DISCLAIMER: THE INFORMATION IN THIS BLOG IS PROVIDED FOR GENERAL INFORMATION ONLY. THE OFFICE OF NORKA M. SCHELL, LLC AND/OR ITS MEMBERS AND/OR EMPLOYEES MAKE NO WARRANTY REGARDING THE ACCURACY OF THIS INFORMATION. WHILE SOME OF THE INFORMATION IS ABOUT LEGAL ISSUES, IT IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE.
Posted by NYC Immigration Business Attorney Norka M. Schell
Law Offices of Norka M. Schell, LLC
Tel. (212)564-1589
Website: www.lawschell.com
USCIS Seeks Volunteers for Enhanced Form I-9 Study
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services sent this bulletin:
"U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has been developing a new version of the Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification, that contains enhancements designed to assist employers in complying with the law and reducing errors employers and employees commonly make when completing Form I-9.
Before we propose the enhanced form and invite public comment on the proposal as mandated under the Paperwork Reduction Act, USCIS is seeking nine employers from the public to volunteer to assist in a study to determine how much time it takes employers to complete an enhanced version of Form I-9 that USCIS is developing.
The study will be administered at USCIS offices in Washington, D.C., on September 3, 2013; September 5, 2013; or September 6, 2013 between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. Administration of the study will be no more than 1.5 hours. USCIS will not provide any compensation to reimburse participants for any expenses, including time or travel.
All interested employers, large and small, are invited to submit a request to volunteer to participate in the study. USCIS will randomly select four large employers and five small employers from all submissions received by the deadline of August 15, 2013. Multiple submissions by the same employer will not be included in the random selection process.
USCIS will contact the Point of Contact provided on the volunteer request submission of selected employers by August 23, 2013 to schedule an appointment to participate in the study. The Point of Contact provided by the employer must be an individual who will represent the employer at the study. At the study, the individual will be requested to play the role of an employer completing Section 2 and/or Section 3 of the Form I-9.
Employers interested in participating in the study may submit a request to volunteer by e-mailing the following information to I-9Central@dhs.gov by August 15, 2013 with “Enhanced Form I-9 Study” in the subject line:
Name of Company:
Address of Company:
Is your company/entity considered “small” under SBA guidelines? (Yes) (No)
Point of Contact:
Telephone Number of Point of Contact
E-mail Address of Point of Contact:
Availability: (September 3) September 5) (September 6)
deal Time Availability: (Morning) (Afternoon)
USCIS signature
Visit our Blog Visit Us on Twitter Visit us on Facebook Visit us on YouTube
Bookmark and Share
Government Information Network Powered By GovDelivery
Travis John Guth is a
U.S. lawful permanent resident (LPR). He filed a complaint against Kaiser
Permanente Hawaii, a California health maintenance organization (“Organization”)
doing business in several states, including Hawaii. Mr. Guth alleged that Organization discriminated
against him by firing him because of his citizenship status and national origin
and that Organization engaged in document abuse.
Mr. Guth was hired on
or about January 12, 2010. He presented a driver's license and social security
card in connection with his I-9 on which he indicated to Organization that he
was a U.S. citizen. On or about March 23, 2011, Mr. Guth filed a charge with
the OSC. He also filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC). The OSC sent him a determination letter dated August 3,
2011, authorizing him to file a complaint with OCAHO, which he did on October
20, 2011.
OCAHO Administrative
Law Judge (ALJ) Ellen K. Thomas first dismissed the national origin charge,
noting that Mr. Guth acknowledged that Organization has more than 15 employees
and pointing out that by statute a national origin discrimination complaint
against an employer with 15 or more employees is outside OCAHO jurisdiction.
Rather, INA § 274B(a)(2)(B) provides that the INA's prohibition of national origin
discrimination does not apply in cases covered under § 703 of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, 42 USCA 2000e-2 (2006) (Title VII), and
these claims must be directed to the EEOC. ALJ Thomas then dismissed the
citizenship charge because an action for citizenship status discrimination
under § 274B may only be maintained by a protected individual, which Mr. Guth
is not. INA § 274B(a)(3)(B) provides
that an LPR may be a “protected individual” but not if he or she fails to apply
for naturalization within six months of becoming eligible or, after applying on
a timely basis, fails to naturalize within two years after the date of
application (with exceptions not applicable to this matter). Since Mr. Guth's
complaint asserted that he became an LPR on September 14, 1979, and that he
became eligible to apply for naturalization on May 27, 1984, but he did not
apply until December 15, 1996, and he apparently never naturalized, he was not
a protected individual within the meaning of INA § 274B(a)(3) at the time of
the alleged discrimination, and he therefore lacked standing to maintain the
claim before OCAHO.
Thus, the only claim
that OCAHO could consider was the claim of document abuse. This claim was
dismissed for lack of merit.
ALJ observed that
Organization in its motion for summary decision or dismissal asserted that, as
a federal contractor, it was obligated to participate in E-Verify and, in a
human resources (HR) representative's declaration accompanying that motion,
that Mr. Guth's information was first put through E-Verify on May 31, 2010, as
part of a bulk upload of I-9s, and that Organization received a tentative non-confirmation
(TNC) because of a conflict about his citizenship status.
