertain senators, Do you want a hard vote for a bill that will never become law?

ON THE FLOOR: Setting up the pieces on the Senate floor on Monday.  Reid praised S. 744; Sessions criticized.  Look for a few votes on amendments on Tuesday afternoon (Thune's fence amendment likely to be one of them).  The votes seem to have 60-vote thresholds....Keep an eye out for a CBO score on S. 744 on Tuesday....Also, Sen. Cruz proposes a voter-ID amendment...Late-breaking update: Byron York on a new "enforcement" amendment to be considered....

LOWERING EXPECTATIONS: Gang of 8 member Dick Durbin is now backtracking from the goal of 70 votes...

IN THE COMMENTARIAT: Andrew Sullivan previews the tactics the left will use even if the GOP passes mass legalization...health-care is part of the story....Rush continues to emphasize more populist themes....At National Review: the editors continue to lament "Rubio's folly" and Victor Davis Hanson considers some of the stakes of the immigration debate: "Indeed, the tragedy of illegal immigration is that it becomes the cornerstone for hundreds of agendas: those of the self-interested Mexican government, exploitative American employers, the new ethnic chauvinists, the upper middle classes who deem themselves lords of the manor, and, yes, the elite whose professions are as noble as their deeds are not....In the meantime, for those who profit both materially and psychologically from something that largely benefits the elite and hurts the mass, at least spare us the hypocritical aspersions and bottled pieties."

(Personal note: Thanks to Conn Carroll, Mickey Kaus, and Mark Krikorian, among others, for mentioning this newsletter on its launch.)

(Link to this issue here.)

Resistance Rising? (A Certain Immigration Update)

A daily dose of immigration-related links collected by Fred Bauer
Want to subscribe?  Sign up here.  Or email me to subscribe.


A POPULIST UPRISING?

Last week's Faith and Freedom Coalition's "Road to Majority" Conference saw a clash between the establishment and insurgent voices on the right, the latter emphasizing themes of economic uplift for the average American.  This approach to economic issues could have significant implications for the immigration debate in the Senate and the House.  Rick Santorum argued that the Republican convention of 2012 mishandled President Obama's infamous "you didn't build that" comment:

“One after another, they talked about the business they had built. But not a single—not a single —factory worker went out there,” Santorum told a few hundred conservative activists at an “after-hours session” of the Faith & Freedom Coalition conference in Washington. “Not a single janitor, waitress or person who worked in that company! We didn’t care about them. You know what? They built that company too! And we should have had them on that stage.”

At that same conference, Michele Bachmann also highlighted economic concerns, and used these concerns to criticize the Gang of Eight's immigration bill.  As Bachmann said about the Senate bill in another venue last week, “It’s going to lower wages, lower benefits, bankrupt the United States and take away job opportunities for our kids."

As Katrina Trinko reported, Sarah Palin's attacks upon the Senate bill at this conference also emphasized the economic:

“I say this as someone who’s kind of fertile herself,” the mother of five told attendees at the Faith and Freedom Coalition’s Road to Majority Conference today. “I don’t think that’s where we want to go in deciding how will we incentivize the hard-working responsible families who want to . . . follow the law and become Americans versus those whose very first act on our soil is to break the law. “
During his speech at the same event on Friday, Bush had said that “immigrants are more fertile,” and noted that the United States was not replacing its population quickly enough.
Palin also derided the Gang of Eight’s proposal. “Let’s not kid ourselves in believing that we can rebuild our majority, by the way,” she urged, “by passing a pandering, rewarding-the-rule-breakers, still-no-border-security, special-interests-ridden amnesty bill.”

So Palin says it's amnesty (her full speech is available here).  It's Palin vs. Ryan---Republican VP candidate vs. Republican VP candidate---on whether or not this is "amnesty."


