Green Room

The Paul Ryan-Luis Gutierrez immigration alliance – [Updated with new CBO score]

posted at 1:36 pm on June 24, 2013 by

Illinois Democrat Luis Gutierrez, who once said his “only” loyalty is to the “immigrant community,” is an active member of the House’s immigration working group.   Wisconsin Republican Paul Ryan is not, but he sees himself as a “liaison” between Gutierrez’s ‘gang’ and the House GOP conference.  Buzzfeed profiles this political “odd couple,” which may hold the key to the fate of immigration reform in Congress’ lower chamber:

“He’s very liberal,” Ryan said of Gutierrez. “He and I don’t see eye to eye on virtually every issue except on this. What I’ve learned about Luis is that he’s a man of his word and he really wants to get this done. He’s not trying to play politics, he is sincere in trying to find common ground to solve the immigration problem and I very much appreciate that. He’s true to his word.”  As Gutierrez continues to craft a bipartisan immigration reform bill in the House, he has kept in close communication with Ryan, who could end up being an important Republican broker to conservatives wary of immigration reform.

“He is one of the bedrocks of the Republican Party and his support helps immensely.” Gutierrez said. Ryan has been supportive of immigration reform efforts since he worked as a young staffer in Jack Kemp’s office and there’s the often forgotten fact that Ryan was a co-sponsor of the 2006 immigration reform legislation in the House. “He has a very clear economic point of view but he also has a moral point of view. Everyone goes well really? Paul Ryan? But he thinks about the social justice issues,” said Gutierrez. “These are his words: ‘Luis we just can’t, as Catholics, we can’t have a permanent underclass. That’s not who we are.

The 2006 reminder demonstrates that Ryan isn’t a Johnny-come-lately to this debate.  As for the prospects for reform in the House, I offered Republicans some unsolicited advice in my Townhall piece this morning:

Embrace a comprehensive bill in the mold of Rep. Raul Labrador’s plan.  Labrador calls for a potential path to citizenship for most of the millions of illegal immigrants who are already here, including a fast-track for the so-called “DREAMers.”  Crucially, though, his proposal reverses the legalization and enforcement sequencing, spelling out a tough enforcement-first paradigm…Labrador’s plan isn’t necessarily perfect; it can be tweaked, revised and amended.  But the key would be to craft and pass a workable path to permanent legal status and citizenship, triggered only when the new border security and enforcement standards are implemented and certified.

This ‘enforcement-first, legalization second’ approach wouldn’t be an especially tough sell with the American people, even though it’s viewed as a deal-killing nonstarter within the Beltway.  Therein lies the chasm separating public opinion (which doesn’t even consider this issue to be a top priority in general) from elite opinion.  Nevertheless, passage of a Labrador-style bill would require unity and message discipline on the part of House Republicans.  The Luis Gutierrez’s of the world would no doubt mount vociferous opposition to any such proposal, and a thumbs-down from a guy of Paul Ryan’s stature would be a real blow to its prospects.  Ryan says he and Gutierrez see “eye to eye” on immigration.  If that’s true, would Ryan actively work to scuttle a potential deal that includes a path to citizenship?  Sure, the normalization process wouldn’t start until certain meaningful border security and enforcement triggers were met and certified, but the legislation also would eliminate fears of a “permanent underclass.”  Speaking of that underclass, the CBO determined that the (pre-Hoeven/Corker) ‘Gang of Eight’ bill would (a) reduce the flow of illegal immigrants by a mere 25 percent — allowing nearly 5 million new illegals to enter the US over the next decade — and (b) would only afford provisional legal status to roughly 8 million of the 11.5 million undocumented immigrants who are currently here.  When you add up those disqualified millions and the millions more expected to arrive within the next ten years, you get…8.5 million people.  That figure is larger than the group that stands to gain provisional legal status under the Senate legislation.  How would Ryan and Gutierrez propose dealing with that new, sizable underclass?

Exit question (Allahpundit™): The CBO score referenced above doesn’t take into account the Hoeven/Corker amendment, which will significantly alter the price tag and enforcement efficacy of the legislation.  How will the new expenditures and provisions change the CBO’s assessment of the bill?  Hill sources tell me they don’t know, nor will they before today’s cloture vote — after which it’s game over in the Senate.

UPDATE – The CBO has published a flash score of the substitute amendment, literally minutes before the voting is set to begin.  They’ve determined that Hoeven/Corker will add $40 billion to deficits (compared to the original bill — which they project to cut deficits by hundreds of billions), while “significantly” improving border and interior enforcement.  Their previous assessment held that the ‘Gang of Eight’ legislation would curtail illegal inflow by 25 percent over a decade; presumably due to time constraints, CBO was unable to produce an updated numerical estimate for the new version.

Recently in the Green Room:



Trackback URL


I think idiots like Paul Ryan are looking for something to define their “legacy” when they sponsor and gin up interest for pieces of garbage like this Amnesty. I arrive at this conclusion because I don’t think Ryan is evil or stupid.

Well if it passes they’ll get their “legacy” but I don’t think it will be remembered fondly like they think it will.

LtBarnwell02 on June 24, 2013 at 1:51 PM

“These are his words: ‘Luis we just can’t, as Catholics, we can’t have a permanent underclass. That’s not who we are.”

Good grief. These people chose to come here illegally and live “in the shadows”. I don’t feel sorry for people who self-inflict themselves.

Bitter Clinger on June 24, 2013 at 2:07 PM

The sooner Paul Ryan gets back to his green eye shades, the better off he’ll be.

His influence with the conservatives in the House is gone or soon will be, especially if he signs up for this.

