Amnesty? Pathway? Immigration bill will to test both parties
WASHINGTON — The introduction of the most far-reaching immigration overhaul in decades marks only the first chapter in a long battle that will test emotions and political wits.
Supporters of a comprehensive overhaul on each side of the immigration debate have spent the past several months pressing a small bipartisan group of senators to introduce legislation, but those same activists must wrestle with the reality of what they must relinquish to accomplish their ultimate goals — whether those are a path to citizenship, securing the border or improving a political party's future electoral prospects.
For Latino advocates and civil liberties activists, that means swallowing the idea of a southern border armed with airborne drones and a gun-toting military. It means accepting that family reunification might no longer be the heart of the nation's immigration system.
For conservatives who hold dear the rule of law, that means allowing 11 million people who either came here illegally or who illegally overstayed their visas a chance to remain in the country and eventually become citizens.
“This has something for everybody to hate,” said Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz.
Flake is part of the “Gang of Eight” senators who were expected to introduce legislation late Tuesday that would put most of the 11 million people here illegally on a path to citizenship, but not until the borders are deemed secure.
Two other members, Sens. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., and John McCain, R-Ariz., visited the White House at President Obama's request to review the proposal.
After the meeting, Obama said the proposal was consistent with his own principles on immigration and urged the Senate to move the bill forward. “This bill is clearly a compromise, and no one will get everything they wanted, including me,” Obama said in a statement.
The bill is scheduled to receive its first hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Friday; a second hearing is expected on Monday.
The controversial bill would give thousands of deported individuals a chance to return. It would require mandatory use of worker verification systems to ensure those hired are in the country legally. And it would appropriate billions of dollars to hire thousands more Border Patrol agents and would authorize National Guard deployment along the southern border in an attempt to prevent 90 percent of illegal crossings.
The calls to address the nation's broken immigration system are greater than they have been in years, with some of the most powerful interest groups — including business, labor, agriculture and religion — supporting a comprehensive overhaul.
The agreement remains fragile, as immigration remains an emotional and politically divisive issue in many parts of the country. But Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said the current environment is better than it's ever been for potential passage.
“If we fail this time, I don't know when anybody would take this up,” Graham said. “I said last time this was the last best chance in a decade. This may be the last chance forever.”
The bipartisan proposal represents a major breakthrough toward figuring out a solution, according to Clarissa Martinez, the director of civic engagement and immigration at the National Council of La Raza. But she said she's not ready “to sign on the dotted line.”
Martinez said there are aspects of the proposal she'd like to change, and she is bracing for aggressive attempts to kill or weaken efforts to legalize the 11 million.
Groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union have criticized the proposal for excluding people who will not be able to afford hefty fines and say it would waste federal dollars on unneeded border security.
Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., said these were the kind of compromises required to reach a deal.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.