Thread: Immigration reform bill clears key Senate hurdle

Immigration reform bill clears key Senate hurdle

By Alan Silverleib, CNN Congressional Producer
updated 8:07 PM EDT, Tue May 21, 2013

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• NEW: Senate Judiciary Committee passes "Gang of Eight" immigration reform bill
• NEW: Measure passes panel in a 13-5 vote, advances to full Senate
• NEW: Reid praises Leahy's "masterful" job of pushing bill through committee
• NEW: Panel does not approve a pair of gay rights amendments

Washington (CNN) -- The Senate Judiciary Committee approved the bipartisan "Gang of Eight" immigration reform bill on Tuesday, sending the measure to the Senate floor for further consideration and giving the bill's backers their first major legislative victory.
Members of the Democratic-controlled panel voted 13-5 in favor of the measure.
If enacted, the plan would constitute the first overhaul of the nation's immigration policy since 1986.
The committee's ten Democrats were joined in supporting the bill by three Republicans: Arizona's Jeff Flake, South Carolina's Lindsey Graham, and Utah's Orrin Hatch.
Flake and Graham are two of the bill's four Republican authors.
Both party leaders in the Senate appeared supportive of the effort, a positive sign for backers hoping to win a solid majority in the full chamber.
"I think the 'Gang of Eight' has made a substantial contribution to moving the issue forward," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky. "I'm hopeful we'll be able to get a bill that we can pass here in the Senate."
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, praised the "masterful" job of Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, in navigating roughly 300 proposed amendments and advancing the 844-page bill to the floor.
The measure will create a 13-year path to citizenship for most of the country's 11 million undocumented immigrants.
It aims to strengthen border security while raising the cap on visas for high skilled workers and establishing a new visa program for low skilled workers on America's farms and elsewhere.
Proponents say the change is necessary to permanently and fairly resolve the status of roughly 11 million undocumented residents. Critics insist the proposed change amounts to amnesty, rewarding those who chose to break the country's immigration laws.
In a defeat for backers of expanded gay rights, the committee did not approve a pair of Leahy-sponsored amendments bolstering federal support for bi-national same-sex relationships.
Specifically, the Vermont senator had proposed recognizing same-sex marriages in which one spouse is an American, and allowing U.S. citizens to sponsor foreign-born same-sex partners for green cards given proof of a committed relationship.
Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, the most prominent Republican in the "Gang of Eight," was among those who called Leahy's amendments a poison pill virtually certain to destroy GOP support for the measure.
Leahy's amendments could be considered again when the bill is taken up by the full Senate. Doing so, however, would be little more than a symbolic gesture, as the proposals have virtually no chance of winning the 60 votes almost certainly needed to clear the 100-member chamber.
Earlier this month, Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Illinois, noted the possibility that an upcoming ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court on the federal Defense of Marriage Act could render the whole issue moot.
"The DOMA ruling could change this whole debate," Durbin said. "They could eliminate DOMA and impose obligations on our federal government (relating to) same gender marriage, and that would dramatically change what we're trying to achieve."
The House is working on its own version of immigration reform.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/21/politics/senate-immigration-bill/index.html

Senate Judiciary panel passes immigration bill

Chairman Patrick Leahy has been pushing the panel to get its work done. | John Shinkle/POLITICO

By SEUNG MIN KIM and CARRIE BUDOFF BROWN | 5/21/13 12:12 AM EDT Updated: 5/21/13 8:12 PM EDT
The Senate Judiciary Committee gave final approval Tuesday to a sweeping immigration reform bill, setting up a debate on the Senate floor for early June.
Three Republicans joined ten Democrats to support the bill, which would create a pathway to citizenship for 11 million undocumented immigrants, invest billions in new border security measures and overhaul the legal immigration system.

The vote came after the committee deliberated for five days and considered more than 150 amendments. But the Gang of Eight, which drafted the legislation, held together and fended off all but minor changes.
The landmark immigration legislation cleared the committee after an emotional debate over a provision to allow gay Americans to sponsor their foreign-born spouses for green cards. The measure was a top priority of several Democrats and the gay-rights community, but including it threatened to derail the entire legislation, as top Republican negotiators such as Florida Sen. Marco Rubio said they couldn’t support the Gang of Eight compromise if the amendment were included.
Approval of the bill from committee without the gay-rights amendment increases its overall chances of passage on the Senate floor. Meanwhile, a House group is struggling with producing a bill of its own.
Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) also gave the bill a boost by saying he wouldn’t block the measure from a debate on the Senate floor next month, despite demands from tea party groups to throw up procedural roadblocks.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), who has sponsored various forms of the gay-rights measure for a decade, said following the debate that he would withdraw the amendment with a “heavy heart.”
“I take the Republican sponsors of this important legislation at their word that they will abandon their own efforts if discrimination is removed from our immigration system,” he said.
How Leahy would proceed — and how Democrats in the Gang of Eight would vote — on the gay-rights amendment was one of the biggest question marks lingering throughout the five-day markup. Immigration negotiators acknowledged that including the measure would lead Republicans to walk from the deal; Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a Gang of Eight member, said Tuesday evening: “This would fracture the coalition, and I could not support the bill.”
“As much as it pains me, I cannot support this amendment if it will bring down the bill,” said Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), who called the decision one of the most “excruciatingly difficult” he has made in public office.
Sen. Dick Durbin said that while he believed in his “heart of hearts” in the intent behind Leahy’s measure, he added: “I believe this is the wrong moment, and this is the wrong bill.”
Earlier Tuesday, senators rushed to finish a major rewrite in U.S. immigration laws, securing key Republican support for the Gang of Eight bill as it moved closer to a debate on the Senate floor.
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) announced he would vote to move the immigration bill out of the Judiciary Committee after winning concessions on high-skilled worker visas critical to the tech industry.

Those developments came as the committee on Tuesday defeated multiple attempts to alter the pathway to citizenship for 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the United States. The day’s markup proceeded much like the previous four sessions, meaning the Democratic-led panel easily turned back amendments that would have significantly changed the Gang of Eight compromise.
The high-tech visa agreement was one of the last remaining pieces of unfinished business and was added to the underlying bill by a voice vote Tuesday afternoon. Schumer spent days working with Hatch, hoping that a deal could persuade the Utah senator to back the bill and boost the bipartisan momentum behind the issue.
“Many things that are there I like, some things I don’t like,” Schumer said of his deal with Hatch. “That’s how compromise is, especially when you’re trying to move a bill as complicated as this.”
Hatch told reporters that if his amendments on high-skilled visas passed, “I will vote to report the bill out of committee.” He warned, however, that he will need to win approval of other amendments involving tax and benefit provisions before he would support the bill on the floor.
By wooing Hatch, Schumer risked alienating Durbin, a Gang of Eight member who has opposed the Utah Republican’s amendments. Durbin has been a steadfast ally of labor unions, which have not endorsed the agreement, but Durbin backed the deal, billing it as a “reasonable compromise.”
“We have worked on this with [Hatch] in the spirit of compromise,” Durbin told reporters. “In hope that he will ultimately vote for the bill, we are going to try to support this compromise approach.”
Labor unions aren’t on board with the package, although their objections don’t appear significant enough to pull support for the overall bill.
“Whatever deal has been struck, AFL-CIO has not signed off,” Ana Avendano, assistant to the president and director of Immigration and Community Action at the AFL-CIO, said in an interview Tuesday morning.
The agreement between Schumer and Hatch includes such changes as adding Hatch’s market-based formula for determining the annual increases in the number of H-1B visas, but adding provisions that say the increase won’t happen if the jobless rate in those specific fields is above a certain threshold.
Hatch also wanted to remove language in the Senate Gang of Eight bill that required companies to attest that they would not displace current workers in certain circumstances. The agreement heeds that demand, but also adds a requirement aimed at protecting U.S. workers at companies that often employ specialized foreign workers.
Negotiators added several provisions in a bid to appeal to labor unions — such as mandating government reports every year on high-skilled visa programs and easing portability for employees on H-1B visas. But those changes were not enough to satisfy major unions.
“We need his help to report the bill from the committee and ultimately to pass it on the floor,” Durbin said of Hatch. “I would be disappointed if at the end of the day, after all the effort and all the compromise that we put into this, if Sen. Hatch didn’t support the bill.”
While the landmark Gang of Eight legislation passed the Judiciary Committee, its prospects on the Senate floor — where the bill is expected in June — are less clear. But at least procedurally, the legislation got a boost Tuesday from McConnell, when he told reporters that he wants to ensure the bill proceeds to the floor.
“With regard to getting started on the bill — it’s my intention, if there is a motion to proceed required, to vote for the motion to proceed so we can get on the bill and see if it we’re able to pass a bill that actually moves the ball in the right direction,” McConnell said.
The Senate’s top Republican, who will have considerable influence in the broader floor debate, also praised the Gang of Eight for making a “substantial contribution” to moving immigration reform along.
The Judiciary panel spent the day defending the bill’s 13-year path to citizenship, rejecting GOP amendments to rein in the program.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) proposed allowing undocumented immigrants to become legal permanent residents but not citizens. He said the bill is unfair to millions of legal immigrants who have followed rules and that it would only encourage more illegal immigration.
“In my view, if this committee rejects this amendment … that decision will make it much much more likely that this entire bill will fail in the House of Representatives,” Cruz said. “I don’t want immigration reform to fail. I want it to pass.”
Graham, Flake and Hatch joined with the Democratic committee members to defeat the Cruz amendment.
Cruz’s attempt to ban undocumented immigrants from receiving means-tested government benefits also failed, 6-12.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...#ixzz2Tyg6dlFH

