Tearing down borders

Immigration overhaul: Senate passes historic bill
Associated Press
Jun 28, 2013

 

With a solemnity reserved for momentous occasions, the Senate passed historic legislation Thursday offering the priceless hope of citizenship to millions of immigrants living illegally in America's shadows. The bill also promises a military-style effort to secure the long-porous border with Mexico.

The bipartisan vote was 68-32 on a measure that sits atop President Barack Obama's second-term domestic agenda. Even so, the bill's prospects are highly uncertain in the Republican-controlled House, where conservatives generally oppose citizenship for immigrants living in the country unlawfully.

Spectators in galleries that overlook the Senate floor watched expectantly as senators voted one by one from their desks. Some onlookers erupted in chants of "Yes, we can" after Vice President Joe Biden announced the bill's passage.

After three weeks of debate, there was no doubt about the outcome. Fourteen Republicans joined all 52 Democrats and two independents to support the bill.

In a written statement, Obama coupled praise for the Senate's action with a plea for resolve by supporters as the House works on the issue. "Now is the time when opponents will try their hardest to pull this bipartisan effort apart so they can stop commonsense reform from becoming a reality. We cannot let that happen," said the president, who was traveling in Africa.

After the bill passed, he called Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., a leading author of the bill, to offer congratulations.

In the final hours of debate, members of the so-called Gang of 8, the group that drafted the measure, frequently spoke in personal terms while extolling the bill's virtues, rebutting its critics — and appealing to the House members who turn comes next.

"Do the right thing for America and for your party," said Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., who said his mother emigrated to the United States from Cuba. "Find common ground. Lean away from the extremes. Opt for reason and govern with us."

Arizona Republican Sen. Jeff Flake said those seeking legal status after living in the United States illegally must "pass a background check, make good on any tax liability and pay a fee and a fine." There are other requirements before citizenship can be obtained, he noted.

He, too, spoke from personal experience, recalling time he spent as a youth working alongside family members and "undocumented migrant labor, largely from Mexico, who worked harder than we did under conditions much more difficult than we endured."

Since then, he said, "I have harbored a feeling of admiration and respect for those who have come to risk life and limb and sacrifice so much to provide a better life for themselves and their families."

The bill's opponents were unrelenting, if outnumbered.

"We will admit dramatically more people than we ever have in our country's history at a time when unemployment is high and the Congressional Budget Office has told us that average wages will go down for 12 years, that gross national product per capita will decline for 25-plus years, that unemployment will go up," said Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala.

"The amnesty will occur, but the enforcement is not going to occur, and the policies for future immigration are not serving the national interest."

In the Senate, at least, the developments marked an end to years of gridlock on immigration. The shift began taking shape quickly after the 2012 presidential election, when numerous Republican leaders concluded the party must show a more welcoming face to Hispanic voters who had given Obama more than 70 percent of their support.

Even so, division among Republicans was evident as potential 2016 presidential contenders split. Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida was one of the Gang of 8, while Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky and Ted Cruz of Texas were opposed to the bill.

The legislation's chief provisions includes numerous steps to prevent future illegal immigration — some added in a late compromise that swelled Republican support for the bill — and to check on the legal status of job applicants already living in the United States. At the same time, it offers a 13-year path to citizenship to as many as 11 million immigrants now living in the country unlawfully.

Under the deal brokered last week by Republican Sens. John Hoeven of North Dakota and Bob Corker of Tennessee and the Gang of 8, the measure requires 20,000 new Border Patrol agents, the completion of 700 miles of fencing and deployment of an array of high-tech devices along the U.S.-Mexico border.

Those living in the country illegally could gain legal status while the border security plan was being implemented, but would not be granted permanent resident green cards or citizenship.

A plan requiring businesses to check on the legal status of prospective employees would be phased in over four years.

Other provisions would expand the number of visas available for highly skilled workers relied upon by the technology industry. A separate program would be established for lower-skilled workers, and farm workers would be admitted under a temporary program. In addition, the system of legal immigration that has been in effect for decades would be changed, making family ties less of a factor and elevating the importance of education, job skills and relative youth.

With the details of the Senate bill well-known, House Speaker John Boehner said at a news conference the separate legislation the House considers will have majority support among Republicans. He also said he hopes the bill will be bipartisan, and he encouraged a group of four Democrats and three Republicans trying to forge a compromise to continue their efforts.

He offered no details on how a House bill could be both bipartisan and supported by more than half of his own rank and file, given that most of the bills that have moved through the House Judiciary Committee recently did so on party line votes over the protests of Democrats. None envisions legal status for immigrants now in the country illegally.

Boehner declined to say if there were circumstances under which he could support a pathway to citizenship, but he made clear that securing the border was a priority.

"People have to have confidence that the border is secure before anything else is really going to work. Otherwise, we repeat the mistakes of 1986," he said, referring to the last time Congress overhauled the immigration system.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California, the House Democratic leader, also said he favors a bipartisan approach. At the same time, she noted that Democratic principles for immigration include "secure our borders, protect our workers, unite families, a path to legalization and now citizenship for those" without legal status.

