Mediaboss Marketing

4764572

Rep. Paul Ryan promised Rep. Mo Brooks that as speaker he will not bring to the House floor immigration legislation that is not supported by a majority of Republicans, and that there will be no comprehensive immigration reform under this president.

National Review reports that Ryan affirmed those stances by approving of a letter drafted by Brooks.

The letter sought to put on paper promises that Ryan made during a closed-door meeting with the House Freedom Caucus last week.

During that meeting, Ryan said, It is unwise or unproductive to bring up any immigration legislation so long as Barack Obama is President.

Furthermore, Ryan claimed that he would never bring an immigration to the floor unless it is supported by a majority of Republican members.

In the letter, Brooks makes the following request ofRyan: If my portrayal of your words errs in any respect, please deliver to me a written communication correcting my errors, buthe told National Review that Ryan called his office during a staff meeting less than two hours later, confirming the accuracy of his promises.

Ryan told National Review that he has long and publicly been opposed to the gang of eight bill, and there will be no comprehensive immigration reform under this president.

Read the letter from Brooks:

Paul Ryan Immigration Commitments Letter, Annotated

Follow Datoc on Twitter and Facebook

Follow this link:
Ryan: No Immigration Reform Under Obama | The Daily Caller

Paul Ryan has signed off on a letter promising restless members of the House Freedom Caucus (HFC) that he wont bring immigration-reform legislation to the House floor while President Obama remains in office.

The letter, obtained exclusively by National Review, formalizes pledges that Ryan made last weekin a closed-door meeting with select members of the HFC who were skeptical of his promise to maintain an open and inclusive relationship with the caucus. Specifically, it extracts Ryans word that he will not bring up comprehensive immigration reform so long as Barack Obama is president and, as speaker, Ryan will not allow any immigration bill to reach the floor for a vote unless a majority of GOP members support it.

Alabama representative Mo Brooks wrote the letter and will enter it into the Congressional Record on Tuesday morning. He says his intention was to record the pledges Ryan made in the meeting and earn Ryans confirmation that the record was accurate, so he could vote for the Wisconsin Republican in good conscience come the congressional-floor election that will determine the next speaker.

Its been widely reported that Ryan has promised to uphold the second promise in the letter the so-called Hastert Rule, which is designed to ensure that legislation brought to the House floor has broad support in the Republican conference but by agreeing to the letters substance, hes giving his first endorsement of that policy as it specifically applies to immigration reform.

RELATED: How the Freedom Caucus Warmed to Paul Ryan for Speaker

I need your assurance that you will not use the Speakers position to advance your immigration policies...because there is a huge gap between your immigration position and the wishes of the American citizens I represent, Brooks wrote. Your words yesterday constitute the needed assurance.

If my portrayal of your words errs in any respect, please deliver to me...a written communication correcting my errors, the letter reads. Brooks delivered it directly to Ryan on the House floorand says Ryan called his office during a staff meeting less than two hours later, confirming the accuracy of his promises as stated in the letter.

RELATED: How Paul Ryan Got from Never to All In for Speaker

When reached for comment, Ryan confirms Brooks account. I have long and publicly been opposed to the gang of eight bill, and there will be no comprehensive immigration reform under this president, he tellsNational Review.

Ryan may have won over a supermajority of the HFC last Wednesday, but his record on immigration continues to haunt him. Many HFC members are reaping the whirlwind of their unofficial assent to a Ryan speakership, as constituents flood their offices with angry phone calls, demanding to know why they arent fighting to prevent a man who once rallied support for the failed Gang of Eight immigration-reform bill from taking control of the House.

But as Brooks tells it, Ryans pledge indicates a significant step toward allaying misgivings about his past immigration stances, especially among the handful of HFC members Brooks included who have chosen to maintain their support for Florida representative Daniel Webster over Ryan in the GOP-conference vote that precedes the full Houses official speakers election.

RELATED: Paul Ryans Impact on the GOP Is Only Beginning

Brooks is glued to his computer when he speaks to NR, finalizing responses to the many incensed voters who have sent him complaints about Ryan. Nevertheless, with the presumptive speakers promise on immigration in tow, he says hes beginning to look forward. Of the potential for a healthy HFC voice throughout Ryans term, Brooks says, Im cautiously optimistic.

He adds that he believes Ryan will keep his promises.

I said [to him], Ok, Paul...this issue is a major source of disagreement, but I trust you when you give me your word.

Read the full letter below:

Editors Note: This piece has been updated since its initial publication.

Elaina Plott is a William F. Buckley Fellow in Political Journalism at the National Review Institute.

