Opponents of the Schumer-Rubio immigration reform bill could have delayed a vote on final passage of the legislation until late today if they wanted. But since everyone knew the outcome was predetermined, Republicans agreed to allow a vote yesterday afternoon, thus allowing senators and staff to get an early jump on the July 4th recess.

In the end, just 68 Senators, including 14 Republicans, voted for the bill, two votes short of the 70-vote goal amnesty proponents had set for themselves earlier this month. That 68 total is higher than the 62 votes a similar amnesty bill won in the Senate in 2006 before it later died in the House. There is little reason to believe this time will be any different.

No rush
“The House is not going to take up and vote on whatever the Senate passes,” House Speaker John Boehner said Thursday. “We’re going to do our own bill, through regular order, and it’ll be legislation that reflects the will of our [GOP] majority and the will of the American people.”

In other words, don’t expect any immigration votes on the House floor any time soon. And if a floor vote does ever happen, don’t expect it to grant citizenship to illegal immigrants, either. “For any legislation — including a conference report — to pass the House, it’s going to have to be a bill that has the support of a majority of our members,” Boehner said.

No pressure
The biggest problem facing amnesty advocates now is that there is simply no mechanism or outside force pressing the House to act in any way. Unlike the debt limit that will come due this fall, or the fiscal cliff that forced a House vote on taxes this January, there is no real policy consequence if the House chooses to do nothing.

True, a less than ideal status quo will continue, but the American people really don’t seem to care. Just look at this compilation of polls on American policy priorities. Immigration always finishes at or near the bottom of every issue list, if it appears at all. The vast majority of Americans simply don’t care about immigration as an issue.

As the Washington Examiner‘s David Drucker tweeted yesterday, “If Senate bill supporters want House 2 feel pressure on #immigration, find a poll that shows voters prioritizing issue. So far, they don’t.”

No gain
Even worse for amnesty advocates, there simply is no evidence that voting for amnesty will benefit Republicans at all. In fact, as Real Clear Politics‘ Sean Trende reminds us, if anything, the evidence goes the other way.

In 1988, Vice President George H.W. Bush ran for president just two years after his administration signed the 1986 amnesty bill. “The result?” Trende writes, “He lost the Hispanic vote by 39 points, while winning nationally by eight. This is still the worst GOP showing among Hispanics relative to the national vote since the 1970s.”

So what can Republicans do to do better among Hispanics? Trende writes, “At the end of the day, Hispanics tend to vote more Democratic than whites because they tend to be poorer than whites … ultimately the GOP doesn’t need more Republican Hispanics so much as it needs more middle-class Hispanics (which should happen, as time progresses).”

Of course the only thing that would decrease the percentage of Hispanics who are in the middle-class would be to vastly increase the number of poor Hispanics imported to the country each year. Which is, of course, exactly what the Schumer-Rubio bill does.

From The Washington Examiner
Editorial: Four ways Schumer-Rubio immigration reform is like Obamacare
David Drucker: Senate OKs immigration reforms, House declares bill DOA
Ashe Schow: Senate Republican support for immigration ‘reform’ down from 2006, 1986
Brian Hughes: Feds sue former NJ Gov. Jon Corzine over MF Global collapse
Joel Gehrke: Obama campaign jumps into Texas abortion fight
Tim Carney: Abortion champion NARAL exempted from Andrew Cuomo’s lobby-disclosure laws
Joseph Lawler: Federal Reserve members try to correct Ben Bernanke on stimulus and inflation
Susan Ferrechio: House Republicans tell IRS, ‘Not one more dime’ until big reforms are made

In Other News
The Los Angeles Times, Healthcare law’s renewal loophole divides health insurers: Health insurers in the new Covered California market want the state to bar companies from renewing individual policies for 2014 to skirt the new law.
The New York Times, Fed Officials Try to Ease Concern of Stimulus End: In separate but similar speeches on Thursday, three officials from the Federal Reserve sought to reassure investors that economic data would continue to guide its actions on its stimulus campaign.
The Washington Post, Senators propose ‘blank slate’ approach to tax reform: Top tax writers in Congress are taking a “blank slate” approach to reworking the U.S. tax code that starts by wiping out hundreds of perks that ordinary taxpayers claim, including sacrosanct policies such as the child credit and the deduction for mortgage interest.

Lefty Playbook
Think Progress attacks Texas Gov. Rick Perry for saying abortion activist Wendy Davis, “hasn’t learned from her own example that every life must be given a chance to realize its full potential.”
Greg Sargent attacks Paul Ryan for not being a vocal supporter of amnesty.
Jonathan Chait hopes House Democrats will find enough pro-amnesty Republicans willing to sign a discharge position to force a vote on S. 744 in the House.

Righty Playbook
Erick Erickson defends Perry’s comments about Wendy Davis.
George Will defends the Supreme Court’s Voting Rights Act decision.
Jonathan Strong interviews Paul Ryan on immigration.
Seane Trende on amnesty on the future of the GOP.