An interesting debate has opened up over the proper strategy for the Senate to take on the immigration reform bill. One camp thinks that they should have a goal of winning at least seventy votes. Harry Reid thinks that two or three Democrats are going to vote against the bill no matter what is in it. But he thinks he has 52 solid votes in his caucus and he thinks there are at least 8 Republicans who will be willing to support the bill. In other words, there appear to be enough votes to pass the 60 vote barrier created by the filibuster. However, that doesn’t mean that the current bill has a prayer of passing the House. If only eight Republican senators support reform that means that 37 will have opposed it. That’s not the kind of ratio that will make it okay for most House Republicans to support the bill. A ratio of 18:27 is far better.
Pro-immigration groups seem to think that the best strategy is to pass the best possible bill in the Senate and use it as a negotiating ploy against whatever the House produces. But that assumes that the House will produce something rather than nothing at all. Perhaps the only way that the House can pass something is if the Senate Republicans are basically split on the merits rather than more than 4-to-1 opposed.
John Boehner would clearly like to see the Senate pass a bill with broad Republican support. He knows that he will probably have to violate the Hastert Rule at least once and perhaps twice to turn immigration reform into law. And he doesn’t want to have to do it without significant support within his caucus and significant cover from helpful Republican senators.
The Hastert Rule is named after former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert of Illinois. He would not allow votes on bills that did not have the support of the majority of the Republican Caucus. Boehner has largely adhered to that standard, but he has broken the Hastert Rule a couple of times already this year, and there’s a limit to how many times he can get away with doing it.
In the case of immigration reform, it’s possible that the House will pass a bill that has the support of the majority of Republicans, but once that bill is melded with the Senate version, it is unlikely that a majority of House Republicans will still support it. So, it would appear at a minimum that Boehner will have to break the rule to assure final passage.
Making concessions to reach 70 Senate votes will improve the odds that the House will produce a bill and it will make Boehner’s life much easier and his job more secure. But there’s a point at which the compromises will cost Democratic support and the support of pro-immigration groups.
Part of this debate is really about whether it is better to make concessions now or to make them later. But anyone who knows anything about the House Republicans should realize that they are insane and incompetent and ill-willed and contemptible. There is no right answer. Making concessions to terrorists just encourages more bad behavior, but we need them to produce something, anything, to keep the process moving forward.
What to do?
