Senate panel approves immigration bill

May 21, 2013 @ 8:05 pm


Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., right, confers with the committee's ranking Republican, Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, on Capitol Hill in Washington, Monday, May 20, 2013, as the committee assembles to work on a landmark immigration bill to secure the border and offer citizenship to millions. The panel is aiming to pass the legislation out of committee this week, setting up a high-stakes debate on the Senate floor. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite) | Zoom

WASHINGTON (AP) - Far-reaching legislation that grants 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 legislation that 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 action sparked rejoicing from immigration activists who crowded into a Senate committee room to witness the proceedings. "Yes, we can! Si, se puede" they shouted, reprising the campaign cry from Obama's first run for the White House in 2008.

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.

In a statement, Obama said the measure is "largely consistent with the principles of common-sense reform I have proposed and meets the challenge of fixing our broken immigration system."

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 collapse of Republican support and the bill's demise.

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

Sen. Chuck Schumer, the New York Democrat who has played a central role in advancing the legislation, said he would have voted against the proposal if Leahy had pressed the case _ a defection that would have caused it to fail on a tie even if the rest of the committee Democrats stuck with Leahy. But even before Durbin and Schumer spoke, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., voiced her opposition to Leahy's provision, and after listening to the debate Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., also joined in with reluctant concerns.

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 increase 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 Schumer. 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 calling 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.

In a statement issued after Leahy's action, Chad Griffin, the president of the Human Rights Campaign, said his group was "extremely disappointed that our allies did not put their anti-LGBT colleagues on the spot and force a vote on the measure that remains popular with the American people."

The issue is certain to re-emerge when the full Senate debates the legislation, although it is doubtful that sponsors can command the 60 votes that will be needed to make it part of the legislation.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has said he will bring the legislation to the Senate floor early next month for a debate that some aides predict could consume a month or more, with an outcome that is impossible to predict.

The fate of immigration legislation in the House is even less clear, although it is due to receive a hearing in the Judiciary Committee there on Wednesday.

Despite the concern that bipartisan support for the legislation was fragile, there was no doubting the command over committee proceedings that Senate 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 passed major immigration legislation. He said that bill, like the current one, promised to crack down on illegal immigration, but said it had failed to do so.

"No one disputes that this bill is legalization first, enforcement later. And, that's just unacceptable to me and to the American people," he said shortly before the vote.

On the final vote, three Republicans _ Hatch, Graham and Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz. _ joined the 10 committee Democrats in supporting the bill.

The centerpiece provision of the legislation allows the millions of 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.

___

AP White House Correspondent Julie Pace contributed to this report.


(Copyright 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)
More National News
Top Stories

  • Otherworldly
    Amazon has new plans for huge biospheres on its new campus

  • One
    Microsoft calls its new Xbox 'truly intelligent TV'

  • Skillet Spreads
    Seattle's Skillet Street Food and its creator are growing way beyond the Airstream
MyNorthwest.com - Purpose of Comments statement
Bonneville Media encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comments can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior. We encourage your thoughtful comments which: have a positive and constructive tone, are on topic, are respectful toward others and their opinions. Bonneville reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

Comments (60)


  • Add A Comment

  • HLC wrote...
    What happened to JOBs.
    January 25, 2013 9:52 am
    Wasn't that Obozo the Fools number 1 priority? Never mind if his mouth is moving he's lieing or having another go with Carl.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • wsualumn wrote...
    HLC
    January 28, 2013 6:00 am
    The same can be said about The GOP led house. They said their number one priority in 2010 was JOBS, JOBS, JOBS. What happened instead was wasted time passing bills on Sharia Law, making E Pluribus Unum our national motto, making Christianity our official religion and English the official language, and many other laws that had absolutely nothing to do jobs.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • FormerMarineSgt wrote...
    @wsualum
    March 30, 2013 7:26 am
    Don't forget the time they wasted passing 'tea party budgets' that they already knew were nothing more than symbolic acts of futility because they contained so little comprimise, so little for even the Republicans in the Senate to get onboard with that they had ZERO chances of passing. Oh - and don't forget the big dust up over light bulb standards - remember the big angry house republican waste of time (started by Bachman) where they angrily protested the 'government forcibly telling us what lightbulbs we could use'? When it turned out it was the House itself that had passed the very freaking law they were protesting? I think they spent 2 or 3 days whining about how they themselves had set those laws in place... and then ended up doing NOTHING whatsoever.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • calapete wrote...
    Jobs? i thought it was about stripping million from health insurance
    May 21, 2013 12:01 pm
    that's why the House has wasted 50 million tax payer dollars holding 37 meaningless votes.

