Click photo to enlarge
Walter Rubel
The latest effort to sweeten the pot for Republicans opposed to immigration reform involves more than $30 billion in new spending over the next 10 years. So much for all that talk about us being broke. Crafted by Sens. John Hoeven, R-N.D., and Bob Corker, R-Tenn., it would add 20,000 new Border Patrol agents, 18 new unmanned surveillance drones, 350 miles of new fencing and all kinds of new high-tech tools including infrared ground sensors and airborne radar. All of which is intended to satisfy those who have been demanding since the failed attempts of the Bush administration on this issue that border security must come first. We don't oppose immigration, they have insisted, but we need to have control over who is allowed to enter the country. Secure the border first, and then we can consider immigration reform. They were never sincere. The Wall Street Journal, hardly a bastion of progressive thought, said it as well as it can be said in an editorial last week: "For some Republicans, border security has become a ruse to kill reform. The border could be defended by the 10th Mountain Division and Claymore antipersonnel mines and it wouldn't be secure enough." Border security was always going to be a key component of the Senate bill. The Hoeven-Corker amendment seems like overkill to me — and with a hefty price tag at that. It is worth noting that at the same time this $31.2 billion proposal was being put together, the House was voting on a Farm Bill that
would have cut $20.5 billion from food stamps. But Democrats are willing to go along on the new spending in the hope that they can pick up enough senators to reach the 70-vote limit. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, who signed on as a co-sponsor of the amendment, has said this may make the difference in her voting for the bill, according to an Associated Press story. Why 70 votes when only 51 are needed for passage (or 60 with the filibuster?) The notion is that with 70 votes, the Senate can put pressure on the House to bring the bill to the floor for a vote. Good luck. Conservatives in the Republican caucus proved once again Thursday that they are immune to pressure — at least when it comes from feckless Speaker John Boehner and members of the establishment. The proposed $20.5 billion in cuts to food stamps weren't enough for 67 Republicans who dealt Boehner a stinging defeat by voting against the bill. Steve Pearce was not among those 67 defectors. He voted for the bill. Why would anyone think they will be more amenable to an immigration bill that is even more distressing to their base? Old guard senators like John McCain and Lindsey Graham are urging passage, arguing not that it is in the best interests of the country, but rather a necessary evil to pick up Hispanic votes in future national elections. It's hard to imagine House Republicans in protected districts being moved by that argument. The House may pass something on immigration, but it won't be comprehensive and it won't fix the broken system. When asked why, they will fall back on the excuse of border security. Don't believe them. So if not that, why such vehement opposition? The answer can be found in the writings of Jason Richwine, who recently co-authored a study on immigration reform for the conservative Heritage Foundation. In his doctoral dissertation, Richwine theorized that, "No one knows whether Hispanics will ever reach IQ parity with whites, but the prediction that new Hispanic immigrants will have low-IQ children and grandchildren is difficult to argue against." It's not hard to recognize the motivation behind that line of thinking. Walter Rubel is managing editor of the Sun-News. He can be reached at wrubel@lcsun-news.com or follow @WalterRubel on Twitter.