No surprise, I guess. . . the Senate GOP caves on immigration

Last updated on: March 1, 2015 at 9:52 am by Jane the Actuary

No surprise, I guess. . . the Senate GOP caves on immigration 2015-03-01T09:52:17-06:00 Jane the Actuary

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

On Cuba, after what was claimed to be intense negotiations, Obama announced as much liberalization of policy with respect to Cuba as he is able to do without new legislation, in exchange for, well, virtually nothing. Yes, Cuba released a few political prisoners, but didn’t make any fundamental, or even cosmetic, changes in the system that imprisons people for political reasons in the first place. What were these negotiations? From all appearances, Obama didn’t actually wring any concessions from Cuba, because he didn’t really care — he just wanted to normalize relations and it looked better politically to claim this was a bilateral rather than unilateral plan.

With respect to Iran, it’s the same thing. At any rate, it’s of great concern that Obama and his administration isn’t pressing particularly hard for a deal that prevents Iran from getting the bomb, because they don’t care particularly much.

And what of the Senate GOP leadership, which has now announced (see reports here and here) that it will cave, fully and unilaterally, to the Democrats on the issue of allowing Obama to implement his work permits-for-illegals plan. True, they claim that they’re not caving, merely splitting the issue into two bills, one funding the DHS and another prohibiting funding for the amnesty program, but this either takes the American public for fools, or — well, actually, it just takes the American public for fools, as it’s clear that putting forth a bill to prohibit the amnesty program is not serious if it’s done while surrendering any leverage to get it passed; the Democrats could even pass it, secure in the knowledge that Obama would just veto it anyway.

(It’s a Survivor-ish sort of move, when one player knows that another person to whom he has pledged loyalty is slated to be voted off; in order to nominally stay true to his promise, he throws away his vote, so that the doomed player is still voted off, but the swing vote can still say, “I kept my promise because I didn’t write your name down.”)

Their other rationale? The claim that the court stay means that they’ve already won.

“Most of us feel like the courts gave us a major victory,” Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., said outlining the rationale for McConnell to offer a clean DHS bill now after weeks of not backing down. “Sometimes it makes a lot of sense to bank victories and move ahead.”

But this is foolhardy. If anything, this ought to improve their leverage in negotiating with Democrats: “look, the courts aren’t going to let the plan be implemented anyway, so why not please your constituents by opposing it?” But the court decision, which I’d been meaning to write about anyway, is not a done deal. I did not put a halt to the program, with certainty, as the administration is still able to look for a court to support their view, and was told, in any case, that it is required to undertake the lengthy comment and review period applicable for major changes.

But it’s clear that their heart simply wasn’t in this fight. They’ve got their millions, and are equally able to ensure that their children will be financially set, too.

(Incidentally, here’s a telling article on the administration’s position on the Hansen court ruling, originally printed in the Chicago Tribune but online at the L.A. Times. The basic logic of the administration, as sympathetically reported: time is of the essence, because, in order to make the program de-facto permanent, they need to process as many people as possible before the new president comes into office. This hardly seems like a rationale that’s going to persuade a judge that they “urgently” need to proceed, and, in fact, seems to affirm their opponents’ claim, that implementing the program would be un-doable so should be halted until its legality is resolved. But given how political many judges are, it’s still a complete abdication of responsibility for the GOP to say, “the courts have ruled in our favor, so we don’t need to do anything.”)

Uncategorized

immigration

Previous Post

February 24, 2015

The 21 Copts were real martyrs

Next Post

February 26, 2015 Parking a link: on the minimum wage

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Actuarial/Retirement Issues Politics Uncategorized

Select a Month September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 December 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 August 2021 June 2021 April 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who received a coat of many colors?

Select your answer to see how you score.

David Jacob Moses Joseph