Read the original:
Paul Ryan Promises: No Immigration Reform under Obama ...

While in Nevada on Thursday, GOP presidential hopeful Jeb Bush engaged ina little-noticed back-and-forth with a student about immigration reform. It went like this:

STUDENT: I want to know your position about a path to citizenship.

BUSH: You know my position.

STUDENT: Im wondering why is [a path to citizenship] okay for your wife but not my parents. Why do you want to just give them legal status? What do you mean by that? Why not a path to citizenship?

BUSH: My wife didnt come here illegally. Theres a difference.

STUDENT: Whats the difference? You mentioned [citizenship] for DREAMers, but how about my parents?

BUSH: No, I gave you my position. [CROSSTALK] I believe in a path to legalized status [UNCLEAR]because I don't think, with 11 million people, well be able to get the consensus...

(You can watch the video on the student's Facebook page. It was promoted by immigration-reform advocacy groups on Thursday.)

Their exchange was essentially the short-and-sweet of why immigration reform is stuck in Congress and has been for years. There's simply a fundamental difference between the right and the left when it comes to the consequences of granting an estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants a new pathway to citizenship.

The argument of the student, and much of the left, goes something like: Many of these people are hard-workingmembers of society-- just like Bush's wife. They deserve the same rights citizens have.

Bush, whose wife is indeed Mexican, essentially replied:It's called illegal immigration for a reason. And giving citizenship to 11 million people isn't feasible, politically or logistically, so let's move on.

Bush is among the most moderatein the 2016 GOP field when it comes to immigration reform. As governor of Florida, in 2004 he supported a controversial bill to get undocumented immigrants driver's licenses. But he has a complicated history with the notion of a path to citizenship. He's gone from supporting it -- saying in the summer of 2012, "You have to deal with it, you can't ignore it" -- to appearing to say the opposite in his 2013 book, "Immigration Wars."

"It is absolutely vital to the integrity of our immigration system that actions have consequences in this case, that those who violated the laws can remain but cannot obtain the cherished fruits of citizenship," he wrote.

[Rating the 2016 candidates' many contortions on immigration]

In that paragraph, Bush sums up what many on the right are also concerned about when it comes to a path to citizenship -- specifically, the kind of message it would send.These people, hard-working or not, broke the law. What would happen to the rule of law -- and America's borders -- if they weren't punished but rather given a leg up on other immigrants?

Bush essentially tells the student as much when he says, "My wife didn't come here illegally -- that's the difference."

Public opinion would appear to be just as stubbornly split, mostly along party lines, between Bush and the student.

A July Washington Post-ABC News poll found that six in 10 Americans support -- with some conditions -- allowing undocumented immigrants to gain a form of legal status. Exactly 40 percent said they should be allowed to apply for a path to citizenship.

But as my colleagueJanell Ross noted, there are just enough people who find Republicans' stance on securing the border and focusing on the rule of law appealing to keep public support weighted on both sides. And Democrats' support for a path to citizenship isn't winning them this debate; according to the July poll, 37percent of Americans trust Democrats more to handle immigration, while 40 percent trust Republicans to.

Just about as well as anything, Bush's encounter with that student signifies the vast chasm between the two sides on this issue.And when the disagreement is on such a fundamental level, that makes action even more unlikely.

Amber Phillips writes about politics for The Fix. She was previously the one-woman D.C. bureau for the Las Vegas Sun and has reported from Boston and Taiwan.

View original post here:
Why immigration reform wont happen any time soon, in one ...

CREDIT: AP Photo/Andrew Harnik

Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., center, accompanied by House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer of Md., left, and Rep. Kathy Castor, D-Fla., arrive for a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, March 26, 2015, to talk about the "continuation of efforts to educate individuals and families about the president's immigration executive actions." (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

2013 marked the year that real momentum was building toward passing a comprehensive immigration reform bill that would put millions of undocumented immigrants on a pathway to citizenship. The Senate approved a bipartisan bill in June 2013, igniting optimism that Congress might actually create a long-term solution to a politically charged problem. House leadership even expressed some interest in prioritizing the issue in 2014.

But that didnt happen. Today, the prospect of putting undocumented immigrants on some sort of pathway to legal status has never seemed less viable. GOP presidential candidates are running on virulently anti-immigrant platforms. And Republicans in the Senate are introducing legislation to make it easier to arrest immigrants for deportation proceedings.

A new documentary from FRONTLINE and Independent Lens set for release Tuesday night on PBS asks one simple question: What went wrong?

Filmmakers Shari Robertson and Michael Camerini present a fly-on-the-wall look at how bipartisan lawmakers almost pulled together to pass an immigration reform bill between 2013 and 2015 and how the bill ultimately dead-ended in the Republican-controlled House.

