Eight Hours, seven minutes, four inches and seventy-seven years old

Except Republicans in the Senate aren't really on board with a lot of those things either. The Trump proposal didn't have support of the Senate GOP, less alone the Senate as a whole. Next week's free-for-all Senate debate will be interesting. The problem is that it's doubtful the House does anything.

In 2013 or whenever it was, Paul Ryan essentially created Donald Trump by asking the Senate to take the lead on comprehensive immigration reform. Marco Rubio and company managed to get 70+ votes and a bill that easily would have passed the House, but Ryan refused to even let it come up for a vote. That ended Rubio and created Trump. I can see something similar happening here.

If I were Pelosi, I'd have used whatever leverage I had to try to get Ryan to not commit on a specific proposal, but get him to commit to put any immigration bill that comes from the Senate up in the House for a yes/no vote. If House GOP really is opposed, they could just vote it down easy enough.

 

@Major, I'm still convinced the House will do immigration reform now. The 2013 bill was more liberal than what we're talking about today. It had to be because it needed to be bipartisan to pass in the Obama era. Now, they have the power to push through a pretty conservative immigration policy. I think the House Republicans will use that advantage while they have it.

 

But I don't think the Senate is on board with that. Dems can kill anything there, and all the major GOP immigration players (McCain, Graham, etc) have generally pushed much more moderate/liberal immigration reforms as their starting point.

I think the McCain/Coons bill basically takes cares of DACA and provides some money to study a wall in the future. I don't think the Senate is on board with any of the more right-leaning stuff (chain migration, visa lotteries, etc).

 

Seems a reasonable compromise is some spending for border security (trump can choose how to spend, seems increased personnel and electronic surveillance seems more effective than physical barriers, but again, DHS can decide how to spend), but the restrictions on so-called chain migration and lotteries risk hurting lots of people, so clarity on what is involved is key.