While the outcome of the Senate vote was not in doubt, supporters scrambled to maximize the vote and fell short of 70, a level they had talked of reaching. Schumer spoke with New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie on Wednesday night as he lobbied — successfully — for the vote of the state's Republican Sen. Jeff Chiesa, whom the governor appointed to his seat.

___

Associated Press writer Donna Cassata contributed to this report.

 

Comments

Darwin's choice

Unbelievable! Millions of more democrat voters......and more drain on the economy.

Darwin's choice
reader

Saw the headline and wondered if the city and township were tearing down the wall in the middle of Perkins Ave.

SamAdams

Ironic title for the story seeing as that's exactly what this Senate and this administration are trying to do! Forget sovereignty. Forget the Constitution. Forget the rule of law. Forget common sense. In fact, forget America. Nice...

I just want to know if, in the unfortunate case this amnesty actually stands, I can get amnesty for committing a crime, too! I mean, as long as I commit the crime because I'm trying to get a better life, doesn't that mean it's all okay?

The Big Dog's back

The vote was 68-32. I know you think your narrow minded views should rule, but thank goodness they don't.

SamAdams

It was all politics. Dems voted for it because it's a ready-made population of future Dems. Republicans (the wussies and RINOs amongst them anyway) voted for it so that Hispanics will like them. Unfortunately, though those votes were wrong, the Dems are right about the outcome and the GOP is engaging in warm fuzzy fantasy.

The Big Dog's back

Like I said, thank goodness your narrow minded views don't rule.

The Big Dog's back

And just out of curiosity was Reagan a wuss too?

SamAdams

When it came to illegal immigration and border security? Yes, Reagan was a wuss. And did Hispanics fall in love with the GOP because Reagan caved? Not so much. Like I said, warm. Fuzzy. And FANTASY.

Contango

As a libertarian, I support open borders.

It's the MASSIVE publicly financed health and welfare benefit structure wherein I have the issue.

so.....

And guess what all those people crossing our open border get when they come here? ?? The very thing you have an issue with.

Nemesis

Here's the problem with that - large scale migrations inevitably change the destination to be more like the source country. Do you want that? This country exists as a (mostly) free nation because of a legacy of centuries of libertarian thought developed by European philosophers. The idea of limiting government power goes back to the Magna Carta, and the Manx and Icelandic democracies, both over 1000 years old. The idea that people should be free has deep cultural roots in Europe. Other places, not so much. High volume immigration creates a critical mass of people who have no tradition of liberty, and we all know our public education system isn't going to remedy that. True libertarians realize that the maintenance of liberty requires strictly limiting both the number and sources of immigrants.

If you have any doubt that large scale immigration changes the destination to be more like the source location, talk to the Cherokee, Iriquois, or Souix. Ask them how open borders worked out for them.

so.....

Well said

The Big Dog's back

Reagan was famous for telling Gorbachev "to tear down this wall". Now you Reagan followers want to build a wall. Go figure.

Contango

Re: "Reagan was famous for telling Gorbachev 'to tear down this wall'."

DERPITY DERP DERP!

Berlin Wall - keep 'em IN.

Southern Border "Wall" - keep 'em OUT.

rezzy

Big Dog, you have to come with something more intellectual than that if you're going to appear in a room full of republicans and represent the dems. This is all part of the president's plan to have one-party rule for future years, socialism at its finest.

deertracker

Just because you say the votes were wrong does not mean they were. You will find yourself on the wrong side of history because your solution or lack therof is just not practical. Offer a real solution for a change.

SamAdams

Okay, real solution: ENFORCE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. The end.

Immigration? Okay, and welcome! LEGAL immigration. You know, the people who actually WANT to be Americans? Who actually BOTHER to learn English and assimilate? Who enrich ALL of us with their hard work and their culture?

ILLEGAL immigration? You know, the people who sneak across the border under the dark of night, engaging in criminal behavior before they even live here? Who suck up benefits right and left for which they've never contributed one thin dime? Who demand we learn THEIR language rather than learning ours? (And don't even get me started on the REALLY bad guys who come across along with the much less so bad guys.) THEM? No. GO HOME, voluntarily or otherwise.

As for the solution to everybody already here, that's easy enough, too. No proof of citizenship, no job. No proof of citizenship, no school. No food stamps, no healthcare, no free housing. There's your "voluntary deportation" right there!

deertracker

"Voluntary deportation" is not going to happen. Eleven million people did not sneak over the border in the dead of night. That's Hollywood!

SamAdams

As things are right this very moment, you're right: "Voluntary deportation" isn't going to happen. But if you had to prove citizenship before you could work, rent an apartment, cash a check, send your kids to school, or do or receive anything else, how long do you think you'd stay, eh? (I'd also point out, by the way, that you and I have to prove who we are, up to the point of background checks for some jobs and even some rentals!)