I’m a little sure than Benson that conservatives would be able to make a talking point out of a Labrador bill, simply for the reason that the administration will make sure that the media never lets that happen. Given a choice between calling one bill nothing but a “symbolic vote” and the other a serious bipartisan effort, which is likely to get the media vote? Conservatives can go on FNC and say it, but it’s not going to get said in WaPo, NYT, or any of the networks.

Just walk away; don’t do anything. Perhaps pass a stand alone security bill or two to take up some time before the budget issues emerge. But as Rush has said from the beginning, just walk away. Don’t play the game. Less than 5% cares about the immigration issue anyway. And now that at least some conservative media are beginning to see the light, it will give more “cover” to House conservatives to resist all this nonsense.

EastofEden on June 24, 2013 at 2:37 PM

“These are his words: ‘Luis we just can’t, as Catholics, we can’t have a permanent underclass. That’s not who we are.”

Well, if you pass amnesty you will have one, so DON’T PASS THE AMNESTY! If your point is that they “live in the shadows”, then tell them to go the heck home! They only “live in the shadows” because they are living here ILLEGALLY. (Spot on, Bitter Clinger!) How hard can this really be from a moral point-of-view?

GWB on June 24, 2013 at 3:27 PM

Illinois Democrat Luis Gutierrez, who once said his “only” loyalty is to the “immigrant community,”

This man should be expelled! He took an oath and lied.

Our governing bodies have become a polyglot of diverse and competing ideologies. Dammed few stand for the continuation of a free republic which is the job.

Hispanic concerns, feminist concerns, LBGT concerns, monied interest concerns, social justice concerns; the list of scoundrels is endless.

I see no hope for the USA I grew up in.

FOWG1 on June 24, 2013 at 4:00 PM

This is what matters most to our ‘leaders’. Shiite.

They need to be asking relevant questions – like “does molten tar cause second or third degree burns”?

Squiggy on June 25, 2013 at 5:53 AM

Can someone please explain to mo how adding more border patrol officers is going to significantly increase border security when the ones we already have have been told to stand down?

boone on June 25, 2013 at 6:18 AM

Can someone please explain to mo how adding more border patrol officers is going to significantly increase border security when the ones we already have have been told to stand down?

boone on June 25, 2013 at 6:18 AM

It wouldn’t and they have no intention of doing anything to secure the border. When conservatives lose Rubio and Ryan, I don’t see much hope for the cause. Even Rand Paul is talking about Immigration reform. Conservatives have been sold out in an attempt to secure roughly 6% of the population at the polls. The irony is that, regardless of what Republicans do, Hispanics will continue to vote Democrat…there will just be more of them.

cajunpatriot on June 25, 2013 at 8:44 AM

Folks – this seals it. We are well and truly boned.

If the house sends any bill back to the Senate, the Senate will pull an Obamacare move and make it worse.

The House should let this die – and then hope that Kim and Kanye get pregnant again. That will turn the attention of most of the country away from this nonsense.

natasha333 on June 25, 2013 at 9:59 AM

$40 Billion? That’s like a few Michelle Obama vacations. Well worth it in my opinion for border security.

HopeHeFails on June 25, 2013 at 12:28 PM

And here we thought Romney was the weak link on the ticket.

crrr6 on June 25, 2013 at 12:31 PM

HotAir — Politics, Culture, Media, 2017, Breaking News from a conservative viewpoint
Top Pick

“the Judiciary Committee is examining the circumstances surrounding the removal of James Comey.”

Top Pick

Winning isn’t everything. It is the only thing

Trump signs VA reform bill into law

John Sexton Jun 23, 2017 2:41 PM

“What happened was a national disgrace, and yet some of the employees involved in these scandals remained on the payrolls.”

A new era of something.

“…died suddenly in less than a week just after his return to the U.S.”

The shortsightedness of “Denounce and Preserve”

Taylor Millard Jun 23, 2017 12:11 PM

Pragmatism for the sake of pragmatism doesn’t always work.

Perhaps if you threw in a new car?

Gay marriages still growing, but not as fast

Andrew Malcolm Jun 23, 2017 10:31 AM

More, but not as quickly.

Should’ve stuck with the pirate gig. It was working for him

The battle for the rubble of Raqqa is underway

Andrew Malcolm Jun 23, 2017 8:51 AM

Won’t be much left.

Your list of demands is a publicity stunt

“what happened that day was emblematic of a deeply troubling trend among progressives…”

“The jobs are still leaving. Nothing has stopped.”

Bad vendor. Bad! No cookie!

“The Corps is just starting to grapple with the issues the court has identified.”

“So you want me to sing my praises, is that what you’re saying?”

Why would we possibly want that?

“I mean he sold our country to The Russians.”

I could think of someone else you might want to ask about…

“You can ask a hundred people what hate speech is and you get a thousand different answers”

Trump: I never made any recordings of Comey

Allahpundit Jun 22, 2017 2:01 PM


Hackers stole private data from election databases

John Sexton Jun 22, 2017 1:21 PM

“90,000 records stolen by Russian state actors contained drivers license numbers”

Failure to protect the city

Big man on the Middle Eastern campus

Biased Americans see media as biased.

Tough times down on the liberal ranch

Will Nancy Pelosi survive this latest Dem disaster?

Andrew Malcolm Jun 22, 2017 8:41 AM

Eat quick, before it’s gone.

Slow your roll, boss

“I’m bothered by the lack of emerging evidence…”

FIrst look at the Senate health bill

John Sexton Jun 21, 2017 9:21 PM

“the Senate bill would go farther than the House version in its approach to cutting Medicaid spending.”

Divide and conquer?

“If we do nothing, more companies will back out and more people will lose coverage.”

You know, I may have cracked the case for you, guys