The immigration debate is like a slow roiling boil contained within a large pot. The contents churn and churn, but the chemistry of the boiling mass is eternal.
To pass the Senate, a bill needs the support of a supermajority of 60. But an immigration bill that that can get 60 votes in the Senate cannot pass the House.
The problem in the House isn't that a majority of representatives would vote against it. The problem is that it can't get a hearing and an up-or-down vote.
The reason it can't get a hearing and a floor vote is that Republicans are in the majority and therefore control the House agenda. Their leaders won't allow a bill to advance unless it has the support of a majority within the Republican caucus. This is known as the Hastert Rule, after former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert.
Here is an example of the practical effect of the Hastert Rule. Suppose there are in the House 235 Republicans and 200 Democrats (figures chosen for ease of calculation and resemblance to current conditions). Suppose further that an immigration reform bill passes the Senate with 60-some votes and has the support in the House of 160 Democrats and 75 Republicans. The bill would pass, 235-200, if put to a vote, but it isn't put to a vote, because by 160-75 Republicans oppose it.
It would be too much like a "Democratic bill" passing the Republican-controlled House. Not allowed.
You might object that this scenario is farfetched. After all, everyone pays homage to "bipartisanship" and "getting things done" and "repairing the dysfunction in Washington." Consequently, Republicans in the House would pay a political price for killing a reform bill that had broad bipartisan support in both Houses of Congress. Another way to put it: it's not realistic to think that a bill that was approved by a supermajority in the Senate would be opposed by more than two-thirds of Republicans in the House.
But remember how these people got to where they are. Senators won a statewide election, which has a moderating effect on that body. Members can vote for immigration reform that includes for example a path to citizenship for "dreamers" because, by the rule that there is wisdom in crowds, they won't lose the next election for having cast a reasonable vote. It's entirely different for Republican members of the House. They represent not whole states but districts, many of which have been carefully drawn with the express intent of making it almost impossible for a Democrat to win the seat. For these Republicans, the only very realistic prospect of getting thrown out of office is losing in a Republican primary to someone who is more aptly described as "crazy" than "conservative."
If the above is "just a theory," it is one that has considerable explanatory power. For example, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006 passed the Senate on a 62-36 vote. It was sponsored by a Republican, Arlen Spector, and had five Republican co-sponsors: Chuck Hagel, Mel Martinez, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Sam Brownback. (The loan Democratic co-sponsor was Edward Kennedy.) In the colorless words of Wikipedia, the bill "proposed to increase some security along the southern United States border with Mexico, allow long-term illegal immigrants to gain legal status, and to increase the number of guest workers over and above those already present in the US through a new 'blue card' visa program." Republican House members were in the role of the priest in Moonstruck who, having heard the Cher character confess to taking the name of the Lord in vain three times, sleeping with her fiancée's brother, and bouncing a check at the liquor store, asked: "What was that second thing you said?" Allow long-term illegal immigrants to gain legal status. Dennis Hastert was the Speaker of the House and the Senate bill died there.
As in 2006, so also earlier this month, when Trump's oval office disquisition on "shitholes," or perhaps "shithouses," got all the attention and tended to obscure the fact that, regarding immigration reform, the same kettle is still boiling. A Democratic senator (Durbin) and a Republican senator (Graham) went to the White House with the outline of an immigration reform bill designed to get at least 60 senate votes. It included a DACA fix and a path to citizenship. Ergo, no dice, no deal, shithole this, shithouse that, can't we find some Norwegians who want in? (No, they're used to national health insurance, and we can't even reform an immigration system that's been obviously broken for years and years.)
Comments