Wednesday, May 22, 2013
Immigration Bill With California Judgeships Advances
Feinstein Amendment Adds Three New Positions
From Staff and Wire Service Reports
The Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday approved a comprehensive immigration reform bill that also includes provisions relating to judgeships in the Eastern and Central districts of California.
The committee approved the proposal, which now goes to the full Senate, by a vote of 13-5.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein issued a statement hailing passage of the bill, in which she said:
“Our country was built by immigrants. California has more immigrants than any other state in the union. We’ve talked about reform for years. It is time to bring people out of the shadows and allow them to participate in the American dream. I look forward to swift consideration and passage of this bill by the full Senate.”
Feinstein said the committee had approved a dozen amendments she proposed, including one that creates three permanent judgeships in the Eastern District and converts a temporary Central District judgeship that is set to expire soon into a permanent position. Immigration-related cases form a substantial portion of the dockets in all of California’s districts, but the largely rural Eastern District has one of the highest per-judge caseloads in the country.
The approval sparked rejoicing from immigration activists who crowded into a committee room to witness the proceedings. “Yes, we can! Si, se puede” they shouted, reprising the campaign cry from President 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.
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 called 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.
The centerpiece provision of the legislation allows an estimated 11 million 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.
Copyright 2013, Metropolitan News Company