Todd: GOP will run toward immigration reform next year

posted at 12:41 pm on November 7, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

I think Chuck Todd has this right, and not just because of last night’s poor showing for Republicans among Hispanics.  In looking at the daunting issues facing the lame-duck 112th Congress and the incoming 113th, comprehensive immigration reform might be a comparative slam-dunk:

 

After Tuesday night’s re-election victory for President Barack Obama, MSNBC’s Chuck Todd predicted that one of the president’s agenda items — one promise he never managed to fulfill in his first term — would breeze into law. ”Immigration reform,” he said, will get “80 to 90 votes in the Senate.” Since the election night results showed Republicans unable to attract Latino voters, he said, “Republicans will run, not walk, in trying to support that now.”

The question isn’t whether Republicans will rush to back some version of comprehensive immigration reform.  There have always been enough Republican votes in the Senate to pass a reform plan.  A Republican President came close to passing a version of it in 2007 but got demagogued by Democrats and halted by conservatives in the Senate who thought it gave too much away.  Had Obama chosen to propose immigration reform in 2009, ahead of ObamaCare and particularly if he had allowed Republicans more of a bipartisan role in shaping a stimulus package both sides wanted in one form or another, Obama could easily have passed immigration on his terms three years ago.

Now, immigration reform looks like low-hanging fruit compared to the crises that face our political class now.  The lame-duck Congress has to undo sequestration and deal with Taxmageddon.  The next Congress has to figure out how to deal with massive deficits and unfunded entitlement liabilities that will crush the American economy within a decade without serious reform.  On those issues, there is substantial philosophical and ideological hostility.  In comparison, there are only a few issues keeping immigration reform from being passed, nearly none of which are ideological, and most of which are either technical or matters of prioritization.

I’d expect this to get taken up in early 2013 and pass by the summer, with substantial compromise on both sides.  It may be the only real bipartisanship we see next year.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Outside of Shrillary and Fauxahontas, Democrats have no prominent women to nominate. The former barfed all over herself as Sec of State, and the latter is a wee too extreme even for today’s USA. If Democrats can win with either, they can as well nominate a ham sandwich.

Archivarix on November 7, 2012 at 2:29 PM

The MSM has four whole years to cover up and make 51% of the electorate forget about Benghazi. Not exactly heavy lifting for them. Lady parts!

I would say the odds favor Hillary/Ham Sandwich 2016 at this point. The Dems just have to use the same playbook as 2012 and count on the GOP remaining the Stupid Party.

cool breeze on November 7, 2012 at 2:39 PM

Then, I pity you.

kingsjester on November 7, 2012 at 1:54 PM

If you pity me, pity me for having to be in a party with people like you, people who will continually shoot this part in the foot even though we could easily win in 2014 and 2016 by making a few simple changes to our platform.

So yes, you should pity me. I’m sane enough to know that the Democrats are leading us to absolute fiscal ruin, which consigns me to being a member of the “stupid party.”

Good Solid B-Plus on November 7, 2012 at 2:40 PM

joey24007 on November 7, 2012 at 2:30 PM

Therein, lies the problem.

kingsjester on November 7, 2012 at 2:41 PM

Good Solid B-Plus on November 7, 2012 at 2:40 PM

So, you do not believe in Reagan Conservatism.

Then, what makes you different from a Democrat?

kingsjester on November 7, 2012 at 2:42 PM

So, you do not believe in Reagan Conservatism.

Then, what makes you different from a Democrat?

kingsjester on November 7, 2012 at 2:42 PM

He doesn’t want to spend other people’s money?

Archivarix on November 7, 2012 at 2:47 PM

cool breeze on November 7, 2012 at 2:31 PM

and all of things you just cited?

Government.

joey24007 on November 7, 2012 at 2:47 PM

Then what is the solution? This country is already 20% Hispanic and that proportion will keep increasing, illegal immigration or not.

I see a no-win situation here. The balkanization of America is pretty much inevitable at this point.

tkyang99 on November 7, 2012 at 2:05 PM

As long as taxpayers are forced to incentivize illegals to breed, this problem will never go away. It is a fiscal suicide and we taxpayers don’t even know the full extent of the crisis because those who want to bring down our country a k a the government will not give us the data, let alone do anything about it .
We are Greece now.

burrata on November 7, 2012 at 2:48 PM

Who didn’t tone down their positions? Two candidates got asked a gotcha question and answered it dumbly.

Yes, and that that was all it took. That’s how politically toxic the issue is. A solid majority of the country, including plenty of potential conservative voters, is repelled at the idea of forcing a woman to bear her rapist’s child.