    Jobs?

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • FormerMarineSgt wrote...
    @HLC
    March 30, 2013 7:29 am
    Haven't you learned yet that when you spend half of a posting spewing hate that you only look the idiot yourself and don't achieve anything against the object of your hate? And don't forget that the Republicans have spent ALL of thier time telling you how to hate Obama and blocking his every move instead of providing the jobs they claimed they were elected to create / the economy they claimed they were elected to fix. So, less hate, more facts please.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • FormerMarineSgt wrote...
    @HLC
    April 22, 2013 1:11 pm
    What about the Repubs #1 priority (other than thier stated #1 of denying Obama a second term)???? JOBS JOBS JOBS - yet all they've done is complain about how wrong Obama is - as the economy has very slowly improved in many, many ways.....
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Fuego wrote...
    Jobs council
    January 25, 2013 1:44 pm
    hasn't met in over a year. Maybe Oprah knows what the he)) is going on.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • CH wrote...
    Republicans are throwing everything else off the cliff -
    January 26, 2013 1:49 pm
    why not immigration?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • SickofSeattleite wrote...
    @CH
    January 28, 2013 5:24 am
    look at you....so confused again....
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • 509 wrote...
    There are plenty of jobs that American's will NOT do....like
    January 27, 2013 1:36 pm
    roofer, carpenter, or anything that big business does not want to pay a living wage. However, more immigrants will reduce middle class wages even further. The elites know exactly what their doing, unfortunately, most American's never took economics in school and do not realize the impact of 20 million people in the workforce willing to work for slave wages. READ the history of the labor movement in the early 20th century....it's success was after limiting immigration.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • HPD 5-0 wrote...
    a living wage.
    January 29, 2013 10:40 am
    What is this? GIve me a definition...a number. You can't. It's just another leftie, commie lie meant to instill guilt on the productive and validate taking more from them.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • 509 wrote...
    Definition of a living wage....
    January 29, 2013 3:35 pm
    A working person should make more than a person able-bodied person on welfare. "Leftie, commie lie"....try a tea party conservative that is sick of the elites and corporations ripping off the American people through illegal immigration. Oh, I am a LEGAL immigrant. Took 12 years to get in....should I have swam the river prior to 87??
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • SickofSeattleite wrote...
    11 million are here illegally!!!!
    January 28, 2013 5:23 am
    who let that happen? DEPORT THEM!!!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • wsualumn wrote...
    Sick
    January 28, 2013 6:03 am
    Brilliant! How will this be done? What will the cost be? Do we have the facilities to hold all of them? The resources? Ready to pay more for goods and services, let alone watch the economy shut down. Read the studies, they provide more for this country than they take.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Rick W7PSK wrote...
    Easy
    January 28, 2013 9:37 am
    Quick giving them freebies, get rid of the anchor baby rule and go after businesses that hire them.

