Los Angeles Times
By Lisa Moscaro and Brian Bennett
June 8, 2013
Sen. Charles E. Schumer, awakened from a nap in his office, bounded to the Senate floor, staff in tow. It was approaching 2 a.m. The New Yorker joined fellow Democratic Sen. Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, who was presiding wearily over an almost empty chamber.
The two senators and six others, Republicans and Democrats, had finished writing the most comprehensive overhaul of immigration laws in a generation. Now the bill was ready to be introduced.
"I would like to thank everybody ... who worked so hard on this great legislation whose voyage begins now," Schumer said.
On the marble stairs outside the chamber, the senators and bleary-eyed staff who had brokered the deal gathered around. They gave a thumbs-up. It was a picture-perfect moment.
That unity will be tested this week as the Senate opens debate on the historic bill and the eight senators face the sobering task of bringing more colleagues on board.
Immigration reform has eluded Congress in the decades since President Reagan signed the last substantial overhaul. But this time may be different. Top Republicans have begun to join Democrats in supporting a path to citizenship for the estimated 11 million people in the country illegally.
With a vote to start debate set for Tuesday, the legislation faces a gantlet of amendments that could attract needed Republicans or upset the delicate balance celebrated that night on the Senate steps.
"Look, I always thought there were land mines along here, and you just got to go through them," said Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who led the last failed attempt at immigration reform and is one of the key players in this one. "It's not a smooth path."
The bill has so far threaded past those land mines. How the bill's authors handled them illustrates their determination to succeed as well as the risks that they could fail.
Border security has long been a partisan battleground.
Republicans want an impermeable southern border to prevent illegal entries; Democrats view that as an unrealistic goal that will stall other changes, including the path to citizenship for those lacking proper papers.
One crucial Republican in the bipartisan group, Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, has never been completely satisfied with the border security agreement he worked out with the other senators.
The night before the bill was introduced in April, Rubio and his staff met with an influential critic. Chris Crane, president of the National Immigration and Customs Enforcement Council, a federal immigration and customs officers union, was told to come alone.
As written, the legislation provides $4.5 billion for more drones, 3,500 customs officers and a double-layer fence in some areas along the border, with the goal of stopping 90% of illegal entries. Once the plan is in place, immigrants who pay fines, work and learn English will be eligible in 10 years for permanent legal status. After 13 years, they can become citizens.
Crane had blasted the senators for not consulting his union. He believed the deal was riddled with loopholes that would prevent agents from deporting immigrants in the country unlawfully.
In Rubio's office, along with a handful of staffers and Rubio, Crane argued for an enhanced exit system with biometric screening, such as checking the fingerprints of foreign travelers. About 40% of those in the country illegally stayed on expired visas.
Rubio mentioned that his fingerprints are scanned when he visits Disney World.
At Rubio's urging, the Judiciary Committee added a provision that would launch a pilot biometric exit program at 30 of the nation's busiest airports.
Senators are now seriously considering a proposal from Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) to expand the exit system to all airports; opponents point out that the cost would be enormous.
Cornyn is just the type of Republican the bill's authors want to bring on board. He's a border-state senator familiar with the problems of the immigration system and sensitive to the growing Latino electorate. The chamber's No. 2 Republican, he would provide momentum not just in the Senate, but in the House, where the conservative majority has been cool to the effort.
But some Democrats wonder if Cornyn is just dangling the possibility of support. He wants an additional $1 billion a year for more drones, 10,000 officers and other equipment. That is a nonstarter for Democrats and raises alarms for deficit hawks.
"It's such an un-Republican idea to throw money at a problem," said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), one of the bill's authors. "We're not going to be able to add billions and billions of dollars in cost unless you can justify and find a way to pay for it."
In exchange for the path to citizenship, deals were cut to stem future illegal immigration by dramatically expanding guest-worker programs, including for farm laborers and highly skilled professionals.
But these compacts reached in backroom talks between business and labor have come under fire from opponents who say they taint the bill, which has grown from 844 pages to 1,077.
Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, who is leading the Republican opposition, said, "I'm not sure that's the right thing to do … to have some secret agreement reached with a group of people we hardly know trump the ability to do the right thing for the American people."
One of those deals, for a new visa for low-skill jobs such as maids and gardeners, proved so volatile it almost blew up the immigration overhaul. And it remains a top roadblock in the House.
Senate Democrats also have demands that could torpedo the bill. Among the most fraught is their desire to allow gay Americans to obtain visas for foreign-born spouses, as heterosexual couples can.
The measure would keep a promise to gay rights advocates, but chase off Republican votes.
Democrats hope the Supreme Court will make that issue moot by striking down the federal Defense of Marriage Act this month. If it doesn't, they will face an agonizing choice.
For more information, go to: www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com
No comments:
Post a Comment