The media NEVER asks those gotcha questions about pro-choice candidate.

melle1228 on November 7, 2012 at 2:23 PM

And that will always be the case. That’s why SoCons need to learn to shut up about their more extreme positions until they actually have a solid majority in favor of their less extreme positions.

cool breeze on November 7, 2012 at 2:51 PM

He doesn’t want to spend other people’s money?

Archivarix on November 7, 2012 at 2:47 PM

That’s it? That’s called “Libertarianism”.

kingsjester on November 7, 2012 at 2:54 PM

and all of things you just cited?

Government.

joey24007 on November 7, 2012 at 2:47 PM

Yes, government, with some help from crony capitalists from Fannie, Freddie and the Wall Street firms who were bundling the toxic loans. Of course, the MSM have tried hard (and largely successfully) to obscure government’s role in the disaster and blame it all on Wall Street, but they were both involved in that unholy alliance.

It still all happened on Bush’s watch, including the bailouts. W always was a big government guy.

cool breeze on November 7, 2012 at 2:59 PM

That’s it? That’s called “Libertarianism”.

kingsjester on November 7, 2012 at 2:54 PM

Fine, so as a small l libertarian, I have to ask… do you think the republican party would be better without us?

Because without us, all you have left is a progressive interventionalist foreign policy a la Woodrow Wilson who wanted to spread his ideals around the world and are anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage.

If anyone should be out of the tent, it’s the rape/abortion IDIOTS who I really have NOTHING in common with and will no longer even pretend to half heartedly support.

Timin203 on November 7, 2012 at 3:00 PM

If anyone should be out of the tent, it’s the rape/abortion IDIOTS who I really have NOTHING in common with and will no longer even pretend to half heartedly support.

Timin203 on November 7, 2012 at 3:00 PM

My, how…tolerant. So, how are you different from a Liberal?

kingsjester on November 7, 2012 at 3:03 PM

I am SO sick of the social cons here at hot air spitting out libertarian like its a bad word. You CLAIM to believe in a small federal government and low taxes. But you expand medicare, expand department of education, try to force your views on abortion and stem cells and whatever the hell the cause de celebre is on the rest of the country. That doesnt win anything for you, but it gives the dems cover for when they want to put their pet projects into law and see how that turns out.

Its offensive and intellectually dishonest. You don’t believe in small government, you believe in a big government with people like you in charge.

I didn’t see you so cons / neo cons WHATEVER protesting Bush’s huge spending or Dick Cheney’s dismissal of deficits as a problem… so yeah, it seems a little fake when you’re suddenly a bunch of deficit hawks.

Timin203 on November 7, 2012 at 3:04 PM

Timin203 on November 7, 2012 at 3:04 PM

And yet, you claim the mantle of Conservatism, but, in reality, you’re a Libertarian, at best, or a Moderate. How is that not hypocrisy?

kingsjester on November 7, 2012 at 3:07 PM

And that will always be the case. That’s why SoCons need to learn to shut up about their more extreme positions until they actually have a solid majority in favor of their less extreme positions.

cool breeze on November 7, 2012 at 2:51 PM

Yeah because not giving a baby medical treatment after it is born from a botched abortion isn’t extreme at all. BTW, socons have NO power over rape victims or abortion wheras Democrats have tons of power over fiscal issues and if our esteemed FISCAL CANDIDATE coud have articulated that we could have won.

melle1228 on November 7, 2012 at 3:10 PM

But you expand medicare, expand department of education, try to force your views on abortion and stem cells

Who wants to expand Medicare? ANd the DOE can be abolished for al I care. Abortion can be left to the states where it belongs and the younger generation who is growing up with technology will eventually abolish it. Stem cells are already legal and the socon position is that GOVERNMENT SHOULDN’T PAY FOR IT. If it is so successful then the free market will take care of it.

didn’t see you so cons / neo cons WHATEVER protesting Bush’s huge spending or Dick Cheney’s dismissal of deficits as a problem… so yeah, it seems a little fake when you’re suddenly a bunch of deficit hawks.

Psst You would be WRONG!

melle1228 on November 7, 2012 at 3:12 PM

How about some honesty — let’s all call “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” what it is: “Comprehensive Amnesty”.

Too many ignore the reality – the most popular policy among both Democrats and Republicans is attrition through enforcement, not amnesty, and certainly not mass deportations. Romney referred to this as “self-deportation.”


Look at this poll
– the only one to ever offer all three choices.

