* Sam Stein reports that the White House is redoubling efforts to reassure Dems and advocates that any policy change to expedite removals in response to the current border crisis will not send back children who qualify for humanitarian relief. This will be closely watched by advocates, and as I’ve argued, getting this wrong would be politically, morally, and substantively disastrous.

* Meanwhile, a GOP-led group in the House may soon roll out a plan to change the 2008 law to expedite removals of newly arriving minors. Far fewer Congressional Dems support this course of action, though some do, and it remains to be seen whether such provisions will make it harder to get enough Dem support to pass it out of the House.

* E.J. Dionne has a good column urging lawmakers to tread carefully when it comes to changing the 2008 law:

All the pressure now is to change the Wilberforce Act so it would no longer apply to Central American children. There’s a strong logic to this. The law does create a powerful incentive for unaccompanied minors from Central America (which is not that much farther away than Mexico) to seek entry, en masse, to our country.

But there is another logic: that the anti-trafficking law really did embody a “good” instinct by holding that we should, as much as we can, treat immigrant children with special concern. Do we rush to repeal that commitment the moment it becomes inconvenient? Or should we first seek other ways to solve the problem? Yes, policymakers should be mindful of unintended consequences. But all of us should ponder the cost of politically convenient indifference.

* The Arizona Republic has a remarkably deep investigation into the multiple causes of this crisis, from gang violence to the very real perception that kids will be allowed to stay.

* Relatedly, Danny Vinik tries once again to respond to those who insist on simplifying this complicated problem: The border crisis has nothing to do with border security.

* Put the blame on Congress: Stephanie Mencimer explains that a key cause of the crisis is that Congress has failed to fund immigration courts, creating a huge back-load, even though advocates have been begging Congress to do something about this for years.

* Brian Beutler has a good takedown of Republican arguments against Obama’s request for funding to address the current border crisis, and what they say about broader GOP dishonesty on the issue.

* Meanwhile, Steve Benen has a useful roundup of Republicans who oppose the White House request for funding to address the crisis, apparently because #Obummer, but won’t say what they’d do instead.

* As Fernando Espuelas argues, Republicans can still win big in 2014 in spite of doing nothing to broaden the party’s appeal beyond core constituencies, but over the long term, that’s an awfully big gamble given that the GOP’s future is at stake.

* Michael Catalini reports that gay-rights-friendly conservatives are embarking on a campaign to force the GOP to dump anti-gay-marriage language from the GOP party platform. That’s good, but don’t be surprised if Ted Cruz demagogues the issue as part of his expected 2016 GOP presidential primary run.

* Senate fundraising updates: Kay Hagan has vastly outraised Thom Tillis; Mark Udall has bested Cory Gardner; and Tom Cotton has hauled in substantially more than Mark Pryor. Reminder: Dems merely have to limit their losses to five Senate seats, and many of these incumbents are — for now, anyway — showing surprising staying power, even as we have yet to see the big spending really begin.

* Paul Krugman, on Republicans who refuse to acknowledge that Obamacare just might be working:

Just as tax cuts can never fail, programs that help the unlucky can never succeed.

* And Derek Thompson debunks a myth that just won’t die: Obummer has presided over a part time economy.