In the Section 1 of his
I-9, Mr. Guth stated that he was a U.S. citizen, but other records could not confirm
that. An HR representative met with Mr. Guth on November 15, 2010, at which
time he continued to insist that he was a U.S. citizen but denied that he ever
had a permanent resident alien card or a certificate of naturalization, so his
information was resubmitted to E-Verify, and another TNC was received. Mr. Guth was then referred to the Social
Security Administration (SSA). On November 22, 2010, Organization received a
final non-confirmation (FNC) notice, and Mr. Guth was notified of this FNC, at
which time, the HR representative
again inquired about a permanent resident alien card or a certificate of
naturalization. This time Mr. Guth said that he had a permanent resident alien
card but that he did not have it with him. Mr. Guth was advised that the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) might be able to help him, and the HR
representative spoke to DHS, which advised Organization to close the case and
start a new E-Verify request. Mr. Guth then presented an alien resident card, a
foreign birth certificate, and adoption papers, but the alien card did not have
Mr. Guth's name on it; rather, it was in the name of another person, “Ruiz
Arevalo, Walter Orlando.” The HR representative could not submit the case to
E-Verify for that reason. The declaration of Organization's manager of employee
and labor relations in Honolulu, Hawaii, stated that she was informed of the
FNC on or about December 3, 2010, and she then informed Mr. Guth that his
employment was being terminated. That declaration also stated that no employee
who receives a FNC from E-Verify is retained by Organization.
Mr. Guth in response
asserted that an E-Verify error was the motivating factor in his termination,
but, in the words of ALJ, “wholly missing ... [was] any evidence that could support
any inference that Organization intended to discriminate against Mr. Guth on
any prohibited basis”; rather, she said, it appeared that Organization wanted
to keep Mr. Guth as an employee but was unable to do so. Moreover, she said, even assuming argued that Mr.
Guth could present a prima facie case, Organization proffered a legitimate
nondiscriminatory reason for terminating him--it was required to do so after
receiving a FNC from E-Verify and had no choice in the matter. She pointed out
too that what Mr. Guth characterized as an E-Verify error was in fact his own
error--he checked the box stating that he was a U.S. citizen when in fact he
was not, and E-Verify could not reconcile this claim with other records because
Mr. Guth did not indicate his correct status as a LPR. Accordingly, the
complaint was dismissed.
IMMIGRATION AND POLICY: E-VERIFY NEWS: E-VERIFY NYC BUSINESS LAWYER On July 1, 2013, E-Verify announced a new customer service enhancement that will allow email notifications to...
E-VERIFY NYC BUSINESS LAWYER On July 1, 2013, E-Verify announced a new customer service enhancement that will allow email notifications to Employees of a TNC (Employee Tentative Nonconfirmation) at the same time E-Verify notifies the Employer. If a TNC is received, employees who have provided their email address will be directly notified of the TNC. Employers will notice a new data filed in E-Verify asking for the Employee's email address. When the Employee provides an email address on Form I-9, Employers must enter it into E-Verify. The new email notification process does not replace the current TNC process. Employers are still required to notify Employees of TNCs and their right to contest.
Posted by: NYC-Business-Immigration-Lawyer Norka Sschell Law Offices of Norka M. Schell Tel: (212)564-1589 Matter of Zeleniak, 26 I&N Dec. 158 (BIA 2013) Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), Pub. L. No. 104, 199, 110 Stat. 2419, 2419 (1996), is no longer an impediment to the recognition of lawful same-sex marriage and spouse under the Immigration and Nationality Act if the marriage is valid undr the laws of State where it was celebrated.
Justice Department Settles Immigration-related Discrimination Claim Against Alabama Employment Agency
The Justice Department today reached an agreement with Stellar Staffing LLC, based in Birmingham, Ala., resolving claims that the employment agency violated the anti-discrimination provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).
The department’s independent investigation was initiated based on evidence uncovered during the investigation of a related retaliation charge filed against Stellar Staffing. The department’s investigation concluded that since at least July 2008, the company required specific documents issued by the Department of Homeland Security from non-U.S. citizens during the employment eligibility verification process, but accepted a variety of identity and work authorization documentation from U.S. citizens.
Under the terms of the settlement agreement, Stellar Staffing will pay $2,250 in civil penalties to the United States, undergo Justice Department training on the anti-discrimination provision of the INA and be subject to monitoring of its employment eligibility verification practices for a period of one year.
“The anti-discrimination provision protects work-authorized individuals from being treated differently in the hiring process based on discriminatory assumptions about their status,” said Gregory Friel, Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division. “The Civil Rights Division is fully committed to vigorously enforcing the law.”
Posted by NYC Immigration Attorney Norka M. Schell
Days before the Senate is
expected to pass a sweeping immigration reform bill, bi-national same-sex
married couples have cause to celebrate after the Supreme Court’s decision
striking down the Defense of Marriage Act appeared to offer them equal treatment
under U.S. immigration law.
Before today’s decision,
an American was prohibited under DOMA from sponsoring a same-sex foreign
national spouse for a green card. Practically, that meant that an American who
married someone of the same sex from a different country was unable to bring
their spouse to live legally in the United States as a heterosexual married
person could.
But the court’s decision
to strike down DOMA means those marriages must be recognized for immigration
purposes, a relief for some backers of the comprehensive immigration reform
bill -- which does not include language addressing immigration rights for
same-sex couples despite heavy lobbying from LGBT groups.
In a statement Wednesday,
Department of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano pledged to ensure that the
ruling extends in practice to same-sex binational couples.
"Working with our
federal partners, including the Department of Justice, we will implement
today's decision so that all married couples will be treated equally and fairly
in the administration of our immigration laws," she said.
LGBT rights groups had
vowed to keep pushing for the inclusion of the language on the Senate floor if
DOMA was upheld, pressure that could have frayed the delicate bipartisan
coalition that has shepherded the immigration legislation through the Senate.
One of those groups'
Senate champions, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., confirmed Wednesday that he would
not seek a floor vote on his amendment to the Senate immigration bill that
would have recognized the marriages of same-sex couples under immigration
law.
A visibly emotional Leahy
withheld that amendment during his panel’s mark-up of the immigration bill in
May, citing GOP threats to spike the overall legislation if the measure was
included.
“I do not believe we
should ask Americans to choose between the love of their life and love of their
country,” Leahy said at the time. “Discriminating against a segment of
Americans because of who they love is a travesty and it is ripping many
American families apart.”
During the June debate
over the bill, key Republicans have continued to call the Leahy language a
poison pill.
“If this bill has in it something that gives gay couples
immigration rights and so forth, it kills the bill. I'm done,” Sen. Marco Rubio
of Florida, a key GOP supporter of the bill, said earlier this month. Author of this article, Carrie Dann, NBC News.
Washington
D. C. -
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and Joint Committee on Taxation issued
two reports this week on the Senate Immigration Bill, S. 744. The first one
analyzes (or “scores”) the fiscal impact of the bill over the next 20 years and
the second one focuses on the impact some aspects of the bill would have on the
U.S. economy. According to these reports, the expected fiscal and economic
effects of the bill are overwhelmingly positive. All in all, S. 744 will help
reduce the federal budget deficit by $1.1 trillion over 20 years, will boost
the economy, and will not negatively affect U.S. workers. The Immigration
Policy Center has produced a fact sheet that highlights the expected benefits
of the bill on the U.S. budget, economy, and workforce. http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/s744.pdf
Posted by NY Immigration Lawyer Norka M. Schell Author: Immigration Policy Center June 12, 2013 The question
of whether the legalization provisions of the Senate bill should be linked to
border security provisions of the bill will be a recurring theme in the debate
of S.744. The first test of this question will come today, when the
Senate will consider Grassley
Amendment No. 1195 to S.744, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and
Immigration Modernization Act. What the amendment says: “On page 855, strike line 24 and all that
follows through page 856, line 9, and insert the following: (1) PROCESSING OF
APPLICATIONS FOR REGISTERED PROVISIONAL IMMIGRANT STATUS.--Not earlier than the
date upon which the Secretary has submitted to Congress a certification that
the Secretary has maintained effective control of the Southern border for a
period of not less 6 months, the Secretary may commence processing applications
for registered provisional immigrant status pursuant to section 245B of the Immigration
and Nationality Act, as added by section 2101 of this Act.”
What the amendment does: The amendment would delay the processing of the
11 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S. into Registered Provisional
Immigrant (RPI) status until the Secretary of Homeland Security has maintained
“effective control of the Southern border for at least 6 months.” This changes
the bill’s original intention of beginning the RPI registration process
immediately.
What is the impact on immigration reform? Grassley Amendment No. 1195 is
a continuation of the “enforcement
first” strategy that has been employed over the past two decades. The
reason for creating a comprehensive bill is the recognition that successful
immigration policy requires all of the components of reform to work
in tandem, not one after the other, but all together at the same time.
Creating a system in which the undocumented living in this U.S. have to wait
additional months or years after bill passage to get onto the books and into a
legal status, will effectively require the continuation of the status
quo. The idea of this bill is not to maintain the status quo, (which is
understood by everyone involved to be unacceptable) but to begin the process of
securing the border and regularizing the status of 11 million undocumented
immigrants at the same time.
On 5/21/13 the Senate
Judiciary Committee wrapped up weeks of work on immigration reform by passing the Bill S.744 the "Border Security Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act" out of committee by bipartisan vote of 13 to 5. The committee
considered 31 amendments, 16 of which passed (the majority on voice votes).
Many of the most controversial amendments were debated (none of which
passed) including: denying citizenship to anyone who had ever been in the
country illegally, providing immigration benefits to same sex couples, making
siblings and adult sons/daughters over the age of 31 eligible in the family
category, and making RPI recipients ineligible for tax benefits such as the
EITC and CTC. The following is a transcript of the May 21, 2013 meeting.
MAKEUP
BEGINS
10:43 am Sen. Leahy: No opening statement.
Sen. Grassley: I have several questions, but am only going to
ask one on health care. I think the bill rightly prohibits legalized
individuals from accessing health credits to buy health care, but along with
it, comes with the notion that employers can skirt penalties if they don't
cover these individuals. How would the bill ensure that those who are legalized
don't get public benefits, but don't disincentivize employers to displace or
give secondary preference to Americans
Sen.
Durbin: Under
this bill, there is an ambiguity. These RPU workers will not be entitled to the
subsidy to the health reform act. It's my understanding that they can purchase
it without subsidy. You've asked the right question, what impact does that have
on their employer? I will concede that this is an issue that is not totally
resolved.
Sen. Grassley: When you say it's unresolved at this point, is
that something you're continuing to work on it and will be resolved before the
bill is complete or that can't be even be handled. Sen. Durbin: I understand it's a finance committee
jurisdiction issue. Sen. Leahy: Sen. Grassley and I talked
yesterday, and we're going to keep going as there is a possibility that we can
finish today. Amendment Blumental 15 is
up for consideration. The amendment would move the physical presence date to
April 17, 2013. Sen. Blumenthal: I'm not going to ask for a vote on
it. The date in the bill now, December 31, 2011, is now an arbitrary cutoff.
But the effect is that 400,000 will be barred from walking that path to
citizenship. Those 400,000 or so people will in effect be in the same status,
in the shadows, of the people that we're now trying to bring out. Amendment Blumenthal 15 is
withdrawn.is up for consideration. The amendment would restrict eligibility for
the Child Tax Credit. Sen. Durbin: The Senator made an important
point. This does not apply to the 11 million, because they will receive Social
Security numbers. Yes, let's address fraud, and the Finance committee should,
but this bill.
Sen. Sessions: What's happening is that a person's filing
under a false Social Security name, and IRS assigns them an ITIN and files
their return. It's clearly a policy that's allowing illegal aliens in our
country to get federal checks. Surely we can agree that after this bill passes,
we shouldn't continue the policy of sending government benefits to people who
are entering illegally in the future.
