Sunday, May 27 | Upstate South Carolina News, Sports and Information

Public input sought over immigration reform bill
Senators come home to take pulse of constituents over controversial issue

Published: Sunday, May 27, 2007 - 2:00 am

By Dan Hoover
STAFF WRITER
dchoover@greenvillenews.com

The bipartisan immigration reform bill that sponsors hoped to move through the Senate by this weekend didn't quite make the timeline.

Both sides claim the delay favors them.

That's not surprising in proposed legislation that has created internal, emotional divisions among Republicans, Democrats, business and labor.

Polling suggests that the group with the most unity is the public at large, whose members strongly oppose it.

This week could determine whether it has hit a speed bump or a brick wall as members return home to study the bill -- and hear from constituents.

South Carolina's two Republican senators, Lindsey Graham and Jim DeMint, are a microcosm of the national argument.

Graham helped draft the bill, with Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., and a handful of others from both parties. DeMint, the junior senator who was shut out of the process, is vehemently opposed.

DeMint says it provides amnesty for 12 million illegal immigrants. That's wrong, Graham says.

Weighing in Thursday, President Bush said, "This bill does not grant amnesty."

But DeMint said in an interview that "under any objective view ... giving permanent legal status to those here illegally" is amnesty. Definition challengedWhile there are other issues involved, largely left to interest groups to battle over, amnesty is what's driving the debate.

Much of the argument smacks of President Clinton's impeachment debate over the definition of "is."

Katon Dawson, the chairman of the state Republican Party, is the man in the middle, caught between two Republican senators embroiled in an increasingly divisive spat in which public opinion may be solidly on DeMint's side.

Both DeMint and Graham oppose amnesty, Dawson said, providing the common ground for eventual agreement.

"What's happening is the definition of what amnesty is," Dawson said of the philosophical crux of the issue.

A Rasmussen Reports poll taken Monday and Tuesday showed that only 26 percent of respondents support the bill. Broken down by party, it was 47 percent of Republicans and 51 percent of Democrats.

"That's bull," Graham said, producing a CNN/Opinion Research Poll from early April -- before the current firestorm broke -- showing 77 percent support for the basic provisions of the legislation announced 10 days ago.

Conservative talk radio hosts and bloggers have fueled the fire. Rush Limbaugh, for example, ripped the bill as worse than nothing.

The conservative Heritage Foundation lashed out at it as undermining the rule of law. The business view Two organizations known for Republican-leaning membership have different takes on it

Michael Donohue, spokesman for the National Federation of Independent Business in Washington, said, "As things now stand, we have serious concerns about it." Those concerns revolve around whether the bill's provisions are geared to large firms that might find it easier to meet its mandates, he said.

The NFIB contends on its Web site that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce supports amnesty while NFIB members "strongly oppose amnesty."

Over at the U.S. Chamber, R. Bruce Josten, executive vice president for government affairs, posted a letter on the organization's Web site hailing the legislation as "a blueprint for immigration reform." Then, he added there are "particular concerns," especially the possibility of a diminished pool of available workers.

Where the chamber doesn't want any diminution of the bill's provision allowing 400,000 new guest workers each year, some unions lobbied their Democratic allies to oppose it, but an amendment to delete it failed.

The bill would extend the Mexican border fence to 800 miles, add 16,000 border agents, impose new requirements on employers and tougher penalties for hiring undocumented workers while creating a path to legal status for most of the 12 million in the U.S. illegally. Graham argues that as a matter of national security, nothing happens until the border provisions are in place.

Also, it would create a point system for future immigrants that would place less emphasis on family connections and more on education and skills sought by U.S. businesses.

Illegal workers are required to acknowledge they broke the law, pay a fine, pass background checks, remain employed and not run afoul of the law. Those seeking new "Z visas" would be required to eventually return to their homelands before applying, but the provision applies only to heads of households, opponents say, and has become a key sticking point with those who call it amnesty legislation. No quick vote Graham predicted late in the week that a final Senate vote could take place the week of June 4, when members return from their extended Memorial Day holiday, and no later than the week of June 11.

Although the leadership hoped for a quick vote, Graham said the delay works to proponents' advantage because "with more time you create a better process, where people will not feel alienated. The country can be assured we'll have three weeks here looking at this bill, amending this bill and debating this bill.

"More time leads to better discussions of what's in the bill versus what people say is in the bill," Graham said.

DeMint disagreed.

"The whole point of the way (proponents) did this was to announce it before a (May 19-20) weekend news cycle without everyone knowing what's in the bill and finish it this week so we didn't have to go home and have to deal" with the details among constituents, DeMint said.

The delay, he said, means that members will get an earful from the homefolks before returning to Washington on June 4. Many of those senators have been "stunned" by the reaction from home, DeMint said.

Graham, up for a second term, has created political problems for himself back home with his out-front support for the bill, but is well financed, has strong core support -- and no opponent in sight.

It's a matter of Graham being Graham, notes Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics.

"Graham's problem is he is at heart something of a rebel and a free thinker. He is tough to keep penned in, the way ideologues prefer their senators. He'll likely always have some opposition within his party, no matter how long he serves," Sabato said.

Both have been active in the debate that began Monday, just four days after the bill's provisions were unveiled. Amendment offered On Wednesday, Graham won approval of an amendment he said would require mandatory minimum prison terms ranging from 60 days for a first offense to two years to 10 years for a third offense for those who illegally cross U.S. borders. He cited an up to 30 percent return rate for those detained and sent back to their homelands by federal authorities.

DeMint, with Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, introduced an amendment that would end judicial review in cases where aliens' visas have been revoked after entry into the U.S.

"Without this amendment, this bill will allow people with forged applications, like terrorists and criminals, to stay here for months or years after we discover their fraud," DeMint said.

On Thursday, he joined with Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, to co-sponsor an amendment that would "deny legal status and immigration benefits to members of terrorist-related organizations, known gang members, sex offenders, alien smugglers who use firearms and felony drunk drivers."

http://greenvilleonline.com/apps/pbcs.d ... /705270316