Jeff Sessions escalates his criticism of the immigration bill in a statement released on Sunday:

When the Gang of Eight first announced their immigration bill they declared it was the toughest enforcement plan in history. They declared enforcement would come before legalization. And they declared that anyone who suggested otherwise didn’t know what they were talking about.

Now the bill has been reviewed and there can be no dispute: it weakens current law, undermines future enforcement and puts amnesty—not enforcement—first. So new promises of amendment ‘fixes’ to save the bill should be viewed with great skepticism: every time, on every issue, the promises have not matched with reality. They promised back taxes—but the requirement isn’t there; they promised tight restrictions on welfare benefits—but state and local benefits, as well as tax credits, will be available immediately and federal welfare access is granted to millions of illegal immigrants starting in five years; they promised to protect workers—but this bill would devastate workers by tripling the number of legal immigrants over the next decade and doubling the number of guest workers.

No small cosmetic fix can save this bill, with so many provisions clearly authored by special interests whose chief desires are lower wages and amnesty—rather than a lawful, rational system of immigration.

Sessions also seems to be hitting that economic theme in indicting that desire for "lower wages."

Will these economic criticisms make any headway on the Senate floor?  Is Bernie Sanders listening?  Are Republican economic reformers?

(PS: Edward Lazear of Stanford/Hoover argues that the labor market remains "stuck in the mud."  Do dwindling employment prospects strengthen the case for guest-workers?)

(PPS: What are we supposed to make of a Rubio staffer's statement that "There are American workers who, for lack of a better term, can’t cut it...There are people who just can’t get it, can’t do it, don’t want to do it. And so you can’t obviously discuss that publicly."  What else can't Rubio's staff discuss publicly?  The quote comes from Ryan Lizza's new New Yorker story on the immigration bill, featured in Playbook.  Via Rich Lowry, Rubio's people are already pushing back against this quote---but not denying that it was said.)


ON THE SUNDAY SHOWS...Rubio: Immigration bill nearly "perfect"...Graham: GOP in a "demographic death spiral"....Gingrich: Yes, GOP is going to support "path to citizenship"...Will: "And it comes down to the killer Bs, benefits and borders. If you don't secure the borders, you're not going to pass either house."....

THE WEEK AHEAD

Ramsey Cox draws attention to six Senate amendments worth keeping an eye on:

• The RESULTS amendment
• Same-sex couples amendment
• Rubio’s English language amendment
• ‘Trust but Verify’
• Hatch amendments
• Building a Fence    

Senator Cornyn's RESULTS amendment seems a big one to watch.  It could give cover to numerous Republicans (such as Kirk) to vote in favor of the Gang's bill.  Heritage Action has slammed this amendment ("it should be called 'NO-RESULTS' because it fails to solve the enforcement problems in the underlying bill") and has announced it would record this vote on its legislative scorecard.  (Mickey Kaus isn't very optimistic about RESULTS, either.)

This week, keep an eye out for immigration bills from the House, too.  The Hill reports:

The Judiciary panel will attempt to send two proposals to the chamber floor. The first, which is designed to bolster the enforcement of immigration laws in the nation's interior, will be marked up Tuesday; the second, which relates to the guest-worker program catering to the nation's agriculture industry, will follow....
At the same time, the bipartisan group of House lawmakers negotiating a comprehensive reform package are struggling to finalize a deal. Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-Calif.), one member of that group, predicted Tuesday that an agreement is imminent, but Rep. Raúl Labrador's (R-Idaho) decision to leave the group earlier in the month has only highlighted the difficulty of crafting a proposal that can pass through the divided House.

Any immigration bill that leaves the House could go to conference with any immigration bill passed by the Senate... 

WSJ notes some possible sway-able votes, including Johanns (R-NE), Heller (R-NV), Baucus (D-MT), and Sanders (I-VT).

DEFINITIONS, DEFINITIONS

Late last week, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) said that he would debate anyone who argued that the Senate immigration bill is amnesty.  The head of Heritage Action has replied to that challenge: "If the Gang of Eight’s bill becomes law, individuals who complied with the law – left the country when their visa expired, are still waiting in line, etc – will not be eligible for RPI status.  Only those in the country illegally will be eligible to apply for a status that allows them to, almost immediately, live and work in the country.  Not only will illegal immigrants have their slates wiped clean, they will receive a near-immediate benefit as a result of their illegal status."  More thoughts on the meaning of "amnesty" from Heritage Action here.

(Link to this issue here.)

Announcing an New Immigration Debate Newsletter

Just a brief announcement: In the lead-up to the Senate immigration vote, I'm pulling together a daily newsletter on the immigration bill.  It will aggregate some of the big happenings of the day before along with commentary, and it will also draw attention to what to look for in the day ahead.  I plan on running it daily up until the Senate immigration vote, and, depending on the vote, could keep it active after that.

If you're interested in subscribing, you can go here.

The newsletter goes live Monday morning.

Now and Then

According to the Hill, Senator Mark Pryor (D-AR) is edging toward voting on behalf of the Gang of Eight bill:

Media reports have characterized Pryor as a likely Democratic defector on immigration reform, but on Thursday he endorsed the bill.
“I’m inclined to support it,” he told The Hill. “I’m watching the amendment process very closely. I’m concerned that they may add some sort of poison pill amendment or something like that, but nonetheless I’m inclined to support it."

Yet, in 2008, when he was running for re-election, Senator Pryor had the following to say about immigration:

While I recognize our nation’s immigration system is broken, I do not support amnesty.
With more than twelve million illegal immigrants in our nation and more arriving every day, the burden on our schools, hospitals and law enforcement agencies is severe...There can be no solution to this problem without first securing our borders.

The Battle over Hearts (A Certain Immigration Update)

Michele Bachmann says that ignoring the interests of American workers is the opposite of compassion: "Bachmann told the audience at the Faith and Freedom Coalition conference today that being ”people of compassion” on immigration means opposition to amnesty for illegal immigrants, because the policy would hurt American workers and legal immigrants."

National Journal: How Marco Rubio and Rand Paul could team up to pass Gang of Eight bill: "Rubio badly needs immigration reform to pass, having invested so much time and political stock in the bill's passage and lacking a major legislative achievement. Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas and Mike Lee of Utah signaled this week that their votes are out of reach, leaving Paul as Rubio's best hope for a prominent tea party wingman."

Politico reports on how President Obama is trying to network with House Republicans in the hope of passing some immigration bill.

Some House Republicans demand that the "Hastert rule" be applied on immigration; the Speaker's office remains open to possibilities.

Mickey Kaus says that concerns about DUI convictions are driving Democratic opposition to the Cornyn amendment.

Mark Krikorian writes that some in the GOP establishment believe that enforcement will actually happen this time (though he thinks this belief is unrealistic).

The Hill reports that the Cornyn amendment could be used as a vehicle for Republicans to back the president's immigration plan:

A Republican senator who is wavering over whether to support the bill said Cornyn’s vote would bring along a large group of colleagues because Cornyn is the Republican whip and represents a border state.
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) suggested earlier in the week that his vote and the support of other Republicans could be contingent on the fate of Cornyn’s proposals.

Conn Carroll remarks,

The Cornyn amendment requires both the DHS Secretary and the Customs and Border Patrol Commissioner to certify, “under the penalty of perjury,” that the triggers have been met before illegal immigrants can become citizens. It also requires the DHS Inspector General to certify completion of the triggers (although not under the penalty of perjury).
That’s it. That is the big difference between the two bills on how completion of the security measures are verified. S. 744 requires DHS Secretary certification, while Cornyn requires certification from the DHS Secretary, the CBP Commissioner, and the DHS IG.
So far no Democrats have objected to this framework. It is hard to see how Cornyn and pro-amnesty Republicans can’t split the difference on the substance of triggers while letting Cornyn keep his verification mechanism.

Harry Reid is pretty optimistic about working with Speaker Boehner on immigration.

Some Immigration Links for a Thursday

Mickey Kaus is skeptical about Senator Cornyn's RESULTS amendment, as is Conn Carroll.  Carroll also has some doubts about Democratic objections to RESULTS.

Senator Durbin says that the Gang of Eight de-links citizenship and border security.  Senator Graham disputes this.

The Grassley amendment to put enforcement before legalization is stopped in the Senate, 57-43.  Most Republicans voted in favor of this amendment; most Democrats voted against it.  The only exceptions: Gang of Eight Republicans voted against it (McCain, Rubio, Flake, and Graham) along Lisa Murkowski (AK), and Democrats Joe Manchin and Mark Pryor voted in favor of it.

Congressman Paul Ryan says he will "debate" anyone who calls the Senate immigration bill an "amnesty."

Ann Coulter is not happy with the Gang of Eight bill.

Could some GOP senators be waiting to stampede for or against the bill?  National Journal says so: "According to some Senate watchers, as many as 20 Republican Senators are eying each other, not wanting to be first out of the gate but willing to join a bloc of their own party if the bill is moving toward final passage with broad support."  Key question: which Senate watchers?

Economic Policy Institute:"the main problem in the labor market is a broad-based lack of demand for workers—and not, as is often claimed, available workers lacking the skills needed for the sectors with job openings."

Facts, Facts

At National Review, I note that, contrary to the promises of Senator McCain, the Gang of Eight bill will put convicted criminals on the path to citizenship.

UPDATE: In an op-ed published earlier this week, Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) offers further warnings about the legalization of criminals:

The sponsors promised that those "with a serious criminal background or who pose a threat to our national security" would be ineligible for legal status. But the bill allows the Homeland Security secretary, under certain conditions, to grant it to gang members; those with major misdemeanor criminal convictions (including felonies pleaded to misdemeanors) for serious crimes, including drug offenses, sexual abuse and prostitution; those with arrest records of any length; fugitives from deportation orders; or those who have been deported and illegally reentered.

STEM Shortage?

One of the underlying premises of the Gang of Eight immigration bill is that this bill's guest-worker programs would cure a supposed shortage in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) fields.  At the end of May, the Georgetown Public Policy Institute issued a report on the mixed employment prospects of new college graduates in the US.  This report's findings trouble the claim of a STEM shortage.

The report estimated that the unemployment rate of recent graduates with a a major in "computer and mathematics" fields was 9.1%.  For those in the engineering field, the unemployment rate was 7.4%.

Here are the unemployment rates for recent college graduates in some specific STEM majors according to this report:

• Information Systems 14.7%
• Computer Science 8.7%
• Mathematics 5.9%
• General Engineering 7%
• Civil Engineering 7.6%
• Electrical Engineering 7.6%
• Mechanical Engineering 8.1%

Clearly, the employment picture for many young Americans in STEM fields could be better.

Ramesh Ponnuru argued in Bloomberg yesterday that the GOP needs to address the economic concerns of young Americans.  A guest-worker plan that makes it harder for US citizens and legal immigrants to find employment could get in the way of that message.

Survey Says

A series of polls in Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Montana,  North Carolina, Ohio, and West Virginia shows that residents are very skeptical about the Gang of Eight bill.  In every state, significant majorities are opposed to the prospect of legalization before the guarantee of enforcement.  Significant majorities in every state also think that the bill's guest-worker plan is too expansive.  This polling might put new pressure on Mark Pryor (D-AR), Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Rand Paul (R-KY), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Jon Tester (D-MT), Kay Hagan (D-NC), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Rob Portman (R-OH), and Joe Manchin (D-WV).

Media Games

Jonathan Strong has an interesting story on how effective Senator Rubio and the other members of the Gang of Eight have been in driving the media narrative over immigration reform:

The charismatic Rubio and his immigration gang are effortlessly driving the media coverage of the immigration bill, to the great frustration of the bill’s opponents, who are struggling to draw attention to what they consider the legislation’s deep and systemic flaws.
In past days, Rubio has said the bill doesn’t have enough votes and that he might even vote against it, prompting a frenzy of horse-race coverage that is drowning out most discussion about the substance of the bill. Opponents are convinced that Rubio’s remarks are a sideshow calculated to distract.
“It is no coincidence” that Rubio’s remarks about the bill’s not having enough votes were “made right after the leading GOP critics of the bill penned a Dear Colleague [letter] yesterday exhaustively detailing the scores of crippling flaws pervasive throughout the bill,” said an aide to one of the senators — Sessions, Cruz, Mike Lee (Utah) and Chuck Grassley (Iowa) — who wrote the letter.

The battle over process has been a major strategy for the Gang.  Senator Rubio's threat to walk away from the bill may make him seem more credible to the right and this threat also opens him up to criticism from the left, which might only further rally the right behind him and therefore make the passage of this bill even easier.  The appearance of a battle over immigration can make any "concessions" offered by the Gang of Eight appear more significant.


In a meeting with members of the House, Rubio continued to use a favored tactic by criticizing the bill that he sponsored, co-wrote, and publicizes:

Those in the meeting were struck by how little Rubio stuck up for his bill. There was “very little support for the Senate bill — even from Rubio,” a senior GOP aide said.
At one point, Rubio was asked why he became involved with the Gang of Eight in the first place. He said he joined to move the bill to the right, since the group would have passed a bill through the Senate whether or not he was a part of it.
Some in the meeting noted that if the bill would have easily passed with or without Rubio, his recent protestations that it can’t pass the Senate without fixes on border security didn’t carry much weight.

It does, I suppose, remain unclear how exactly, if the bill currently lacks 60 votes according to Rubio, it would have well over 60 votes if he hadn't supported it.

Meanwhile, Senator Cornyn has released the outline of a new border-security amendment that would keep the legalization-before-enforcement approach of the Gang of Eight but would delay citizenship until certain benchmarks have been met.

Doubling Guest Workers

The Center for Immigration Studies has released a report estimating that the number of guest workers would double under the Gang of Eight bill:

The Schumer-Rubio bill, which will be debated by the full Senate starting next week, would allow unprecedented increases in the number of temporary workers. A new Center for Immigration Studies analysis of the bill finds that, in the first year, the bill (S.744) would admit nearly 1.6 million more temporary workers than currently allowed. After that initial spike, the bill would increase annual temporary worker admissions by more than 600,000 each year over the current level – an increase four times larger than the one called for in the 2007 Bush-Kennedy proposal (about 125,000).
As a result, this bill would roughly double the number of temporary workers admitted each year (nearly 700,000 in 2012). These workers are classified as "non-immigrants" and would be in addition to S.744's large proposed increase in annual permanent legal immigrants competing for jobs (more than 30 million in the next decade).

Meanwhile, Senator Marco Rubio says that the Gang does not yet have 60 votes.

UCLA: A Very Disappointing "Recovery"

The Los Angeles Times has the details on an economic report put out by UCLA's Anderson Forecast:

"Growth in GDP has been positive, but not exceptional," UCLA economists wrote in their quarterly Anderson Forecast. "Jobs are growing, but not rapidly enough to create good jobs for all."
The report, which analyzed long-term trends of past recoveries, found that the long-anticipated "Great Recovery" has not yet materialized.
Real GDP growth — the value of goods and services produced after adjusting for inflation — is 15.4% below the 3% growth trend of past recoveries, wrote Edward Leamer, director of the UCLA Anderson Forecast. More robust growth will be necessary to bring this recovery in line with previous ones.
"It's not a recovery," he wrote. "It's not even normal growth. It's bad."