Sen. Leahy: We have at so many times taken steps that would
harm children. And I'm not about to take a step to harm children. This would
harm numerous U.S. citizen children. We're all against the idea of fraud, but
this seems like an additional punitive measure that will harm a lot of low-wage
worker families and their children. I know so many extraordinary hard-working
people in my small state. I'm just not going to vote for something that has the
implication that they are just here to break the law. Sen. Sessions: I appreciate the Chairman's concern for
children, but I would like to emphasize that this amendment would prohibit the
plain rewarding of government benefits to those who come here illegally. Sen. Durbin: Would the Senator concede that there are three
categories of workers: Those who are here legally with Social Security number,
those who have declared themselves with ITIN number and are paying taxes, and
those who are perhaps working under someone's else's SSN. The Senator has
targeted the second group when the focus should be on the third. Amendment Sessions 30
fails on a vote of 8-10. Amendment Hirono 20 is up
for the consideration. The amendment would require DHS to collect demographic
data from RPI applicants. Modified by 2nd degree. Amendment Hirono 20 passes
by a voice vote. Amendment Grassley 17 is
up for the consideration. The amendment eliminates judicial review for
revocations and denials of RPI applications, except on challenges to the
constitutionality of the legalization provisions. Sen. Durbin: We acknowledge that the balances
in our three branches of government has kept us democratic. If you're to take
away this review, you're giving a bureaucrat the opportunity to make decisions
with any review. Sen. Schumer: This goes overboard. The
incentive to file frivolous claims is small because the individual has no right
to stay in the United States pending the court's decision unless you can show
that the claim is not frivolous. Amendment Grassley 17
fails on a vote of 6-12. Amendment Feinstein 13 is
up for the consideration. The amendment expands the grant program in the bill
to include individuals in blue card status. Modified by 2nd degree. Feinstein
2nd degree restores to the bill the power of the Consular official to deny a
visa. Amendment Feinstein 13
passes on a voice vote. Amendment Cornyn 4 is up
for consideration. Modified by 2nd degree. The amendment would require DHS to
identify victims of each criminal offense by waiver-eligible RPI applicants and
to consult with victims to determine whether applicants should be granted a
waiver. 2nd degree clarifies that DHS should work with prosecution agencies and
that the victims would not suffer adverse immigration consequences. Sen. Klobuchar: I appreciate the changes that have
been made, and I support this amendment. Sen. Leahy: I understand that we're changing the victim
notification period from 90 to 60 days. And that victim cannot be found or does
not respond, DHS can proceed. Sen. Cornyn: The chairman is correct. Sen. Durbin: I think the modifications really improve this
amendment. Amendment Cornyn 4 passes
on a voice vote. Amendment Cornyn 5 is up
for consideration. The amendment expands the situations in which the Secretary
is required to disclose information provided on RPI, RPI-adjustment, blue card,
DREAMer-adjustment, ag worker- adjustment applications. Sen. Cornyn: If it's good for victims of crime,
why is it not good for illegal immigrants? It would not prohibit individuals
from coming forward. The application would have been denied. The amendment
would also clarify that the State department can share visa records with other
countries on a case-by-case basis. Sen. Leahy: I'm concerned about a chilling effect. Sen. Cornyn: The confidentiality would be removed only if the
application is denied and all appeals are finished. Sen. Durbin: You have made your argument based on law
enforcement and national security, but i think you amendment goes further.
Because it also authorizes civil actions. Are you opening up civil and criminal
actions to past employers? Sen. Cornyn: I believe not. Amendment Cornyn 5 fails
on a vote of 9-9. Amendment Lee 10 is up for
consideration. The amendment defines requirements for establishing compliance
with federal tax obligations. The individual must prove compliance by a
preponderance of the evidence. Sen. Leahy: I have a concern that this is
really in the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee. Sen. Schumer: I understand where Sen. Lee is getting at, and I
believe Sen. Hatch on the Finance Committee has some ideas, too. We understand
that living in the shadows mean not keeping any records. But, we do have
another goal here. The goal is to set things right by allowing those in the
shadows to come out and to prevent new individuals from come in. As rigid as
this amendment is, it would delay and prevent many many people from coming out
of the shadows. Sen. Lee: I'm not understanding what is so rigid about this. Sen. Schumer: Let's say you have someone who has been working
at paying taxes for 12 years. Working for different employers, and can't
remember. What do you do? Sen. Lee: There's nothing particular rigid of this. I
understand the concern and I'd be happy to submit this for a voice vote. Sen. Sessions: it seems to be me you're not requiring the
government to investigate everyone. It's if you've been assessed a fine payment
by IRS. Maybe they are investigating now. Amendment Lee 10 fails by
a voice vote. Amendment Lee 8 is up for
consideration. The amendment would prohibit aliens who have absconded or have
attempted to reenter from receiving RPI status. Amendment Lee 8 fails by a
voice vote. Amendment Lee 12 is up for
consideration. The amendment prohibits the use of sworn affidavits to verify
the employment or education of RPIs applying for permanent residence. Sen. Lee: The RPIs would have work
authorization and they should have documentation for the duration of their RPI
status. Sen. Grassley: this amendment ought to be adopted so that we
don't repeat the mistakes of 1986. Sen. Durbin: This is how we learned the lesson from 1986.
These affidavits must come from non-relatives who have direct knowledge. If
sworn affidavits are used, one more document must be used to support. Sen. Sessions: Disclosure rules, let's say someone submits a
false affidavit, are they free to report to ICE agents? Sen. Durbin: I don't believe there is any prohibition from
that happening. Amendment Lee 12 fails by
a voice vote. Sen. Leahy: We have five amendments left for
Subtitle A, 28 for the rest of the bill. We will continue back here at 2:30. 2:39 pm Sen.
Grassley:
Senator Lee had an amendment that we defeated. And it was whether we had
learned any lessons from 1986. Right before we broke for lunch, we had a vote
on Lee 12 (prohibiting use of sworn affidavits) that concerns me that we're
repeating those mistakes. Amendment Cruz 3 is up for
consideration. The amendment would remove the path of citizenship for anyone
who has ever been "willfully" present in the U.S. unlawfully.
Modified by 2nd degree which adds a savings clause that it would not impact
those granted asylum. Sen. Cruz: If legislation that includes a
path to citizenship passes, like it did in 1986, I have little doubt that we
will be back here in 20-30 years with not just 11 million, but 20-30 million.