Incidentally, I don't suggest everybody swam the Rio Grande after dark. Plenty came in on legal short term visas (vacations, etc.) and then just didn't leave when time was up. Right now, there's little if any follow-up on that kind of entry. Bottom line: It's still a crime. And those who commit crimes shouldn't reap rewards from their wrongdoing.

Darwin's choice

Big Dog,Read this pork filled pile, and then tell us you're for it! Show us the true you.....go ahead, I dare you! Tell us which part you agree with most...We'll wait!

so.....

How is it "narrow minded" to have self preservation? Our country is already in major debt. Giving out way more funds than are coming in. How are we supposed to support more handouts? When do we stop letting people in so we can take care of the people already here? We have starving children , here, now. Why not take care of them before we have more come in. It doesnt make sense to keep allowing more in.

deertracker

It is "narrow minded" that "your" country is in debt because of illegals. You had no problem supporting two unfunded wars or a drug prescription plan or Gitmo. What doesn't make sense it trying to make millions just disappear.

so.....

Millions who are here Iillegally..key word. Come here through the proper channels. Which still puts a strain but its legal.as for the other crap you threw out..how do you know I supported any of that?? You don't . You're assuming.

deertracker

Reread your post and tell me what you would assume!

Darwin's choice

see above

There you go again

I don't like the title "Tearing dowm borders". Unforruntely, that is what will actaully happen-no more borders and no more boder control. Way to fix our own deficit, unemployment, welfare system. Now wait, how will this help us?!

Donegan

http://www.thebrennerbrief.com/2... Hopefully those who are for this bill lose their jobs.

The Big Dog's back

Yep, that's a really unbiased site.

Darwin's choice

Well, we're waiting for that reply Big Dog.......

The Big Dog's back

Can you read durwood?

Darwin's choice

And yet another 2nd grade reply. Pathetic.

Donegan

http://www.youtube.com/watch?fea...
This was on CSPAN I hear they arent that biased. Either way it is going to happen and i hope you lose your job.

The New World Czar

The wave of immigration isn't just limited to the underclass coming through the southwest borders. The Silicon Valley is all happy as well, as this bill as passed gives them free rein to bring in overseas employees with master's and PHD degrees who will work for much less than domestically-educated and raised STEM-related college graduates. This bill, combined with the social welfare clauses noted in Donegan's posted article, is bad across the board.

The Big Dog's back

Oh, you mean like they have been the last 30 years? Oh, OK.

Contango

Not-to-worry.

Open the borders and just have the Federal Reserve "print" another few trillion dollars to cover the additional publicly financed health and welfare expenses - should take care of it nicely.

And while we're at it as an incentive:

Throw in a nice loaded Chevy Volt FREE for the first million "unregistered Democrats"...uh..."undocumented Americans" who come in "out of the shadows."

deertracker

What exactly do all you nay sayers want to happen? How can we deport millions when they can't even close Gitmo? You have no problem with your tax dollars supporting so called terrorists? Some of you forget that it is not JUST so called illegals on welfare. You want others to believe that even though you know it is not true. What about all the white illegals? There are lots you know. They all are not Latinos or Mexicans. Yes, a lot of them work and pay taxes.

Darwin's choice

I'll ask you the same question as Big Dog...Tell us what you like about this pork laden bill? Who is going to pay for it? Tell us how you believe it's good for the citizens of our country? This isn't about people on welfare now, this bill opens the floodgates for millions of new claims. So, again, please tell us how this benefits us?

The Big Dog's back

CBO: Senate Immigration Proposal Would "Decrease Federal Budget Deficits By $197 Billion." In a June 18 cost analysis of the Senate immigration reform proposal, CBO found that it would reduce the federal deficit by $197 billion in the 10-year period immediately following implementation and by $700 billion in the second decade:

Darwin's choice

Are you for real? Is that quote from the doonesbury cartoon?

The Big Dog's back

CBO, Non partisan Congressional Budget Office.

Darwin's choice

Sure it's not "Crazy Barack Obama"?

Nemesis

Earlier they found just the opposite based on the educational statistics for illegals. This new figure came because the administration pressured them to disregard that data.

so.....

How do you save money when you have more people to take care of?? Is this a new math I missed??

SamAdams

No, it's not "new math." It's Obamanomics. No math (or history, or common sense) involved!

Nemesis

"What exactly do all you nay sayers want to happen? How can we deport millions"

We don't need to. Simply cut off all public benefits for illegals, and then vigorously enforce existing laws regarding employing them. Turn off the flow of milk and honey, and they'll self deport. Several years ago, Immigration raided a big meat packing plant arresting and deporting several hundred from the first shift. Most of the second and third shift never showed up for work - they packed up left.

so.....

I want these people to go back where they came from and do entry into the country legally. Pay taxes, learn OUR language, and be loyal to this country.
And yes there are plenty of americans on welfare, too many. But that's not the topic.
I don't care what color the illegal is..ship them out! Illegal is illegal.

starryeyes83

Borders?

What borders?

We have borders?

Since when?

;] ;]

Darwin's choice