    they will leave in droves on the no more freebies alone.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Rick W7PSK wrote...
    One more thing Make English the national language
    January 28, 2013 9:39 am
    That will save Billions right there. No more printing forms in 100 different languages, no more needing to teach classes in 100 different languages thus no need for interpreters. If you need one bring your own.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • SickofSeattleite wrote...
    wsualumn
    January 30, 2013 5:26 am
    they provide more births....seriously all the wic, housing, food stamps, free programs, dream act, cell phones, health care....a one way ticket back to their country would be cheaper...what are you talking about? I am not suggesting holding them anywhere.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • bigdogina4x4 wrote...
    I have to agre with SickofSeattle.....
    March 29, 2013 11:57 am
    your argument to do nothing is "it's too hard", and "it will cost too much". The fact is, we will save billions of dollars if we aren't supporting illegal aliens (by giving them tuition, medical benefits, welfare, etc..).
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • bigdogina4x4 wrote...
    WSUALUM?
    April 30, 2013 11:26 am
    You must be referenceing a liberal funded study. Only a blind retard can look at our situation and thinks that illegals give more than they take? ARE YOU KIDDIN' ME?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • FormerMarineSgt wrote...
    @sickofseattleite
    March 29, 2013 7:14 pm
    "11 million are here illegally!!!! who let that happen?" --- How about those wonderful 'job creators' that illegally hired them? you know - the folks who's jobs brought them across the border over the last 40 years and the republicans and democrats that didn't do anything about it over those same years? That's WHY they're here. Or would you rather take the simpleton's way out and blame Obama?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • HLC wrote...
    Obozo will like the immigration law.
    January 29, 2013 10:08 am
    After the fool gets rid of every part the republicans want. It may require his relatives to come out of the shadows.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • HPD 5-0 wrote...
    Give us your poor...your huddled masses...
    January 29, 2013 10:38 am
    yearning to take advantage of hard working Americans and vote "D".
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • HPD 5-0 wrote...
    Quick giving them freebies, get rid of the anchor baby rule and go after businesses that hire them.
    January 29, 2013 10:42 am
    Bingo. Calif just began shutting down illegal baby birthing motels. The anchor baby loophole needs to be closed.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • cigarfan wrote...
    @HPD 5-0
    January 29, 2013 11:32 am
    I want to thank you for your attitude. That is exactly the attitude that leads toward extinction for conservatives. Keep it up!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • bigdogina4x4 wrote...
    Conservatives are....
    March 29, 2013 12:00 pm
    the remaining few who love America, and want it to prosper. Back in the day, those who work hard and achieve, reap the reward of the good life. Now, they are punished and forced to pay for the losers......
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • calapete wrote...
    love America?
    May 21, 2013 12:04 pm
    by wasting it's money and blocking all legislation? They love their money and power, they do not love America. That's why they don't bank here.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • CH wrote...
    just began shutting down illegal baby birthing motels
    January 29, 2013 7:27 pm
    then where would get your sex? In the back seat of the black and white.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • SickofSeattleite wrote...
    Repbulicans are already losing because they wont stand up to Obama
    January 30, 2013 5:24 am
    and the overspending dumbocrats ruining our country! At this point what have they got to loose? While the dumbocrats let Americans who earn everything loose everything to everyone else who does nothing. Stand up Republicans and take back our country! Stop this madness! Stop this reckless spending! Enforce the laws they are breaking! What the dumbocrats are doing to our country is an embarrassing OUTRAGE!!!!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Pair o'dimes wrote...
    Whose country?
    February 8, 2013 11:29 am
    I'm always amused by the "take back our country" line. I have heard it used by whatever faction happens to not be in power, both republican and democrat, and I always wonder what they have in mind. Since we regularly have elections in our country, it would seem the real issue for the losers is winning a majority, and last time I checked it requires creating a platform and putting forth candidates that will appeal to the most voters. Or does the "take back" statement imply some other means of gaining power? Armed takeover? The other thing I wonder about is what is meant by "our country"? So the party in power aren't citizens? The people who voted for them weren't citizens either? Or are there not enough landowners among them? Or is it a matter of longevity? If they are relative newcomers to the U.S. does that mean they not rightful owners of "our country"? Oh wait...we have to give the country back to the native Americans!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }