The stunning reversal by Jeb Bush on supporting a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants “comes down to a colossal political miscalculation,” National Journal reports.

“When Bush and co-author Clint Bolick were writing the book during the 2012 presidential campaign, the GOP was veering far to the right. Republican nominee Mitt Romney had staked out a hardline position against illegal immigration, blasting his primary rivals as pro-amnesty and promoting ‘self-deportation’ for undocumented workers. Bush sent the book to the printer before Christmas – weeks before a handful of Senate Republicans embraced a sweeping overhaul that, like the proposals backed by Bush’s brother, former President George W. Bush, would allow illegal immigrants to earn citizenship.”

“In other words, Bush’s party unexpectedly moved a lot faster than the book publishing world.”

The Miami Herald quoted an angry adviser to Mitt Romney’s presidential run: “Where the hell was this Jeb Bush during the campaign?”

In his new book, Immigration Wars, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) makes a notable reversal on immigration reform, “arguing that creating a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants would only encourage future unauthorized immigration,” Huffington Post reports.

Writes Bush: “It is absolutely vital to the integrity of our immigration system that actions have consequences — in this case, that those who violated the law can remain but cannot obtain the cherished fruits of citizenship. To do otherwise would signal once again that people who circumvent the system can still obtain the full benefits of American citizenship.”

The Associated Press reports that the Homeland Security Department
official in charge of the agency’s immigration enforcement and removal
operations has resigned after hundreds of illegal immigrants were
released from jails because of government spending cuts.

Update: Politico reports the agency denies the story and says the official announced his departure “weeks ago.”

The Fix: “The Republican political establishment sees immigration reform as a political necessity. Much of the party’s base sees it as the end of the rule of law. And therein lies the problem for a party trying to pick itself up off the mat following an across-the-board defeat in 2012.”

“It’s not clear how Republicans can bridge the growing divide between how the establishment views immigration (a political problem that needs to be solved yesterday) and how some significant portion of the base views it (a foundational principle about not rewarding rule-breakers).”

Talking Points Memo suggests the leak of the White House immigration reform plan — which Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) immediately shot down as “dead on arrival” — might be part of an overall strategy.

“Not wanting to be seen as a shill for a Democratic President’s signature achievement, Rubio’s strategy from the start has been to play up his differences with the White House as much as possible. This weekend’s outburst was only the latest incident: in interviews with the Wall Street Journal, Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, and other conservative thought leaders, Rubio has positioned himself as the right-wing antidote to a far-left White House on immigration.”

“This touring indignation act isn’t just for Rubio’s own benefit. The Republicans he needs to win over to pass a bill will be a lot more comfortable if they think they’re somehow thumbing their nose at Obama by voting for it.”

Newt Gingrich admitted on ABC News that Republicans are likely to oppose any immigration reform backed by President Obama because they just don’t like him.

Said Gingrich: “I think that negotiated with a Senate immigration bill that has to have bipartisan support could actually get to the president’s desk. But an Obama plan led and driven by Obama in this atmosphere with the level of hostility towards the president and the way he goads the hostility I think is very hard to imagine that bill, that his bill is going to pass the House.”

A draft of a White House immigration proposal obtained by USA Today would allow illegal immigrants to become legal permanent residents
within eight years.

“The bill is being developed as members in both chambers of Congress are
drafting their own immigration bills. In the House, a bipartisan group
of representatives has been negotiating an immigration proposal for
years and are writing their own bill. Last month, four Republican
senators joined with four Democratic senators to announce their
agreement on the general outlines of an immigration plan.”

The Wall Street Journal reports that many Republicans and some Democrats have cautioned Obama “to keep his
distance from the process for fear of driving away potential GOP
support.”

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) called the proposal “half-baked” and predicted it was dead on arrival on Capitol Hill.

“Slow down. Slow down. How about a little foreplay?”

— House Speaker John Boehner, quoted by ABC News, joking that with bipartisan conversations on immigration reform taking place it’s too early to talk about specific legislation.

A new Washington Post poll finds that 70% of Americans said they would support a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, including 60% of Republicans.

But when the same question was asked of a separate sample of respondents, this time with Obama’s name attached to it, support dropped to 59% overall and just 39% among Republicans.

“Evangelicals nationwide are turning their Bibles to Matthew 25:35 and praying that Congress is listening to those words — part of a highly-coordinated effort to spur progress on the long unresolved and contentious issue of immigration,” the Tampa Bay Times reports.