Immigration Battle follows Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) as he worked behind the scenes with Republican congressional leaders and the White House to write a bill that would neither be too lenient on undocumented immigrants and nor too aligned with President Obama, whom many House Republicans do not wish to work with.

Perhaps contrary to conventional wisdom, Robertson and Camerini conclude that Republicans werent the only one to blame for the ultimate downfall of the immigration reform bill. There is no easy villain, Camerini, joined on a phone interview with Robertson, told ThinkProgress. Its not an easy Republicans are bad movie.

House Speaker John Boehners (R-OH) confusing aboutface to vote on a set of immigration reform principles that would grant legal status to undocumented immigrants was his way of inoculating, testing the waters, drawing people out to see if they had a way forward, Camerini said.

The documentary pinpoints at least two turning points that help explain why House Republican members have since embraced more immigration-restrictionist bills.

First, former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) was defeated by the underfunded Tea Party darling Dave Brat, who ran on an opposition campaign to immigration reform. And then, an increase of Central American children who showed up at the southern U.S.-Mexico border appeared to trigger some House Republicans who otherwise would have supported a whip count to bring up an immigration bill to back down from supporting any immigration reform bills, which had suddenly become more politically toxic.

The window for action is always short, its almost like a magical alignment of the stars and two enormous meteors came through, Robertson told ThinkProgress. Those two things you can call them random occurrences no one expected either one.

The film makes the case that Democratic lawmakers played a role, too. Republicans turned their backs on immigration reform in part because Democratic leadership and the White House believed that House Republicans would take on a more conservative bill than the Senate did.

They made a strategic decision that I think everybody would say is a strategic error, Camerini said. There was a bipartisan deal in the House early and by killing it, they made the road much harder and much longer.

Ones own party can be an enemy because its such a useful political issue to blame the other side, Robertson added. People who want to get it done fear their own parties using it as a political issue almost more than they do the other side.

Now, the promise of passing comprehensive immigration reform is little more than a memory as Republicans have moved sharply in the opposite direction. On Tuesday, the Senate is preparing to vote on whether to consider a bill to crack down on sanctuary cities, which are areas that have elected not to turn over undocumented immigrants to federal law enforcement.

This vile legislation might as well be called The Donald Trump Act,' Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid said on the floor on Monday. Like the disgusting and outrageous language championed by Donald Trump, this legislation paints all immigrants as criminals and rapists.

Camerini acknowledged that its hard to distinguish between bills which are theater and bills which are real as House members take hardline stances to impress their constituents. Thats why he wanted to focus on a piece of proposed legislation that seemed like it had a real shot.

This is the story of a real [bill] one that got really, really close, he said.

Excerpt from:
How Comprehensive Immigration Reform Died

The Stop Sanctuary Policies and Protect Americans Act (S.2146) is slated for a vote tomorrow in the U.S. Senate. If passed, it would punish municipalities that fail to comply with immigration detainer requests, and and mandatory minimum sentences for certain immigration violations. The bill is part of a backlash against municipal policing policies following the death of Kate Steinle, a San Francisco resident who was allegedly shot by an immigrant in the country illegally. The man, Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, was released from a local jail despite a request from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to detain him.

The legislation stalled in July, when the sponsors tried to get attached to a reform of the No Child Left Behind education bill, according to Politico. With poor Republican support and staunch opposition from Democrats, the bill is unlikely to pass, let alone me the requirements to override an inevitable veto from President Barack Obama.

Still, the bill could serve as a platform from which Republicans could project a more active and constructive approach to immigration policy. In recent years, the party has been focused on stopping measures by Democrats, as opposed to proposing fixes of its own.

1) What The Bill Would Do

Short answer: restrict federal grants for low-income housing and policing; shield cops from liability, add mandatory minimum sentences to some immigration violations.

A) Despite the title, S.2146 would not directly stop so-called sanctuary policies by invalidating local laws. Instead, it would pressure cities to change laws by threatening to withhold federal grants meant to support low-income housing and public safety efforts. The enforcement section of the Stop Sanctuary Policies and Protect Americans Act identifies two such programs.

First, it threatens to cut funding to cities through the Community Development Block Grant. CDBGs go to localities who are trying to create low income housing, address blight, or deal with "urgent needs to community health and safety."

The Community Development program has been cut to one quarter since its apex under Ronald Reagan, but still grants billions of dollars in assistance each year. San Francisco, for example, obtained $16,627,564 in CDBG funds in the 2014 fiscal year.