Note that Newt’s campaign started a nosedive after he insulted the majority of Americans who believe in attrition when he posed that tired old false dichotomy of “We can’t deport 12 million illegal aliens, THEREFORE we must make them citizens”.

fred5678 on November 7, 2012 at 3:13 PM

Fine, so as a small l libertarian, I have to ask… do you think the republican party would be better without us?

If anyone should be out of the tent, it’s the rape/abortion IDIOTS who I really have NOTHING in common with and will no longer even pretend to half heartedly support.

Timin203 on November 7, 2012 at 3:00 PM

AWW play the victim.. and then say the rape/abortion idiots should be shunned../facepalm.

melle1228 on November 7, 2012 at 3:13 PM

Yeah because not giving a baby medical treatment after it is born from a botched abortion isn’t extreme at all. BTW, socons have NO power over rape victims or abortion wheras Democrats have tons of power over fiscal issues and if our esteemed FISCAL CANDIDATE coud have articulated that we could have won.

melle1228 on November 7, 2012 at 3:10 PM

Your straw man would be one of SoCons least extreme positions.

Denying Plan B to a rape victim hours after the rape would be one of SoCons most extreme positions.

Also, arguing that all birth control is evil, as Green Room idiot Dustin Siggins was fond of doing.

cool breeze on November 7, 2012 at 3:16 PM

So, you do not believe in Reagan Conservatism.

Then, what makes you different from a Democrat?

kingsjester on November 7, 2012 at 2:42 PM

Yeah, that’s the way to win elections! Drive everyone who believes in a strong national defense and fiscal conservatism out of the party because they don’t do puja to the idol of St. Reagan.

I’m not a Democrat because I’m fiscally sane, and I’m not a big “L” Libertarian because I believe in a strong US military presence in the world.

Good Solid B-Plus on November 7, 2012 at 3:18 PM

My, how…tolerant. So, how are you different from a Liberal?

kingsjester on November 7, 2012 at 3:03 PM

And you’re tolerant? Everyone who doesn’t fit your SoCon box is automatically a “Democrat.”

Good Solid B-Plus on November 7, 2012 at 3:19 PM

Also, arguing that all birth control is evil, as Green Room idiot Dustin Siggins was fond of doing.

cool breeze on November 7, 2012 at 3:16 PM

AGAIN THE ONLY people that have power over this is SCOTUS, and OBama lost independents by SIX Points but got his BASE OUT. We lost our base. And we didn’t lose it because of we were concentrating too much on social issues.

You people are like children; YOU GOT EXACTLY WHAT YOU WANTED FOR YOUR BIRTHDAY- a fiscal conservative but you still cry.. LOL

melle1228 on November 7, 2012 at 3:20 PM

Good Solid B-Plus on November 7, 2012 at 3:18 PM

Fine. Then, why should Christian Republicans, who are still the majority, bow down to your minority beliefs?

kingsjester on November 7, 2012 at 3:21 PM

Your straw man would be one of SoCons least extreme positions.

Again YOU didn’t answer my example.. Is not giving plan B to a rape victim more extreme or is not rendering medical care to a BABY who has been born more extreme?

melle1228 on November 7, 2012 at 3:22 PM

Good Solid B-Plus on November 7, 2012 at 3:19 PM

I did not call you one. I simply asked why you are different from them.

You’re the one attacking Traditional Conservatism.

Tell me what makes you different from the folks up in the NE who voted for Obama.

kingsjester on November 7, 2012 at 3:23 PM

Also, its time to go Alinsky on the media and media personalities. There is no bigger culprit than the media in this “demographic shift.” People out there honestly believe that Bush and the free market crashed the economy and honestly believe that Obama is fixing it. This is the result of the media’s bias to average Americans. Its time to fight fire with fire with the media because they are just an arm of the Democratic party.

That is all.

: )

joey24007 on November 7, 2012 at 2:22 PM

Breitbart is here .

EnglishRogue on November 7, 2012 at 3:23 PM

Yes, government, with some help from crony capitalists from Fannie, Freddie and the Wall Street firms who were bundling the toxic loans. Of course, the MSM have tried hard (and largely successfully) to obscure government’s role in the disaster and blame it all on Wall Street, but they were both involved in that unholy alliance.

It still all happened on Bush’s watch, including the bailouts. W always was a big government guy.

cool breeze on November 7, 2012 at 2:59 PM

kool, my point is that all of these things…

government.

joey24007 on November 7, 2012 at 3:25 PM

The problem here is perception. It’s irrelevant whether most Americans are against amnesty or not, the problem is that Republicans are perceived as the “anti-immigrant” party.

The crucial turning point was when Bush tried to enact comprehensive reform, and was defeated by the “death before amnesty” crowd from his own party.