We need a solution that respect the rule of law and ensures that there are meaningful
consequences to breaking the law. If this amendment is adopted to the current
bill, the effect will be that those 11 million will still be eligible for RPI
status, for legal status, and for LPR status, and would be out of the shadows.
This amendment would allow that to happen. It would remove the path of
citizenship that shows there are real consequence that respect the rule of law
and treat legal immigrants with the fairness they deserve. I want immigration
reform to pass, so if the objective is the pass common sense immigration
reform, then we should look for areas of bipartisan agreement to come together.
and if this amendment pass, the chances of this bill becoming law would be
greater. Sen. Leahy: My concern with this is that it would gut the bill.
It gives a false promise of citizenship on the one hand, and then takes it back
for the vast majority of the 11 million who would not qualify. Sen. Schumer: I think this shows the distance some of us are
apart. If we don't have a path to citizenship, there is no reform, is how some
of us feel. To go to a European system where people can work but never can
become a citizen fosters alienation. This amendment goes against everything
America stands for. Two classes of Americans, no. Sen. Flake: We don't want to have millions of people who want
to become citizens, but never can. We don't want that. It's important people
aspire to that. We don't want a second citizen or communities of them. Not
everyone would seek. In 1986, only about 40% of those offered a path to
citizenship took it. And a significant number of individuals under this bill
will also choose not to take it. But for those who really want it, who want to
earn it, they ought to have that opportunity. Sen. Lee: Out of fairness of those who have tried to play by
the rules, it makes sense to give an additional benefit. Sen. Blumenthal: I think there are other ways to avoid the
negative consequences, stronger enforcement of other features of this bill that
is designed to prevent those negative consequences. This amendment goes to the
very core of the values and traditions of America. The reason people want to
come here is that we are a beacon of liberty. We would be diminished as a
people by second-class citizenship, actually it would be less than second-class
citizenship. It would be two tiers of residency. Sen. Sessions: With regard to the European situation, it is
instructive. Europe, however, does not provide that children can attain
citizenship. That is not what would happen here if citizenship was not provided
to those who came illegally. Sen. Cruz: In my opinion, the current bill does not fix the
problem. It may incentivize further illegal immigration, further exploitation.
I think anyone can have an opportunity to become a citizen, if you come legally.
And one way to do that is to expand legal immigration. Tying immigration reform
hostage to a path to citizenship is not a strategy to passing a bill. Amendment Cruz 3 fails by
a vote of 5-13. Amendment Cruz 2 is up for
consideration. The amendment prohibits all aliens who entered or remained in
the U.S. while not in lawful status from being eligible for federal, state, or
local government means-tested benefit or under Affordable Care Act. Sen. Durbin: This amendment says ok, if you
become citizens, under no means would we provide any help. What kind of America
are you thinking about? That we would have millions of citizens that couldn't
have help with their children's education, or to provide basic health care. I
don't think that's an America I want to be a part of. Sen. Sessions: This is consistent to the Sponsors' intention
that those legalized would not be eligible for benefits for 13 years. Sen. Cruz: I would note that two of the amendments I offered
is to expand legal immigration. This is an issue that is near and dear to many
of us, and personal to many of us. The purpose of the amendments I have offered
here are to fix the problem. To leave 11 million in the shadows if there is no
path to citizenship is the less compassionate decision. Amendment Cruz 2 fails on
a vote of 6-12. Amendment Flake 4 is up
for consideration. The amendment clarifies that individuals in RPI status is
not eligible for any federal means-tested benefits and would revoke status for
those convicted of fraudulently claiming or receiving such a benefit. It would
also require DHS Secretary to conduct audits. Sen. Grassley: I just want to raise a question.
Between now and the floor, I think it would be a better thing if it was someone
other than the Secretary doing the auditing, and I would suggest the Inspector
General. Amendment Flake 4 passes
on a voice vote. Amendment Flake 3 is up
for consideration. The amendment requires that RPIs undergo background checks
at the time of renewal of RPI status.
Modified by two 2nd degrees (Flake-2nd degree; Schumer 2nd
degree). Sen. Grassley: I read Sen. Flake's amendment as
an improvement. But as with Sen. Schumer's 2nd degree, I see it as going back
to the way it was. Sen. Feinstein: What is the innocent in "brief, casual,
and innocent"? Sen. Flake: What we don't want is someone who leaves the
country to violate their RPI status. Sen. Flake: It's a term of art in immigration law. Sen. Schumer: It is used in current law frequently, it just
means it's brief. Sen. Flake: It's part of the Fleuti doctrine. Sen. Sessions: The 6-year review, as I understand it, the RPI
is to have a job, be a full-time student, or… If they don't meet the standards,
will they be deported? Sen. Schumer: Yes, if they don't meet the standards, they can
be deported. Sen. Sessions: Can be, should be, Are we going to deport the
people. Sen. Schumer: Remember, we're going to be under a new system.
Right now, they're here, they can get a job. If you apply the existing world,
obviously it doesn't make sense. If you apply the world that we're trying to make
in the next 6 years, it make sense. Sen. Sessions: I'm nots seeing a commitment to see it
enforced. Sen. Flake: This year, we had about 400,000 deportations, so
it is happening. Certainly, with this new legislation, they will be
identifiable, they won't be able to gain employment with mandatory E-Verify.