Second, the Stop Sanctuary Policies Act would cut Community Oriented Policing Services. City councils that failed to end pro-immigrant policies would see federal grant money cut in areas like police hiring, counter-meth efforts, and other community safety measures.

B) The bill would shield local officials from liability in connection with complying with detainer requests. The immunity expressly excludes civil rights violations.

C) Lastly, the bill would impose minimum sentencing requirements for certain repeat immigration violators. Those convicted of an immigration violation could face a five year minimum sentence. This is the part referred to as Kates Law.

2) Who Supports The Bill?

Short answer: anti-immigrant groups, select Republican Senators, Bill OReilly.

The Stop Sanctuary Policies and Protect Americans Act was developed long before her death. However, the San Francisco incident gave the bill momentum, and the Kates Law section, receiving endorsements from conservative national pundits such as Bill OReilly.

Along with Sen., Toomey, Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) is sponsoring the bill. However, Vitter has been caught up with in a grueling Gov. race and an emerging sex scandal , so the job of shopping the Stop Sanctuary Cities bill around has fallen on Toomey.

Heres the Senator making the case on C-SPAN over the weekend.

This issue isnt even really about immigration, Toomey says. Like many Americans, I support immigration reforms that include opportunities for more immigrants to come to America legally. And I dont for a minute suggest that most immigrants commit crimes. In fact, the opposite is true. The vast majority of legal immigrants are a great addition to America.

Republican presidential candidate and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio also supports the bill, citing the death of Kate Steinle and the failure of the 2013 immigration reform bill that he helped write.

Kate Steinles murder tragically exposed the dangers of an inconsistent and ineffectual immigration enforcement policy, which encourages flagrant violations of our laws, Rubio said in a statement Wednesday, according to Politico. We need to fix our broken immigration system, but we cant do it as long as the belief persists that our immigration laws can be violated without any consequences.

The Federation for American Immigration Reform, which advocates for more restrictive immigration policies, supports the bill. Dan Stein, the organizations president, welcomes a passage of the bill even if it is inevitably vetoed.

If President Obama decides to veto the bill it is up to him to explain to the American people why he is refusing to act against reckless policies that have resulted in needless deaths of innocent citizens," Stein said in a statement.

With immigrants like Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez slipping through the systems cracks, supporters of the bill want to find a way to make sure that foreigners with long rap sheets are deported.

In short, supporters of the Stop Sanctuary Policies and Protect Americans Act argue that it would improve public safety.

3) Who Opposes The Bill?

Short answer: local cops organizations, pro-immigrant groups, The New York Times.

Yet opponents of the law argue that it would reduce public safety. As Tom Manger, President of the Major Cities Chiefs Association explains, sanctuary city policies were created to increase public safety and create trust among immigrant communities.

We fail if the public fears their police and will not come forward when we need them. Whether we seek to stop child predators, drug dealers, rapists or robbers we need the full cooperation of victims and witness. Cooperation is not forthcoming from persons who see their police as immigration agents, Manger said at a Judiciary Committee hearing about the bill in July.

While some visa programs already shield potential victims and witnesses from deportation, it is has over a one-year backlog. Plus, immigrants whose complaints are not prosecuted arent eligible. What that means in practice is that, for example, a domestic violence victim can be deported as a consequence of reporting a crime.

When immigrants come to view their local police and sheriffs with distrust because they fear deportation, it creates conditions that encourage criminals to prey upon victims and witnesses alike. Manger added in his testimony.

The New York Times Editorial board also opposes the bill, publishing an op-ed that describes efforts to suppress sanctuary cities as a false fix for a concocted problem, and contends that the Steinle cases was unreasonably seized to champion the law, citing the following facts that came out in the case following the initial shooting.

Mr. Lopez-Sanchez was a homeless man with drug convictions but no record of violent crime; the bullet he fired was found to have ricocheted off the pier, suggesting that he had not targeted anyone. The suggestion that it was a horrific accident could well be true. What is clearly false is the claim that he moved to San Francisco to take advantage of its sanctuary policies. He was sent there by federal officials to answer an old, minor drug charge, then released.

Illinois Congressman Luis Gutierrez has called the bill the Donald Trump Act.

Democratic California Senators Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein criticized San Francisco officials in the wake of the Steinle shooting, but have not endorsed the Republican bill.

Arizona Republican Senator Jeff Flake says he wont say yes to the bill unless the mandatory minimums are dropped.

4) What Are Sanctuary Cities? Immigration Detainers? Etc.

We wrote another explainer article about sanctuary cities back in July.

READ MORE ABOUT SANCTUARY CITIES HERE.

Read this article:
Immigration Reform News: 4 Things You Need To Know About The ...