“Faith leaders and their congregations have become an unlikely but powerful ally to reform advocates, framing the question over what to do with 11 million unauthorized residents as one of moral compassion, and tapping into influence among Republicans to soften opposition to a pathway to citizenship.”

A new Gallup poll finds “at least two-thirds of Americans favor each of five specific measures designed to address immigration issues — ranging from 68% who would vote for increased government spending on security measures and enforcement at U.S. borders, to 85% who would vote for a requirement that employers verify the immigration status of all new hires. More than seven in 10 would vote for a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants now living in this country.”

Meanwhile, a new ABC News-Washington Post poll finds public approval of President Obama’s handling of immigration has jumped
to a career high “buttressed
by majority support for a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants
and, much more broadly, endorsement of stricter border control.”

“As President Obama and lawmakers from both parties begin to take their first tentative steps toward again rewriting the nation’s immigration laws, opponents warn that they are repeating the mistakes of the 1986 act, which failed to solve the problems that it set out to address. Critics contend that the law actually contributed to making the situation worse,” the Washington Post reports.

“An estimated 3 million to 5 million illegal immigrants were living in the United States when the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) was passed. Now there are upwards of 11 million. And the question of who gets to be an American, far from being settled, has been inflamed.”

David Drucker: “The fate of an immigration overhaul rests almost exclusively with Sen. Marco Rubio, the Florida Republican whose star power with conservatives is crucial to moving a bill through Congress.”

“President Barack Obama retains veto power, and Democrats hold the Senate floor. But no comprehensive immigration changes are likely to pass Congress without the healthy support of House Republicans. And Florida’s junior senator, perhaps more than any other Republican serving in Washington today, has the political credibility and communication skills to sell such complicated, sensitive legislation to skeptical conservative members, grass-roots voters and influential media commentators.”

“I love and respect Marco. I think he’s just amazingly naïve on this issue.”

— Sen. David Vitter (R-LA), on the Laura Ingraham Show, criticizing Sen. Marco Rubio’s (R-FL) immigration position.

First Read: “It’s been quite a revealing past 48 hours in the still-evolving debate over immigration, with Monday’s bipartisan Senate framework and Tuesday’s speech by President Obama. So what have we learned? There are two pressure points that either could create enough force to ensure legislation gets through Congress, or that could scuttle any chance for a deal. One, Marco Rubio and Republicans considering any comprehensive immigration reform want a ‘trigger’ to make sure that border enforcement comes before legalization… Two, Obama yesterday vowed to bring his own legislation if Congress doesn’t quickly act. Translation: He’ll blame Republicans for this failure.”

“But here’s something this debate IS NOT about: whether Obama wants to use immigration as a way to club Republicans. It’s not even a question. The idea that anyone outside of political partisans — or those looking for a reason to be against reform (but don’t want to look anti-Hispanic) — believes that Obama doesn’t want to sign historic immigration legislation to fulfill a campaign promise is a bit naïve.”

“Yesterday we had to get rid of our guns. Today we gotta grant amnesty…
They’re running the no-huddle offense on us. We don’t even have time to
catch our breath. They’re running play after play after play.”

— Rush Limbaugh, on his radio show.

Harry Enten: “The only swing states in which Latinos make up the same or a greater
percentage of the electorate than nationally are Colorado, Florida, and
Nevada. A modest improvement for Republicans in these states could make a
difference in a close election. That’s nothing to sneeze at, but the
majority of swing states like Iowa, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
and Virginia are more likely to be determined by African-American and
non-Hispanic white voters.”

Alex Altman: “How long has it been since lawmakers went before the cameras to announce a bipartisan deal — without the hunted look of hostage victims? Perhaps since they launched a similar bid to overhaul the U.S. immigration system. Those efforts, from 2005 to 2007, and again in 2009 and 2010, were led by many of the same Senators spearheading the push that was launched on Monday. The bills produced in those doomed efforts look eerily similar to the new framework released by the Senate’s so-called Gang of Eight. Schumer touted the outline as a ‘major breakthrough,’ and through the prism of Washington’s polarized politics, it was. It also carried a whiff of Groundhog Day.”

“Despite Monday’s rare bipartisan bonhomie, the Gang of Eight will have to navigate a raft of competing interests: House Republicans worried about primary challenges, a tug of war between business and labor, Hispanics unsatisfied by the arduous and murky path to citizenship. Then there are the looming brawls over the budget and gun control, which could poison whatever cross-aisle goodwill exists.”

The Cloakroom: A long way to go on immigration reform.