Deportations can occur, they will occur, with this new legislation, more
easily. Amendment Flake 3 passes
by a voice vote. Amendment Hatch 10 is up
for consideration. Modified by 2nd degree Hatch-Schumer amendment that
consolidates Hatch 10-17 and 20. Sen Leahy: We'll have a vote on the 2nd
degree to accept it and open it up for 2nd degree amendments to it. Hach-Schumer 2nd
degree amendment is up for consideration, to be accepted as substitute to be
considered. Hatch-Schumer 2nd degree
amendment passes 16-2. Sen. Schumer: We make it easier for
multi-national companies to transfer employees. We make sure that if there is
an American worker that they get the job, but we also make sure that if the
American worker doesn't fit the job, that the foreign worker can get the job,
instead of now when companies relocate. Sen. Grassley: The amendment allows the escalator cap to be
fluctuated. The amendment does nothing to help unemployed American workers. Sen. Leahy: There is a floor vote. I encourage
everyone to come back. We will go late tonight. Moderately good pizza has been
ordered. Sen. Durbin: When you take a look at the
underlying bill, and the amendment from Hatch and Schumer, it makes an effort
toward what Senator Grassley and I have done in our bill. First, companies will
be required to recruit American workers. On H-1B dependent companies, if we
feel that you hare hiring American workers 85% of the time, we're going to
treat you differently, but if you have a firm with more than 15% foreign
workers, you will have additional requirements to recruit American workers.
Most of us think of H-1Bs as high-tech companies hiring engineers. Most of the
H-1Bs were outsourcing firms, where they aren't hiring engineers to be
engineers, but hiring engineers to placed in firms temporarily. And it deals
with that. I would've liked to have seen a different amendment, but this is a
dramatic improvement to current law. Sen. Graham: The most important thing is that you've (Sen.
Hatch) made the bill better. I can say without any hesitation that the
opportunity of American workers being hired in these sectors is going up
because of this. We went too far, Senator Hatch brought us back. We made it too
hard on the companies and too much power on the bureaucracy. What you've done,
Senator Hatch, to this bill is to make it functional. First Grassley amendment
to the Hatch-Schumer is up for consideration. Sen. Grassley: This amendment would require all
employers to attest that they made a good faith effort in recruiting American
workers. My amendment strikes down the watered-down language in the Hatch
amendment. My amendment would subject all employers to the higher standard. Sen. Sessions: I believe prudence would tell us to be careful
as we go forward. I don't know where this economy is going, but most economists
say we're not creating the kind of jobs we need to be creating. Under this
bill, we'll be bringing in 1.2 million immigrants, for the 900,000 jobs that is
projected in the 5 years. America is not a technological wasteland as the tech
lobbyists would have you believe. Sen. Hatch: We can't continue to hope that American companies
don't move their operations overseas because of our visa policies. First Grassley amendment
to Hatch-Schumer fails on a vote of 2-15. (1 pass) Second Grassley amendment
to the Hatch-Schumer is up for consideration. The amendment protect American
women workers STEM field working in companies hiring H-1Bs. Second Grassley amendment
to Hatch-Schumer fails on a vote of 3-15. Third Grassley amendment
to Hatch-Schumer is up for consideration. Third Grassley amendment
to Hatch-Schumer fails on a vote of 2-16. Fourth Grassley amendment
to Hatch-Schumer is up for consideration. The amendment would apply the same
wage requirement to all employers. Sen. Grassley: The bill currently requires H-1B
dependent employers to offer Level 2 wages to nonimmigrants. This would make
apply it to all employers. Fourth Grassley amendment
to Hatch-Schumer fails on a vote of 3-15. Amendment Hatch 10 as
amended by Hatch-Schumer passes on a voice vote. Sen. Leahy: Now we're moving on to Subtitle B
& C involving agricultural workers and future immigration. Amendment Whitehouse 4 is
up for consideration. The amendment facilitates admission and naturalization of
individuals who are employees of Federal national security, science, and
technology labs. Amendment Whitehouse 4
passes on a voice vote. Amendment Grassley 16 is
up for consideration. The amendment allows for the adjustment for inflation of
all fees and fines in S.744. Sen. Grassley: This leaves discretion to the
Secretary on the index. Amendment Grassley 16
fails on a voice vote. Amendment Franken 9 is up
for consideration. The amendment allows battered immigrants to be eligible to
receive certain public and assisted housing. Sen. Franken: The amendment reconciles two laws
so that battered women who are here lawfully will be able to receive housing. Amendment Franken 9 passes
on a voice vote. Amendment Session 2 is up
for consideration. The amendment imposes a 20 million numerical limitation on
individuals admitted as LPRs during the 10 fiscal years. Sen. Sessions: I won't ask for a vote on this. But
I would like to know how many we are receiving in immigration. There are 11
million, 4.5 million who would be given accelerated admission who are currently
held down by the caps, and then 1.4 million for 10 years, that's about 30
million. Amendment Sessions 2 is
withdrawn. Amendment Coons 3 is up
for consideration. The amendment allows surviving spouses and children of U.S.
government employees abroad who are killed in the line of duty. Amendment Coons 3 passes
on a voice vote. Amendment Cornyn 8 is up
for consideration. Modified by 2nd degree amendment. The amendment adds
communities near closed or realigned military bases in the definition of
targeted employment area in the EB-5 regional center context. Amendment Cornyn 8 passes
on a voice vote. Amendment Hirono 1 is up
for consideration. The amendment excepts children of certain Filipino World War
II veterans from the numerical limitations on immigrant visas. Amendment Hirono passes on
a voice vote. Sen. Whitehouse: We don't have an amendment at the
moment, but Sen. Graham and I are working on ways to address the cyber attacks
One approach is to allow the Secretary to designate where the attacks are and
another is to allow a S visa for someone who will testify or work against these
cyber networks. Amendment Cruz 4 is up for
consideration. The amendment modifies the numerical limitations for
family-sponsored and employment-based visas. It also removes per country caps. Sen. Cruz: I am a strong advocate of legal
immigration. Sen. Schumer: In our bill, we have a delicate balance. This
amendment would cut back on family by more than 25% and I would urge in
defeated. Sen. Sessions: While this would allow more immigrants in, the
policy provisions in it are very good unlike the bill before us today. Sen. Cruz: Indeed as it is structured, it would allow those
who come here for employment to come with their families, so some of the family
reunification is shifted to the employment. Amendment Cruz 4 fails on
a vote of 6-12. Amendment Coons 9 is up
for consideration. Modified by 2nd degree. Sen. Coons: The amendment modifies Coons 1 which would require
enhanced notification to individuals in the E-Verify system. This 2nd degree
reduces the enhanced notification the cases where a system returns a non-confirmation. Amendment Coons 9 passes
on a voice vote. Amendment Grassley 19 is
up for consideration. The amendment mandates USCIS to file reports to Congress
on fraud. Modified to annual reports instead of quarterly. Amendment Grassley 19
passes on a voice vote. Amendment Hirono 10 is up
for consideration. The amendment permits U.S. citizen suffering extreme
hardship to petition for an adult son and daughter or a sibling. Sen. Graham: In the future we are going to have
a merit based economic system. Economic system with a family component. I
respect what you are trying to do, but it would upset the balance. Sen. Hirono: How would a single woman fair under the point
system. Sen. Graham: If you have family, you get 10 points. You get
points for learning English. You will get points if you have desirable skills.