Senate panel OKs landmark immigration bill with Hatch on boardIn-Depth-Salt Lake Tribune-46 minutes ago


Gay Marriage Amendment Withdrawn From Immigration Bill DebateBlog-ABC News (blog)-1 hour ago

CNN Senate Judiciary Committee approves sweeping, bipartisan immigration legislation. It now goes to the full Senate.

21 May 2013, 5:38 PM PDT
By DAVID ESPO and ERICA WERNER
Associated Press



Far-reaching legislation to grant a chance at citizenship to millions of immigrants living illegally in the United States cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee on a solid bipartisan vote Tuesday night after supporters somberly sidestepped a controversy over the rights of gay spouses.

The 13-5 vote cleared the way for an epic showdown on the Senate floor on the measure, which is one of President Barack Obama's top domestic priorities yet also gives the Republican Party a chance to recast itself as more appealing to minorities.

The committee's action sparked rejoicing from immigration activists who crowded into a Senate committee room to witness the proceedings. "Yes, we can!" they shouted as they clapped rhythmically to show their pleasure.

In addition to creating a pathway to citizenship for 11.5 million immigrants, the legislation creates a new program for low-skilled foreign labor and would permit highly skilled workers into the country at far higher levels than is currently the case.

At the same time, it requires the government to take costly new steps to guard against future illegal immigration.

There was suspense to the end of the committee's deliberations, when Sen. Patrick Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who serves as chairman, sparked a debate over his proposal to give same-sex and heterosexual spouses equal rights under immigration law.

"I don't want to be the senator who asks people to choose between the love of their life and the love of their country," he said, adding he wanted to hear from others on the committee.

In response, he heard a chorus of pleas from the bill's supporters, seconding private appeals from the White House, not to force a vote that they warned would lead to the bill's demise.

"I believe in my heart of hearts that what you're doing is the right and just thing," said one of them, Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill. "But I believe this is the wrong moment, that this is the wrong bill."

In the hours leading to a final vote, the panel also agreed to a last-minute compromise covering an increase in the visa program for high-tech workers, a deal that brought Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah over to the ranks of supporters.

Under the compromise, the number of highly skilled workers admitted to the country would rise from 65,000 annually to 110,000, with the possibility of a further rise to 180,000, depending in part on unemployment levels.

