5 things to watch as Senate immigration debate continues

Alan Gomez, USA TODAY7:13 p.m. EDT May 22, 2013


Here's a look at some strategies used in committee that could re-emerge as debate moves forward.

Story Highlights
Senate committee approved sweeping immigration bill Wednesday
The full Senate is expected to debate it this summer
If approved, it would be biggest overhaul to immigration in generations

The drive to get the core of a sweeping immigration bill through a Democrat-controlled Senate committee ended in success, but showed how some aspects of the bill provide ammunition for critics who seek to derail the historic measure if it is not altered.

The bill remained largely intact after five hearings in which members of the Senate Judiciary Committee debated and voted on more than 200 amendments. That gave sponsors of the bill a preview of how the bill may be attacked in June when the full Senate begins deliberations and a House group introduces their immigration bill.

The bill, written by a bipartisan group of senators known as the Gang of Eight, would allow the nation's 11 million unauthorized immigrants to apply for U.S. citizenship. It also provides $6.5 billion to enhance border security and increases the number of high-tech and low-skilled workers allowed in on a temporary basis.

As the committee pored over the amendments, Republicans were rebuffed on attempts to boost the numbers of Border Patrol agents and prevent citizenship from being offered until the border is proven secure. Attempts to require employers to recruit and hire Americans before hiring foreigners were also blocked.

Here's a look at some of the strategies used in Judiciary that could re-emerge as the immigration debate continues.
immigration

How much more border security?

Republican members of the committee often cited the 1986 bill that granted amnesty to up to 3 million unauthorized immigrants, but did not fulfill its promise of securing the border. So they tried several ways to further enhance the border security components of the bill.

The bill calls for an additional 3,500 Border Patrol agents to man the nation's southwest border with Mexico. But Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, proposed an amendment to raise that number to 40,000. His amendment was voted down.

Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., tried to amend the bill to require the federal government to collect the fingerprints of every foreigner leaving the country. That would help the country keep better track of people who leave and, more importantly, who has stayed behind in violation of their visas.

The committee reached a compromise when it approved a test program to collect fingerprints of departing foreigners at the nation's 30 busiest international airports.

The changes did not satisfy some on the committee, such as Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, who called the changes "inefficient, ineffective and unrealistic."

After bill co-author Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., said he'd like to see more done to secure the border, these attempts will re-emerge in the weeks ahead.
Rubio
Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., has become the chief salesman of the immigration bill.(Photo: Steve Pope, Getty Images)


Limiting the path to citizenship

Under the bill, most of the nation's unauthorized immigrants can apply for temporary legal status that allows them to live and work in the country within six months, then apply to get their green card in 10 years and U.S. citizenship three years later.

Senators tried a variety of ways to eliminate those provisions entirely, or limit the pool of people who could gain legal status.

Sessions unsuccessfully tried to bar people who could become "public charges" or receive government benefits from receiving any of legal status. Cruz filed an amendment that would allow unauthorized immigrants to gain the temporary legal status and also get green cards, but would be forever barred from becoming full U.S. citizens.

Cruz argued that the immigration bill was being "held hostage" by the demand that it includes a path to citizenship. But supporters of the bill said that would create a permanent underclass of citizens and voted down the amendment.

Many members of the House have expressed reservations about legalizing the population, so expect plenty of debate there on this topic.

High-tech foreigners vs. American workers

The bill got a major boost when Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, reached a compromise with Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., on a visa program for high-skilled workers.

The original bill would have required companies using the H-1B visas to first extend a job offer to a qualified American worker before hiring a visa holder from overseas. It also gave the Department of Labor the power to audit companies for up to two years to review those decisions.

Technology firms lobbied to strike those provisions, and the Hatch-Schumer compromise did so for a huge swath of U.S. technology companies.

That agreement will go a long way toward appeasing Republicans concerned about the burdens placed on the U.S. businesses, but it upset labor union advocates. AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said he still supports the overall bill, but said the pieces of the Hatch-Schumer amendment "are unambiguous attacks on American workers" and said his group might fight it on the Senate floor.

Preferential treatment for some countries

Some Democratic lawmakers were upset that the immigration bill eliminates the Diversity Visa Lottery, which grants up to 55,000 visas a year from underrepresented countries, many from Africa, in an attempt to make the U.S. immigration system more merit-based.

But some senators have been able to carve out protections for some countries, a tactic that could re-emerge as the bill advances through Congress.

For example, the committee approved an amendment from Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., to grant 5,000 visas over three years to displaced Tibetans. Thousands of Filipinos who fought with the U.S. during World War II were rewarded with U.S. citizenship, but not their children. Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, won approval of an amendment to speed up their applications to join their parents.

Same-sex couples

One of the most emotional moments over the five days of hearings was when committee chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., introduced an amendment to extend immigration rights to same-sex couples.

Under the amendment, U.S. citizens could petition for their spouses if they were legally married in another country. Leahy introduced the amendment, but withdrew it after several Democratic senators expressed their strong support but said it would ruin the chances of passing the overall immigration bill.

Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., strongly supported Leahy's amendment, but said it was the "wrong moment" to try and pass a bill for same-sex couples.

But gay rights advocates vowed to press on, and the debate could resurface in the weeks to come.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/p...ation/2350753/