I was against reform too but I realized what Bush was trying to do. It was a small price to pay for the chance to rid the party of the “anti-immigrant” label…And we blew it.

tkyang99 on November 7, 2012 at 3:26 PM

And see how attrition works — see this video of an illegal alien explaining how Georgia’s strict law encouraged him to leave with his family.

Amnesty makes as much sense as not fixing a leak in a boat and declaring the incoming water to be cargo. The leak hasn’t been stopped, and the boat starts sinking faster.

Rewarding criminal (first entry is a misdemeanor crime) invaders with their ill-gotten goods (residency) just encourages more invasion. Duh. You can’t change human behavior, and incentivizing more illegal immigration by dangling rewards and magnets is foolishness.

And a note on McCain’s treachery: his 2006 “Comprehensive” bill had a 90 day waiting period for the Z visa (the amnesty feature). At the end of a 90 calendar day waiting period, during which time the FBI had to complete a criminal background check and DHS did a health check, each illegal alien got an automatic temporary, but indefinitely renewable, green card and a path to citizenship.

In 2007 the failed 2006 bill was brought back twice – but this time with a SINGLE BUSINESS DAY waiting period!!

McCain basically said, “Screw you, America; we’re going to make them ALL citizens!”

fred5678 on November 7, 2012 at 3:26 PM

Again YOU didn’t answer my example.. Is not giving plan B to a rape victim more extreme or is not rendering medical care to a BABY who has been born more extreme?

melle1228 on November 7, 2012 at 3:22 PM

Both are extreme, just in different directions. Both would repel most voters and any candidate from either party would be well advised to keep such views to themselves if they hold them.

cool breeze on November 7, 2012 at 3:27 PM

Both are extreme, just in different directions. Both would repel most voters and any candidate from either party would be well advised to keep such views to themselves if they hold them.

cool breeze on November 7, 2012 at 3:27 PM

What have I been saying– They need to learn how to deal with the media better..

melle1228 on November 7, 2012 at 3:38 PM

AGAIN THE ONLY people that have power over this is SCOTUS

melle1228 on November 7, 2012 at 3:20 PM

And voters know the POTUS makes the nominations to the SCOTUS. There will probably be three nominations in the next four years, enough to determine the SCOTUS position on abortion for decades, one way or another.

People like Akin, Mourdock and Santorum gave the Dems enough ammunition to scare the wits out of lots of swing voters. Check Obama’s huge margin among single women.

How else to explain why Akin and Mourdock lost big in easy pickups in red states? It had nothing to do with Romney being or not being a FiCon or SoCon.

Total unforced error brought on by unchecked SoCon extremism that was used to tar the whole party.

cool breeze on November 7, 2012 at 3:39 PM

How else to explain why Akin and Mourdock lost big in easy pickups in red states? It had nothing to do with Romney being or not being a FiCon or SoCon.

Total unforced error brought on by unchecked SoCon extremism that was used to tar the whole party.

cool breeze on November 7, 2012 at 3:39 PM

No it is not “general” so con. It is the specific so con. Akin is an idiot. Anyone who has a pro-life position more than a day should be able to answer that question with tact. They should know it is coming. Ryan did fine in the debate. Again, Republicans do not need to change their positions just how they deal with a hostile media.

If you think you are going to out liberal a Dem, you are sadly mistaken and Dems win single women by a large margin not because of abortion but because of GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS and the myth of they feel your pain. Single women is a social issue since the government supports being daddy in the home and the break up of marriages.

melle1228 on November 7, 2012 at 3:48 PM

What have I been saying– They need to learn how to deal with the media better..

melle1228 on November 7, 2012 at 3:38 PM

Fine, I am not telling Akin, Mourdock or anyone else that they have to change deeply held personal convictions.

I am saying that have to keep such extreme views strictly to themselves until and unless such positions are no longer a tiny fringe minority. At least if they want to win any elections in this day and age.

There is simply no way to “deal with the media better” without supporting exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the mother. That has been the mainstream Republican position for decades.

cool breeze on November 7, 2012 at 3:50 PM

A black lady friend of mine in the DC area went to an obstetrician-gynecologist’s office and found 3/4 of the patients to be Latinos and none spoke English.

Well, I like Latino food. The other cultural stuff and the mockery of our laws…not so much.

IlikedAUH2O on November 7, 2012 at 3:53 PM

melle1228 on November 7, 2012 at 3:48 PM

I am not sure of this but I offer a humble suggestion:

How about pick your fights?

Take care of single females and economic advancement for minorities.