Firms where foreign labor accounts for at least 15 percent of the skilled work force would be subjected to tighter conditions than companies less dependent on H-IB visa holders.

The compromise was negotiated by Hatch, whose state is home to a growing high tech industry, and Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. It is designed to balance the interests of industry, which relies increasingly on skilled foreign labor, and organized labor, which represents American workers.

AFL-CIO President Rich Trumka attacked the deal sharply as "anti-worker," although he also made clear organized labor would continue to support the overall legislation.

Robert Hoffman, senior vice president for government affairs at the Information Technology Industry Council, welcomed the deal. "We obviously want to keep moving the bill forward and building support for the legislation, and this agreement allows us to do so," he said.

The issue of same-sex spouses hovered in the background from the start, and as the committee neared the end of its work, officials said Leahy had been informed that both the White House and Senate Democrats hoped he would not risk the destruction of months of painstaking work by putting the issue to a vote.

"There have been 300 amendments. Why shouldn't we have one more?" he told reporters at one point, hours before called the committee into session for a final time to debate the legislation.

A few hours later, Republicans and Democrats both answered his question bluntly.

"This would fracture the coalition. I could not support the bill," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who was a member of the bipartisan so-called Gang of Eight that drafted the core elements of the bill.

Republicans and Democrats alike also noted that the Supreme Court may soon issue a ruling that renders the controversy moot.

Despite the concern that bipartisan support for the legislation was fragile, there was no doubting the command over committee proceedings that backers held.

In a final reminder, an attempt by Sen. Ted Cruz., R-Texas, to delete the pathway to citizenship failed on a 13-5 vote.

In defeat, he and others said they, too, wanted to overhaul immigration law, but not the way that drafters of the legislation had done.

Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, recalled that he had voted to give "amnesty" to those in the country illegally in 1986, the last time Congress took a major look at immigration. He said that bill, like the current one, promised to crack down on illegal immigration, but said it had failed to do so.

The centerpiece provision of the legislation allows an estimated 11 million people living in the U.S. illegally to obtain "registered provisional immigrant status" six months after enactment if certain conditions are also met.

Applicants must have arrived in the United States before Dec. 31, 2011, and maintained continuous physical presence, must not have a felony conviction of more than two misdemeanors on their record, and pay a $500 fine.

The registered provisional immigrant status lasts six years and is renewable for another $500. After a decade, though, individuals could seek a green card and lawful permanent resident status if they are up to date on their taxes and pay a $1,000 fine and meet other conditions.

Individuals brought to the country as youths would be able to apply for green cards in five years.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...migration-bill

Added AP article to the Homepage:
http://www.alipac.us/content.php?r=1...migration-Bill

Conservatives battle over economic impact of immigration bill, as Senate votes to approve plan

Published May 21, 2013
FoxNews.com

As a key Senate panel voted Tuesday to approve major immigration overhaul, conservatives continue to battle over which would be more damaging to the country’s economy and budget -- passing the legislation or scrapping it and risking the possibility of doing nothing at all.
The debate re-ignited following the release of a recent study by the conservative Heritage Foundation that concluded the long-term cost of providing a path to citizenship for the country’s roughly 11 million illegal immigrants would be $6.3 trillion.
“At a time when our nation’s major entitlements are already nearing bankruptcy, we cannot afford to add another $6.3 trillion,” Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, a major critic of the bipartisan Senate bill, said following the release of the May 6 study.
But other conservatives note there's a cost to inaction as well. The Heritage study itself found illegal immigrant households use about $55 billion more in government services than they pay in taxes each year. Educating their children in public schools typically accounts for at least half of all costs, according to other studies, with health care and law enforcement usually following and states shouldering much of the financial burden.
In addition, the entire process of deporting an illegal immigrant -- from apprehension to detention to legal expenses -- is roughly $12,500, according to Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Passing tougher laws, and enforcing immigration laws on the books, is one way to cut down on the cost of services like education -- and is a solution advocated by more conservative members of Congress. But others see potential for more tax revenue from the millions "in the shadows," and are taking the gamble that doing something is better than the alternative.
“What’s the alternative, the status quo, to leave in place something that is broken?” Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, a leading Senate Republican working on the legislation, said last week in a cable news interview.
Supporters of the so-called “Gang of Eight” plan argue the bill would in fact improve the economy and that lawmakers have a political and moral imperative to bring immigrants living in the United States illegally “out of shadows.”
Alex Nowrasteh, a policy analyst for the libertarian-leaning Cato Institute, argued the Heritage study is a “massive underestimation of the economic benefits of immigration” that “refuses to consider” the growth in gross domestic product and other economic gains that the bill could bring.
He cites a 2012 paper by a University of California Los Angeles professor written for Cato that concluded immigration reform in the 10 years after enactment would increase the country’s GDP by $1.5 trillion.
“It’s not the first time that I’ve questioned the free-market credentials of my friends at Heritage lately, and that’s making me sad,” Nowrasteh writes. “I criticized an earlier version of this report in 2007, arguing that their methodology was so flawed that one cannot take their report’s conclusions seriously. Unfortunately, their updated version differs little from their earlier one.”
Others are not convinced the economic benefits of mass legalization will materialize. The Heritage study said the annual cost will be $106 billion in about 10 years, once illegal immigrants clear all their hurdles to get permanent legal status.
Steve Camarato, the research director at the Center for Immigration Studies, agreed with the Heritage findings and told FoxNews.com that an influx of under-educated people into the U.S. economy will have an “enormous” fiscal consequence.
“As a group, the less educated use more in services than they pay in taxes,” he said. “Anyone who argues otherwise is either lying or grossly uninformed.”
Meanwhile, many Democrats and Republicans would like to take credit for fixing the country’s illegal immigration system -- considering roughly 71 percent of Hispanics voted for President Obama in 2012 and are now the country’s largest minority voting bloc.
“It's the right thing to do,” Obama said on Univision a couple a weeks ago. “It's the smart thing to do."


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...#ixzz2TzR1S4tu

Mitch McConnell won’t block immigration bill

McConnell's statement should carry a fair amount of weight within the conference. | AP Photo

By TARINI PARTI | 5/21/13 3:33 PM EDT
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said Tuesday he wants the Gang of Eight’s immigration bill to proceed to the floor, despite requests from some conservatives to reject all procedural votes related to the bill.
“With regard to getting started on the bill — it’s my intention if there is a motion to proceed required, to vote for the motion to proceed so we can get on the bill and see if it we’re able to pass a bill that actually moves the ball in the right direction,” McConnell (R-Ky.) told reporters.

McConnell’s signal that he won’t block an initial motion to proceed should carry a fair amount of weight within the conference.
(PHOTOS: Pols react to immigration deal)
He also commended the group working on comprehensive immigration reform for its efforts.
“I think the Gang of Eight has made a substantial contribution in moving the issue forward,” he said. “So far I’m told that the Judiciary Committee hasn’t in any fundamental way undone the agreements that were agreed by the eight senators. So I’m hopeful we can get a bill that we can pass here in the Senate.”
He also said that both Democrats and Republicans in the Senate want to address the need for immigration reform.
(PHOTOS: At a glance: The Senate immigration deal)
“With regard to immigration, I would say this – I expect this is the view of every one of my colleagues, it certainly is my view – I would say this: The status quo is not good,” he said. “The current situation is not good.”
A coalition of tea party organizations and conservative leaders wrote scathing letter Tuesday against the Senate Gang of Eight immigration bill, calling it so “defective” that senators need to scrap it altogether.
The letter, which had nearly 150 signers — including former Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.), RedState.com editor Erick Erickson and Jenny Beth Martin, the co-founder and national coordinator of Tea Party Patriots — also urges senators to not only reject the underlying legislation, but any procedural votes that would be required for the Senate to begin working on the bill on the floor.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...#ixzz2Tza9QSpS

RELATED http://www.alipac.us/f12/alipac-sena...n-bill-279162/

While everyone was distracted by Benghazi and the I.R.S. scandal Senators approve amnesty bill.