Investment Banks Moving into Real Estate

The NYT has a very interesting story suggesting that one of the reasons for rising home prices in certain areas is an infusion of Wall Street money:

Large investment firms have spent billions of dollars over the last year buying homes in some of the nation’s most depressed markets. The influx has been so great, and the resulting price gains so big, that ordinary buyers are feeling squeezed out. Some are already wondering if prices will slump anew if the big money stops flowing.
“The growth is being propelled by institutional money,” said Suzanne Mistretta, an analyst at Fitch Ratings. “The question is how much the change in prices really reflects market demand, rather than one-off market shifts that may not be around in a couple years.”
Wall Street played a central role in the last housing boom by supplying easy — and, in retrospect, risky — mortgage financing. Now, investment companies like the Blackstone Group have swooped in, buying thousands of houses in the same areas where the financial crisis hit hardest.
Blackstone, which helped define a period of Wall Street hyperwealth, has bought some 26,000 homes in nine states. Colony Capital, a Los Angeles-based investment firm, is spending $250 million each month and already owns 10,000 properties. With little fanfare, these and other financial companies have become significant landlords on Main Street. Most of the firms are renting out the homes, with the possibility of unloading them at a profit when prices rise far enough.

Is Lisa Murkowski Edging Toward the Gang of Eight?

This story from the Alaska Dispatch suggests that Senator Lisa Murkowski might be heading in that direction:

Murkowski said she supported the following: an immigration reform bill that provided a path for undocumented workers; a reform bill that reunites families; a bill that restores due process for individuals caught in the immigration system; and a bill that allows for guest worker programs and job opportunities for foreign, low-skilled workers.
She also was asked if she’d support a bill addressing the root problems of immigration; her answer wasn’t a straightforward affirmative. Addressing why people choose to migrate is difficult and likely will not be addressed in the current reform bill, she said.
“But Congress recognizes that people choose to come to America for opportunity, that their own countries’ economies are weak,” Murkowski said. “We’re looking to how we can make sure foreign economies are sound.”

Common Core Challenges

In the Weekly Standard, Jamie Gass and Jim Stergios cast a skeptical eye on Common Core.  They note some of the centralizing tendencies of this initiative:

The Department of Education then made adopting Common Core a condition for waivers from the No Child Left Behind Act’s accountability provisions, even though the national standards have never been approved by Congress and are, in fact, expressly prohibited by the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), which defined the federal government’s role in K-12 education, the 1970 General Education Provisions Act, and the 1979 law establishing the U.S. Department of Education.

It is worth reminding our friends who call it a conservative policy that Common Core would have been a bridge too far even for President Johnson, who signed the ESEA, and President Carter, who signed the law creating the federal Department of Education.  As syndicated columnist George Will wrote last year about the push for Common Core, “Here again laws are cobwebs. As government becomes bigger, it becomes more lawless.”

The problems with what is now federal policy are not lost on state and local leaders.  In just the past few weeks, Indiana lawmakers agreed to pause implementation of Common Core.  Ditto in Pennsylvania. Michigan’s House of Representatives voted to defund the effort.  And the national standards are under fire in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Ohio, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Utah.

Nationally, the Republican National Committee recently adopted an anti-Common Core resolution, but opposition is bipartisan.  Many Democrats are troubled that Common Core is not based on research and ignores too much of what we know about how students learn.  American Federation of Teachers president Randi Weingarten recently told the Washington Post, “Common Core is in trouble … There is a serious backlash in lots of different ways, on the right and on the left.”

The backlash is richly deserved.  The Common Core standards are academically inferior to the standards they replaced in high performing states; and they ignore empirical lessons of how states like Massachusetts achieved historic successes.  Neither local leaders nor their constituents like having policies force fed by Washington, especially when the new requirements amount to a massive, and possibly illegal, unfunded mandate.  Common Core’s troubles are just beginning.

Getting to 60

Harry Reid has boasted that he would have an easy time getting to 60 votes for the Gang of Eight's immigration bill.  I raise some doubts about that ease here.  Hot Air has some more thoughts on this topic.