[Mb-civic] Immigration Deal Fails In Senate - Washington Post

[William Swiggard]

Immigration Deal Fails In Senate
Conservatives' Amendments Cost Democratic Support; Leaders Vow to Try Again

By Charles Babington and Shailagh Murray
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, April 8, 2006; A01

Efforts to rewrite the nation's immigration laws collapsed in the Senate 
yesterday, renewing doubts about Congress's ability and willingness to 
tackle the complex, emotional issue in an election year.

A tenuous bipartisan compromise, announced a day earlier, fell apart 
when Democrats rejected conservative Republicans' demands for numerous 
changes, some designed to limit the number of illegal immigrants who 
could become eligible for citizenship. Trapped between the 
conservatives' demands and the Democrats' parliamentary powers to limit 
amendments, GOP leaders conceded a setback. But they vowed to try again 
when Congress returns from a two-week recess.

Several senators, including Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), 
expressed optimism. But Sen. Richard J. Durbin (Ill.), the 
second-ranking Democrat, said: "It's going to be a tough, uphill battle 
now."

Frist had hoped to settle the issue ahead of the large protests 
scheduled for next week in Washington and other cities by Latino groups 
and their allies. They oppose a House-passed measure that theoretically 
would deport the nation's 11 million illegal immigrants and penalize 
their employers. Some Democrats say the demonstrations will increase 
pressure on the Senate to pass more lenient legislation, but others say 
the delay might give opponents time to scrutinize the proposals and 
raise objections.

Most senators agree with House members that border security should be 
strengthened, and the bills being considered would pour money into that 
cause. Unlike the House, however, a majority of senators say some 
longtime undocumented workers should be given a chance to obtain legal 
status -- and possibly citizenship -- as a nod to the nation's demand 
for low-wage employees and to the unfeasibility of apprehending and 
deporting millions of people.

The problem lies in crafting a plan that can get the support of at least 
60 senators, the number needed to block filibusters in the 100-member 
chamber. Frist thought he had achieved that feat Thursday with a bill 
dividing illegal immigrants into three categories. Those in the country 
five years or longer would begin a route to citizenship if they learned 
English and paid taxes and fines. Those in the country two to four years 
could apply for legal status after returning to a border crossing for 
document processing. The others would be subject to deportation.

But several Republicans, led by Sens. John Cornyn of Texas and Jon Kyl 
of Arizona, insisted on numerous amendments. Among other things, they 
would deny legal status to immigrants who had committed crimes or 
skipped deportation hearings.

Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said the amendments would allow 
Cornyn, Kyl and their allies to gut the bill's chief elements. "The 
people who were allowed to offer amendments are the people who hate this 
bill," Reid said of Thursday's compromise.

With any senator empowered to block the prompt introduction of 
amendments to the compromise bill, Reid agreed to only three. Frist 
demanded at least 20.

Meanwhile, anticipating a fierce battle with the House when it comes 
time to reconcile the two chambers' immigration bills, Reid insisted 
that the Senate conferees be the 18 Judiciary Committee members. The 
panel last month approved a measure similar to the Frist-backed compromise.

Reid cited earlier occasions in which Republicans excluded Democrats 
from important conference committee meetings. But Frist said it is 
"laughable" to think that a minority leader could dictate the majority 
party's committee appointees.

Frist said Reid had "put a stranglehold" on efforts to pass the 
compromise bill, whose chief sponsors are Sens. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) and 
Mel Martinez (R-Fla.). Democrats dismissed the criticism and cited the 
Republicans' inability to reach accord within their 55-member caucus.

"It proves again that a handful of people in the United States Senate 
constitute an army," said Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.).

With the amendment process unresolved, the Hagel-Martinez bill's setback 
came when 38 senators -- all Democrats -- voted to choke off debate and 
proceed to a vote on the bill. That was 22 short of the number needed. 
Sixty senators -- 54 Republicans and six Democrats -- voted against 
"cloture." The six Democrats were Max Baucus (Mont.), Robert C. Byrd 
(W.Va.), Kent Conrad (N.D.), Byron L. Dorgan (N.D.), Ben Nelson (Neb.) 
and Bill Nelson (Fla.). Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) and John D. Rockefeller 
IV (D-W.Va.) did not vote.

Frist said the Judiciary Committee will rework the Hagel-Martinez bill 
when Congress reconvenes. "Our borders and interior enforcement 
absolutely require that we address it," he said.

Yesterday's stalemate was especially disappointing to Sens. John McCain 
(R-Ariz.) and Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), who have worked for years on 
immigration matters. Kennedy had urged Reid to seek a compromise on the 
dispute over amendments, sources said, but he did not publicly criticize 
his party's leader afterward.

"Politics got in front of policy on this issue, and there's enough blame 
to go around," Kennedy told reporters. He plans to speak Monday 
afternoon at the "National Day of Action for Immigrant Justice" rally on 
the Mall.

Some senators in both parties said the Hagel-Martinez bill was moving 
too quickly to allow proper scrutiny and to give advocates time to build 
support. "When you force-march on a bill this controversial, you run 
into these problems," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.).

Some supporters of the compromise bill said they could have defeated the 
most problematic amendments from the Cornyn-Kyl camp. But Sen. Orrin G. 
Hatch (R-Utah) cast doubt on that strategy. "The Democrats know the 
amendments would pass," he said in an interview. "They lost in [the 
Judiciary] committee, but they would pass on the floor."

White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan told reporters: "We hope 
that leaders will be able to come together and move forward on a 
compromise bill after they get back from the recess. There is a 
willingness to do so. I know that they are continuing to work it."

When President Bush took office in 2001, the former Texas governor was 
expected to make immigration restructuring a centerpiece of his 
presidency. Big business wanted more liberal laws, and the issue had 
political appeal as a way to galvanize millions of Hispanic voters.

Campaigning in Iowa in January 2000, Bush complained to the Cedar Rapids 
Gazette editorial board about a "xenophobic, dark side of American 
politics" that made it "easy to pick on the downtrodden. We ought to 
increase legal immigration for our country's advantage."

The Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, carried out by hijackers who had 
entered the country on student or tourist visas, changed the political 
climate. Americans saw the porous borders and the lax visa enforcement 
as security threats, and in Congress, both parties pushed for a tougher 
line.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/07/AR2006040700182.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.islandlists.com/pipermail/mb-civic/attachments/20060408/1f25d003/attachment.htm