Then avoid the impoverishing programs that Dems would add to the socialism for those groups.

IlikedAUH2O on November 7, 2012 at 3:56 PM

Drink the amnesty.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on November 7, 2012 at 4:12 PM

I did not call you one. I simply asked why you are different from them.

You’re the one attacking Traditional Conservatism.

Tell me what makes you different from the folks up in the NE who voted for Obama.

kingsjester on November 7, 2012 at 3:23 PM

I’ve told you multiple times. You simply refuse to listen.

This is the reason why we keep losing, people who are so narrowly oriented they can only see Conservatism as being a core of social issue positions that are quickly becoming minority views in this country. Instead of going with what has broad appeal (restoring our fiscal house, strengthening the economy, maintaining a strong military), you want to court people with our LEAST popular policy plank. Genius!

Good Solid B-Plus on November 7, 2012 at 4:34 PM

For all the palaver of the open borders crowd, demanding the GOP change and embrace amnesty, the facts are, immigration patriots keep winning, for example Reps. Steve King and Lou Barletta, Senator Jeff Sessions, to name a few, grow stronger, while the squishy, slouching towards open borders 3rd world status RINOS get beaten. The fact is, Obama pushed Romney towards Hispandering, because Obama knew that would discourage white, and even black voters from feeling hopeful that Romney would stand up against their displacement by outsourcer Obama, who has refused to enforce immigration laws and imported millions of unnecessary visa workers, when the US doesn’t have a shortage of workers or skills of anykind. Romney lost because he didn’t get as many white votes as Reagan did. That said, I do believe fraud was rampant,I don’t believe white voters, or even the so called auto workers were a huge voting bloc for Obama in Ohio, there was massive fraud there, and in Florida as well as Pennsylvania and other states.

While we’re on the subject, CNN is estimating that Latinos, about whom we will be hearing so much, cast just 10% (probably high) of the vote in 2012—vs. 72% for whites. Romney reportedly got 27% of Hispanics, which is at the low end of the long-established traditional GOP range. But note the high end is only 40% i.e. the difference is just over one percent of the overall votes cast. The MSM fixation on the Hispanic vote makes no sense, except as deliberate disinformation. The real target in American politics: the white vote, especially the Northern working class.

This is all too clear in the case of Ohio, whose loss was the death blow to Romney. CNN reports he lost the state by just two percentage points, 50-48. But he only got 57% of the white vote, for a mere fifteen point lead over Obama among whites. And whites were 79% of the Ohio electorate. Simply by reaching his national average among Ohio whites, Romney would have won.

Even more absurdly, CNN reports that Romney lost Iowa 47-52—and that he only got 51% of the white vote, for a mere four-point lead over Obama. Whites constitute 93% of the Iowa electorate.

Ceolas on November 7, 2012 at 4:41 PM

Wasn’t Romney presented as a “Fiscal Conservative”, Genius?

kingsjester on November 7, 2012 at 4:41 PM

All that said, why is it Hot Air isn’t reporting about St Lucie voter fraud, an illegal recount that stole 2,000 votes out of the blue. Allen West is demanding a recount, and quite rightly too. The fact is, US troops votes haven’t been counted, nor have all the absentee and provisional ballots, and the difference between Obama and Romney’s vote counts is 100,000. Why the rush to declare a winner, rather than allow the voters to have their say?? WHy is Hot Air so willing to give up, and make a nice police concession speech? DO you think the US will be salvageable after another Obama term? Are you insane?

Ceolas on November 7, 2012 at 4:48 PM

I was against reform too but I realized what Bush was trying to do. It was a small price to pay for the chance to rid the party of the “anti-immigrant” label…And we blew it.

tkyang99

Last I checked, Ronald Reagan, REPUBLICAN, gave pretty much unconditional amnesty to millions of Hispanics, yet we’re still the “anti-immigrant” party.

Meanwhile, it is the democrat party that embraced and encouraged slavery, rejected civil rights for blacks, and gave rise to racist groups like the KKK, but somehow it is the republican party that is the anti-black party. Go figure.

The MSM fixation on the Hispanic vote makes no sense, except as deliberate disinformation. The real target in American politics: the white vote, especially the Northern working class.

Ceolas

It’s nice to see someone else paying attention. We did not lose because of the Hispanic vote. But we will if folks on our side who are seeking to exploit this myth for some unknown reason get their way. We’ll be lucky to win another election of any significance ever again if that happens.

xblade on November 7, 2012 at 7:10 PM

Why not? The country is dead anyway, may as well open the borders and let the looters in. Who cares anymore?

AZfederalist on November 7, 2012 at 7:54 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3