My take on the controversy about the commission in the Senate immigration reform proposal

As I'm sure you know by now, one of the sticking points about the bi-partisan Senate plan on immigration reform is the creation of a commission to oversee the plan's border security measures. That's because the path to citizenship for undocumented workers will be contingent on these security measures.

The controversy most people are focusing on is whether or not the commission will simply make recommendations or whether they will have veto power over whether/when the process of applying for citizenship can begin.

While the actual legislation has not been crafted, I think its possible to read the language from the summary a bit differently.

We recognize that Americans living along the Southwest border are key to recognizing and understanding when the border is truly secure. Our legislation will create a commission of governors, attorneys general and community leaders living along the southwest border to monitor the progress of securing our border and to make a recommendation regarding when the bill’s security measures outlined in the legislation are completed.

The plan outlines specific security measures including increased Border Patrol and technology. As I read it, the "recommendation" from the commission would be when these measures are in place, not when they've actually reached the elusive goal of "securing the border."

Ed Morrissey asked Senator Rubio yesterday about this. But he was focused on the idea of "recommendation" vs "veto." If you listen to Rubio's response with the distinction I hear in the wording to date, I suspect that his response is much less onerous.

"What was announced today was a set of principles." Rubio explained that it will take a few weeks to move those principles into specific legislative language, but when that happens, the trigger has to work to make enforcement take priority. "I can tell you that based on my principles," Rubio asserted, "I will not be supporting any law that does not ensure that the enforcement [prerequisites] happen, because I don't want to be here in five or 10 years dealing with this again."

Perhaps I'm reading tea leaves here. But I hear him saying that the enforcement mechanisms need to happen, not that they need to be deemed effective.

We'll see...