Mediaboss Marketing

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 ...

Marco Rubio is a crafty, talented 44-year-old politician who is in serious danger of splitting his pants. More than anyone else in the Republican presidential primary, Rubio is trying to straddle his party's most visible divide, presenting himself as a solid choice for the corporate elite and as a tribune of the (very angry) people who don't have much use for corporate elitists. As a Fortune columnist wrote, Rubio has "a chameleon-like ability to sound like an outsider even when his policy positions match those of the party establishment."

The Florida senator has yet to break through to the top tier of candidates. Both the RealClearPolitics and Huffpollster polling averages show Rubio in third place nationally, but at around 9 percent of the primary vote he is closer to cellar dwellers Chris Christie and Lindsey Graham than he is to soaring novices Donald Trump and Ben Carson.

Even so, there is evidence that Rubio's straddle could work. Jeb Bush, the gold-plated establishment offering, is faltering. Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, the other would-be hedge candidate, has been driven from the race. Rubio enjoys high favorable/unfavorable ratios, which suggest a potential to rise. (An August Quinnipiac poll showed Rubio with an otherworldly 72/3 rating among Republicans.)

QuickTake Swerving Path to Citizenship

But if straddling were easy, more candidates would succeed at it. And Rubio's greatest stretch -- immigration -- is his riskiest.

Rubio helped shepherd comprehensive immigration reform through the Senate in 2013. It seemed like a good idea at the time. The party was reeling from President Barack Obama's re-election, and a party "autopsy" of the defeat practically begged legislators to use an immigration fix to get right with Hispanic and Asian voters, who supported Obama by 2-to-1 margins.

Rubio clearly hoped to be the Republican Moses, leading a new wave of immigrant voters into the party. But the Republican base revolted, and House Republicans stomped on reform, tentatively at first, then with increasing gusto. By the time Trump launched his campaign in June with a vitriolic broadside against Mexicans, Rubio had been working for months to cross the border back to the nativist side of the party. Trump's subsequent success with Republican voters merely underscored the necessity.

At a time when many whites are anxious about the approach of a nonwhite majority, the political value of championing immigration in a Republican primary can appear microscopically small (ask Bush). In a 2013 poll published by the Center for American Progress, 57 percent of Republicans expressed concern that rising diversity would lead to rising discrimination against whites. In the same poll, 80 percent of Republicans expressed concern that it would place too many demands on public services. These are not, generally speaking, Americans desperate to welcome 11 million mostly Hispanic illegal immigrants into the U.S. electorate.

The predictable result, as reported by Bloomberg Politics:

Pressed by conservative host Sean Hannity during a Monday night interview on Fox News, the Florida senator said he's open to a path to citizenship for people in the U.S. illegally, but only a decade or more after passage of bills to secure the border and modernize the legal immigration system.

As anyone who has followed the immigration debate knows, in the minds of many immigration restrictionists the border is a loose and dangerous phantasm that will never be secure. Rubio was basically saying the path to citizenship is a dead end.

Oh, and forget about legalization, too. People need to see and honestly believe that the problem is not getting worse, that its getting better," he told the Guardian. "And until we are achieving that, I dont think were going to have the political support that we need to move forward on the other pieces of it.

Restrictionists are not convinced of Rubio's turnaround, or forgiving of his pro-immigration transgressions. Typical headlines:

Hotair: Rubio raking in big bucks from rich pro-amnesty Republicans by touting his "immigration record" behind closed doors.

Breitbart: Rubio Abandons GOP Position, Caves to Obama Executive Amnesty

Rubio's pollster, Whit Ayers, won't soothe their worries. Ayers argues that Republicans must improve their standing among minorities to remain competitive in presidential politics. He is one of the party's leading proponents of broadening the tent.

While he has failed to win over the restrictionist right, Rubio is considered a traitor by his former allies. "His hard line on immigration, increasingly unmasked, is going to be hung around his neck should he make it to the general election," said Frank Sharry, a prominent pro-immigration advocate. "He reeks of ambition and shows little evidence of character."

Back in July, when Rubio was already in full flight from his previous stance on immigration, Senator John McCain, a backer of immigration reform, likened him to a politician licking his finger and holding it to the wind. You dont need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows," McCain told the New Yorker's Ryan Lizza.

In an interview with Bloomberg Politics, Mike Murphy, who runs the super-PAC supporting Bush's candidacy, all but announced his intention to show the "vulnerable" side of Rubio. In the vernacular of 30-second attack ads, Rubio's turnabout on immigration is a serious character issue.

Rubio is poised to be the corporate Republican fallback in case Bush's candidacy fades. Murphy, who is sitting atop the largest single advertising budget in American politics right now, would like to make sure Rubio never gets that opportunity.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

To contact the author of this story: Francis Wilkinson at fwilkinson1@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Jonathan Landman at jlandman4@bloomberg.net

More here:
Rubio's Immigration Magic Trick - Bloomberg View

Rep. Paul Ryan met with the Republican caucus in the House today and told them he was willing to run for Speaker. But only on his terms: unanimous support, reduced fundraising duties, and an end to mid-session attempts to remove the Speaker from power. According to a team of National Review reporters, he didn't offer much in returnexcept for this:

Though it wasnt a night in which Ryan was making many concessions aside from a nod that he was seriously considering taking a job he has said publicly he does not want he also hinted strongly that he will not bring an immigration bill to the House floor. He told his colleagues the issue was simply too divisive and he wanted to focus on the things on which the conference is in agreement, like border security and internal enforcement, as opposed to a comprehensive bill.

This doesn't strike me as a huge concession. Ryan may be an immigration dove, but under the current circumstances there's no way he'd try to cut a deal with Democrats for comprehensive immigration reform. Especially not during an election year. The conservative base rebelled over this in 2006 and then again in 2013. Bringing it up again would be nuts. And whatever else Ryan is, he's not nuts.

So there you have it: no immigration reform this year or next. But you weren't really expecting any, were you?

View post:
Ryan: No Immigration Reform If He's Speaker | Mother Jones

The Wisconsin lawmaker lacks faith in President Obamas ability to be honest on the issue of immigration and will not be confronting the hot-button issue while Obama remains in office, a Ryan spokesman explained to the Free Beacon.

Ryan understands that we cant address that issue with a president we cant trust, spokesman Brendan Buck emailed the Free Beacon.

While Ryan may not pursue immigration reform under Obama, the Ways and Means chairman has, in the past, sought to mend the nations immigration system with comprehensive reform efforts. A fact that has not been lost on critics of a Ryan speakership who fear the former vice presidential candidate might not be conservative enough.

Following the Tuesday evening meeting, Ryan said publicly that he will run for Speaker if the caucus will unify behind him.

What I told the members is, if you can agree to these requests, and if I can truly be a unifying figure, then I will gladly serve. And, if I am not unifying, that will be fine as well. I will be happy to stay where am, at the Ways and Means Committee, Ryan said.

Out-going House Speaker Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) has scheduled the internal GOP elections for speaker next Wednesday followed by the full vote on the House floor Thursday.

More:
Report: No Immigration Reform Under Obama With a Paul Ryan ...