I've asked for a new way around doing immigration that is economic based. Sen. Blumenthal: I would like to join this measure as a
co-sponsor and say that I support it. Sen. Schumer: I reluctantly against this amendment. As Senator
Graham said, we had a very careful balance in this bill. There are a large
group of people who want a robust family immigration system. Others wanted a
robust economic based immigration. Families do really well under this system.
We have a petition system. This is a good amendment, but we could come up with
amendments on the other side to take away from family and give to economic
migration. Trying to get bipartisan compromise, I have to reluctantly vote
note. Sen. Durbin: The reason we have a CIR bill that will help 11
million Americans is because we sat down and reached an agreement. It was a
give and take. I commend Senator Graham and Flake for voting no when it was
tough. I must hold firm. Sen. Whitehouse: There are times you have to stand by the
agreement that put this together. Sen. Graham: I get it. I was 21 when my mom died and 22 when
my dad died. I adopted my 13 year old sister to make sure she got air force
benefits. I get it. I've been bending over backwards to have a strong family
component. I'm not going back to a chain migration system. As to hard votes,
these are two hard votes for my colleagues from New York and Illinois. But I've
been voting for 6 days. Sen. Feinstein: I think it has been a unique process because
those people who are members who have put this together and stood together. My
hope is that that bipartisan agreement is enough so that what happened on the
floor the last time doesn't happen again. I think this amendment would drive
apart the agreement. Is this worth no bill. I've decided it is not. So, I think
it is a fair system as is. I know it is hard for people to accept, but I want a
bill. We need to keep the support. I am a no vote on the amendment. Sen. Hirono: That this is not an amendment about chain
migration. It is a narrowly crafted amendment that does not reopen sibling or
married children over 31. It is for very specific situation where a U.S.
citizen would suffer extreme hardship. Sen. Sessions: I would not that a points system is something I
would support but it only involves 8 to 16% of people who would be coming in
the future. Amendment Hirono 10 fails
on a vote of 7-11. Amendment Session 2 and
Amendment Session 8 are withdrawn. Amendment Sessions 15 is
up for consideration. The amendment would remove judicial review and shift visa
authority from Department of State to DHS. Sen. Sessions: This deals with an important
matter that I believe the committee and gang would recognize. One of the
problems we discovered was that Secretary Napolitano said that who issues visa
revocations is not clear. This amendment would provide current authority to
both Secretaries of DHS and DOS to revoke visas. I would ask my colleagues to
support the amendment. Sen. Leahy: I'm not a fan of court stripping legislation. Sen. Schumer: I want to oppose this amendment on similar
grounds that the chairman did. It takes away any judicial review ever. That is
not the hallmark of democracy. I have to say, do we want to live in that kind
of country? A country with no due process for people we have invited to come
here? I would urge this amendment be defeated. Sen. Sessions: Under current law, the State Department can
revoke visas. Sen. Schumer: They can get a revocation hearing. Sen. Sessions: Someone who is hear is hear at the pleasure of
the U.S. I think you are constantly creating litigation that goes beyond
anything we have done before. I know immigration lawyers that you like to meet
with like to litigate. I think he amendment is correct, and i believe the
Secretary of Homeland Security ought to be given this authority. Amendment Sessions 15
fails by a voice vote Amendment Hirono 11 is up
for consideration. The amendment would require a GAO study on the impact of the
merit based system on family. Under this amendment, the GAO must submit a study
no later than 7 years after the date of enactment. Amendment Hirono 11 passes
by a voice vote. Amendment Klobuchar 5 is
up for consideration. Modified by Klouchar 2nd degree.
Sen. Klobuchar: This is a small but important
amendment that would increase access to health care. It is an extension of the
Conrad 30. This was a bill that I introduced with others. We have a shortage of
doctors in this country. The amendment clarifies the bill and builds upon the bipartisan
agreement. Senator Feinstein's Amendment 13 moves the dual intention provisions
to another part of the code but forgot the doctors. It adds the doctors back
in.
