Get PJ Media on your Apple

Boehner Going to Take ‘Incremental’ Approach on Immigration Without Majority of the Majority

Rep. King tells PJM "the bill itself right now will not be satisfactory to a majority of Republicans."

by
Nicholas Ballasy

Bio

July 10, 2013 - 6:15 pm
YouTube Preview Image

New York Republican Rep. Pete King told PJ Media that House Speaker John Boehner is going to take an “incremental” approach to immigration reform, adding that some Republicans are concerned that President Obama might delay increased border security measures like he has done with Obamacare’s employer mandate.

“My own feeling right now is that a solid majority of, a clear majority of Republicans will not support the Senate bill as of now. I think what we’re going to see Speaker Boehner doing is bringing up incremental pieces and basically see where it goes,” King told PJ Media at the Capitol on Wednesday.

He commented hours before House Republicans met in the Capitol basement to discuss immigration reform.

“All I can say is that the bill itself right now will not be satisfactory to a majority of Republicans and they will, again, I think Boehner’s going to try to address it step-by-step and see where it leads,” he said.

King, a member of the House Homeland Security Committee, said more security on the border does not necessarily have to come before legalization. Many Republicans want the border more secure before giving any illegal immigrants permanent status.

“My main issue is security. If I’m confident that security is good, then I can see legalizing the 11 million,” King said.

“I’m not saying it has to come first. We have to make sure that it’s in the bill and that it’s real, it’s going to be enforced and that the president can’t waive it or the secretary of Homeland Security can’t waive it.”

King added that the Obama administration’s recent decision to delay the employer mandate in the healthcare law has sent off “shock signals” among Republicans. The law requires businesses with more than 50 full-time employees to buy insurance for their workers or pay a penalty of $2,000 per worker.

“I think what sent off some shock signals is that where the president has waived Obamacare for a year – could you just go ahead and waive border security for a year or two years or three years?” King asked.

Also read: Jonathan Chait Is a Silly Little Boy

Nicholas Ballasy is a video journalist based in Washington, D.C. His interviews with prominent politicians and celebrities have been featured by media outlets including Fox News, NBC News, ABC News, Access Hollywood, Inside Edition, the Washington Post. Follow his work at www.nickballasy.com.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
The fact they are even considering doing anything means we will need to find another option besides the Republican party. These guys read the Bible and come away thinking Judas is the hero.

We are desperate to have someone primary Corker and Alexander in TN but at this rate it really won't matter who the Republicans run. I already gave up voting for Alexander a while back and Corker is out now. I will vote for Tea Party guys and Libertarians. Every other line on the ballot will be blank.

If we are going to fly this thing into the ground then better it happen sooner than later. I think we all know we are past the point of no return on pretty much every front. We are all out of money and all out of liberty. Best to just start over from scratch. At least we have a perfectly good Constitution that no one is using.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"...some Republicans are concerned that President Obama might delay increased border security measures like he has done with Obamacare’s employer mandate."

Either Rep King is an idiot, or those unnamed "some" are idiots.

What makes any of them think that border security is going to actually be increased on Obama's watch?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"adding that some Republicans are concerned that President Obama might delay increased border security measures like he has done with Obamacare’s employer mandate."

Might delay security ? Really ?

Our whole immigration fiasco is solely caused be the willful, premeditated refusal to enforce our immigration laws for the last three decades, and this jackass is worried that they might delay border security ?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (27)
All Comments   (27)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
One might have expected the House to defeat the Senate bill. After all, the House majority is Republican. But with Republicans like King and others like him, the expectation will not happen. The House will pass a bill and the end result will be what King wants: legalization of 11 million illegal aliens.

Why King wants to legalize the 11 million illegals baffles me. More than that it sickens me.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
#1 The issue at hand is ILLEGAL immigration, Ms. Johnson, not immigration per se.

