To you Gillibrand's history of being a strong supporter of a tight border means ... her civil-rights support is a front for her secret plan to undermine border security?
No.
Gillibrand has an extensive history of changing her positions on key issues when doing so suits her political career. In 2006, when she ran in rural NY's conservative 20th District, she campaigned as a conservative/traditionalist with hard right positions on guns and immigration. In 2008 she was appointed to take Hillary Clinton's Senate seat. Within two years her NRA rating dropped from 'A' to 'F'.
In the House, she voted repeatedly for immigration legislation that the current Democratic Leadership is vociferously opposed to (anti-sanctuary city legislation, more detentions and deportations through the SAVE Act) and campaigned against a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. Then, upon becoming NY Senator, she dramatically changed her positions.
I'm sure you will agree that, during the upcoming primary races, Gillibrand is very likely to be targeted by people such as Kamala Harris for her previous right-wing views on immigration. In fact, I would be happy to sigbet you that one of Harris, Booker, O'Malley or Sanders will attack Gillibrand on this issue.
Gillibrand knows this. Just
three months ago, she appeared on 60 Minutes and claimed to be "embarrassed" about her previous positions. Now she is proposing legislation that will win her credit with the left-wing base on the matter.
I never claim to know anyone's motivations with certainty, but I do believe in being skeptical of politicians. In my view, Gillibrand's most likely reason for introducing this legislation is political.
And you make no assumptions about the bill, but you say repeatedly that it shouldn't be judged on the merits of the ideas discussed
For the fifth time: we shouldn't judge a bill until we have access to the full text.
Isn't that obvious? Are you arguing just for the sake of arguing?
I disagree with your assumptions and with your high regard for the reasoning skills of the majority of Congress.
That's a strawman. I never praised the reasoning skills of the majority of Congress. My view is that immigration is an issue that the Trump base is extremely concerned about. Therefore the Gillibrand bill will be scrutinized thoroughly. Most of those Republicans congresspeople who would vote for a bill that contains immigration-related provisions unacceptable to the broad Trump base (for example: provisions that would force ICE/CBP agents to fill out excessive paperwork) would be punished.