CLEANING THE AUGEAN STABLES

A few weeks ago, the odds an immigration reform bill could pass in both the Democrat-controlled Senate and the Republican-controlled House of Representatives were closer to "none" than "slim."

The main interest Democrats have in immigration reform is the prospect of having millions of newly enfranchised voters voting for them.  But there were indications President Barack Obama would rather have the issue than a bill that could pass the House.

But the president’s humiliating defeat on gun control and the Boston Marathon bombing have changed the dynamic. 

After the gun control debacle, Mr. Obama badly needs a "win" on a substantive issue, lest he become a lame duck far earlier than any president before him.  He can get that "win" only on immigration.

The Boston massacre has impressed upon millions how badly broken the present system is.

Since big majorities of Republicans as well as of Democrats and Independents say they’d support an immigration reform bill that does what the so-called "Gang of 8" senators say theirs will do, the odds such a bill could become law could now be better than 50-50.

It won’t be the "Gang of 8" bill — not in anything like its present form. Critics have identified hundreds of instances in which the actual language of the 844-page bill undermines the claims of its sponsors, especially with regard to border security.

Democrats never intended to keep the promises they made to get Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla, on board, said National Review Editor Rich Lowry. 

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-NY, lead negotiator for the Democrats, ate Sen. Rubio’s lunch, Mr. Lowry said. "Schumer’s genius is to have placated Rubio not just with promises, but with new versions of old promises," he said.  "Rubio traded amnesty – although he refuses to call it that – for an enforcement plan on paper and a commission to be named later."

I agree with Mr. Lowry’s characterization of Sen. Schumer and his motives.  But if Rich Lowry and I know Chuck Schumer is clever, devious, and utterly untrustworthy, odds are Sen. Rubio does too. 

Mr. Lowry’s condescension is a mild form of the most grave failing of conservatives.  Many are never happier than when they’re accusing other conservatives of betrayal.  But Marco Rubio is no traitor, coward, or fool.  He realizes — as his conservative critics apparently do not — that Republicans now hold the higher cards, and should play them wisely.

Conservatives have raised important concerns about the efficacy of the security provisions in the "Gang of 8" bill, and about its cost.  But these are better arguments for improving the bill than for rejecting reform. 

Most conservatives who oppose immigration reform do so primarily because they are unwilling to forgive otherwise law abiding illegals for having snuck into the country.  Before illegals could apply for citizenship, they’d have to keep their noses clean for 13 years and pay a $2,000 fine, the "Gang of 8" bill ostensibly provides.  But to Heritage Foundation President Jim DeMint, columnist Pat Buchanan, and Mr. Lowry, this is still "amnesty."

Nor would harm befall the republic if the otherwise law abiding were relieved of the fear of deportation before the border is pronounced secure.  (Whether illegals should also be made eligible for welfare benefits, immediately or ever, is another question entirely.)

The republic will suffer if we do nothing to repair an immigration system that’s so badly broken.  No law can do much about the unwillingness of the president to enforce laws he does not like.  But replacing bad laws with better ones is an essential part of the solution.

The winning strategy for the GOP is to make certain any bill that ultimately passes actually does what the "Gang of 8" says theirs will do.  But so many things are wrong with their bill that trying to fix them one by one is a task akin to cleaning the Augean stables.  The only way to get a bill that actually does what the "Gang of 8" promises may be to start over from scratch.

That’s exactly what Republicans in the House of Representatives should do.  Write a bill that does what the vast majority of Americans say they want done.  In the new atmosphere, they may be surprised by how much of it Democrats would accept.