#2 Boehner is yesterday's news. He blew his opportunity to be a respected & remembered GOP Speaker long ago. It is as impossible for him to get back in the good graces of the party base as it is for Rubio. Sorry. We take promises seriously. And there is nothing we despise more than false rhetoric.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
The Stupid Party elites are just too stupid to see the demographic game the Democrats are playing. Anyone with a brain can see that if those 11 million are legalized most of them will vote Democrat. That will be the end of the Republicans and the country.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"Incremental Approach"

Hm

What, exactly does that even mean?

I mean, are you going to look at every section of the senate bill and dissect it and keep what you like and trash what you don't?

If that's the case then you really are a statist, Boehner. Clearly, if your intention is, as I suspect, to rewrite the bill so it "has more teeth" in it, you ignore the fact that none of those teeth will ever get any bite. This is because you believe that because you write a law, that the nation will simply have to follow it.

OK...so yeah...laws that aren't followed by the ordinary citizen are handled by our "justice system". But what about when the very government you're part of doesn't obey the law?

Either you've been absent the past five years or you've been curled up beside a nice bottle of scotch and comatose. Either way you haven't noticed that this administration doesn't obey or believe in the law any more than you believe your tanning bed is a god.

Well....maybe you do but I digress.

You seem to like all the perks of being the Speaker of the House, such an ignoble position and all but you FAIL to embrace the hard part of the job. It has dawned on me that like a lot of prep-school flunkies, you may not exactly know how it works. With all that experience in government, people just simply assume you have knowledge of how to put forth motions, adhere to protocols, proceed within the confines of law, etc.

But it may simply be that you're an idiot. I mean, all the statistical proof is there. And you hide a lot. You seldom come out and say much of anything. Is it because you're busy working on your social calendar that the people can't be informed as to the GOP's position on things?

Inquiring minds want to know.

1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
It means instead of one hard stab in the back, the Republican elite are going apply anesthetic first.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Conservatives need to credibly threaten to primary everyone in congress. The Tea Party successfully put the fear of primary election loss into the minds of a large group of Republicans, but Democrats and swing-seat Republicans don't have that fear. However, defending the Unites States against mass importation of a new unassimilated electorate isn't inherently a conservative idea. Immigration non-enforcement couldn't have got this bad without the active support of businesses who just want less expensive workers colluding with identity politics. I bet that Tea Party groups could demonstrate non-partisanship by building support for the idea of Patriot Democrats* to run against the leftists that currently represent urban areas. There are many worthless safe-seat Democrats who couldn't survive an organized credible opponent in a low turnout primary election.

I would define a Patriot Democrat as someone who loves and defends the United States, but wants a larger role for government from within the constitution. The constitution envisions a small, defined role for government at the national level, but allows a larger role at the state and local level. Progressives upended this by arguing ridiculous things like growing your own wheat for your own consumption and not buying health insurance is interstate commerce.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I would define a Patriot Democrat as someone who loves and defends the United States, but wants a larger role for government from within the constitution.

I'm sorry, but where would you find such? I think the last of those died out somewhere around 1990. And the Patriot Republican is on the endangered species list in Congress, and its habitat with the base is being wiped out by the Party machinery.

Subotai Bahadur
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Incremental approach? Fine, how about you start with a mandate to end all incentives to breaking the law such as mandating those government agencies that distribute drivers licenses, education and welfare benefits to check up on residency status of applicants. It's really kind of a no brainer.

After you do that and start talking about conditional -- note conditional -- amnesty and guest worker programs many of us might actually believe that you are sincerely trying to solve the problem rather than destroy the country.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I'd settle for just a law from congress giving state and local government access to immigration databases so states could enforce laws in this area.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Wow. How about we all sit on our hands next year?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
That's a certain way of getting amnesty.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
The only safe assumption about Boehner is he will do the wrong thing, but not until he tells you he understands why doing that thing would harm the country.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
If House Republicans get behind amnesty the party deserves to be thrown on the scrapheap of history.
Boehner is an idiot to try to do this.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
1 2 Next View All