Amendment Klobuchar 5
passes by a voice vote. Amendment Leahy 7 is up
for consideration. The amendment recognizes for purposes of the INA, any
marriage entered into in full compliance with the laws of the State or foreign
country within which such marriage was performed. Sen. Leahy: People face discrimination based
on who they love. I understand that not all states have reached this point of
being compassionate as my home state of Vermont. Just since the introduction of
immigration reform, we have had 3 states join Vermont. Regardless of state
efforts, federal law continues to discriminate against people based on who they
love. My amendment would not change a single state law. DOMA makes 1,000 of
American families left secure. IN the immigration context, if you are an
American and fall in love with someone of the same sex in another country and
get married legally, you cannot petition for your spouse. I don't want to be
the Senator who made someone choose between love of their spouse and love of
their country. Sen. Graham: I think a lot of folks have been wondering what
you would do about this issue and how you would handle it. I want to be the
first to say that your passion for marriage equality has not changed. The country
is going through a debate on how to define marriage state by state. When it
comes to immigration reform, we have put together the most effective coalition
since 2005. I've been asked a lot about what would this mean. If we try to
redefine marriage w/in the immigration debate, it would mean the bill would
fall apart because the coalition would fall apart. There are a lot of people in
S.C. who would support this bill but find it a bridge too far. The courts are
dealing with this issue. I would just urge my colleagues to understand that
traditional marriage is a well-accepted concept. When it comes to passing this
immigration bill, interjecting a new definition of marriage would be a bridge
too far. I would urge my colleagues to understand that this would fracture the
coalition. I have an obligation to listen to the people of South Carolina. This
is the best chance I've seen since dealing with the issue. I support
traditional marriage without animosity. But not only could I not support the
amendment, but I believe that it would break the coalition. Sen. Leahy: Does the Senator see anything in the amendment
that would require your state to change the definition of marriage or require
your state to pass new laws? Sen. Graham: You got me on immigration but not on marriage. Sen. Feinstein: One of the cases before the Supreme Court is
an equal protection case. The Supreme Court may settle this all and would make
this moot. This amendment would assure that same sex couples are accorded the
same protections of heterosexual couples. In short, same sex marriages would be
entitled to equal treatment under the law. There would be no need to create a
different category. There is a problem. Like Senator Hirono's amendment, this
could blow this bill apart. I don't won't to blow this bill apart. I don't want
to lose Senator Graham's vote. I am for what Senator Leahy is proposing, I
would just say hold up on this amendment at this time. I think we can get it
done in a way that will not blow apart this bill. Sen. Leahy: I listen to people who support what I'm doing and
those who don't. I said I would certainly hear from anyone who wishes to speak.
I held this to the end so we could get through the rest of the amendments. Sen. Flake: What a pleasure it has been to be so new in the
Senate and be part of this process. I think this process that we have gone
through has been a real antidote to this process. You haven't cut any person
off and you have allowed anyone to offer any amendment. This immigration bill
is a heavy lift as we all know going through the process. We can only make that
lift if we have the broadest coalition possible. This is an issue that is being
addressed by the courts right now. I think it would certainly upset the
coalition right now. It would certainly mean this bill would not move forward,
which would be a real shame. I thank you for this process. I hope the amendment
could be withdrawn. Sen. Durbin: I'm a cosponsor of UAFA and Senator Feinstein's
bill. My position I hope is very clear. What we've witnessed is an order of
priorities. I can tell you I know how difficult it is to withdraw an amendment.
I want to make certain that the people who would benefit from immigration
reform get it. There will be another day. I hope that today we can keep this
coalition together. Sen. Leahy: When I talk to legally married couples in my
state, and they say that we can't dream because we are the same sex. I
constantly ask myself how I would feel. I appreciate what you have said about
me and this process Senator from Arizona and South Carolina. Sen. Schumer: I too want to add my voice to thank you for
having an open and fair process. I would also like to say that i know your
passion on this issue. It is consistent with you record and beliefs. I want to
say that this is one of the most excruciating and difficult decisions I have
had to make. I know our constitution and core principles calls for equality. It
is rank discrimination, and I believe in it strongly. It is a basic principle
of fairness that you should not treat one class of people differently. Should
same sex partners have the same rights as heterosexual couples? Absolutely. I
believe so strongly they should. The law needs to change. I believe that the
American people support this. I have urged inclusion of these principles in an
immigration bill. Those in the group believe that it will rip apart the bill.
But all I can do is try to persuade, bargain, and cajole. I cannot compel them
to believe and ask otherwise. They've made perfectly clear that if this
provision is added to the bill, they will have no choice but to abandon this
bill. I wish it were otherwise. The bottom line is that in the political
reality in which we operate, those who hold differently have the power to stop
this bill. If we make the effort to add it to this bill, they will walk away.
They have told me publicly and privately. No equality, no immigration bill.
Nothing gets accomplishment. Much as it pains me, I cannot support this
amendment if it will bring down this bill. I want to let them know that I will
be here and ready to work with the LGBT community to advance the cause of
equality. Sen. Franken: This is the definition of a Hobbesian choice. In
my bones, I believe in equality. I believe in equal protection of the law. I
think Senator Durbin and Senator Schumer have said it. This will get resolved
hopefully sooner than later. Boy I wish my colleagues on the other side felt
differently. It is wrong to discriminate against people but I do not want the
LGBT people who would be hurt by this whole bill not passing to be hurt by this
falling apart. Sen. Leahy: I heard a Senator not on this committee, not in my
party, that if I included this it would kill this. I believe fixing our broken
immigration system is this committee's top priority. I believe this legislation
will make us safer, it will help spur the economy. It is not the bill I would
draft. It is with a heavy heart that the Senator that I heard on that radio
talk show who said the whole immigration legislation would be killed if I
offered this amendment. I will withhold this amendment. I say this with a heavy
heart. Amendment Leahy 7 is
withdrawn. Sen. Graham: I want to thank you for the way
you have conduct this hearing. This is the best mark-up I've been involved in.
We will have this debate. But it should be done outside this bill. Your
decision today has represented the best opportunity to get this bill passed.
You set an example. Sen. Whitehouse: I didn't want to close without expressing my
appreciate for all of the members of the committee but particularly Senator
Durbin, Schumer, Graham, and Flake. I think this has been very impressively
done. Sen. Whitehouse: I didn't want to close without expressing my
appreciate for all of the members of the committee but particularly Senator
Durbin, Schumer, Graham, and Flake. I think this has been very impressively
done. Sen. Hatch: I commend this committee for the good work on this
bill. I filed 4 amendments on financial issues that would make this bill
better. These are not poison pill amendments. I filed them in good faith. Thus
far, the authors of this legislation have shown a willingness to work with me.
I will vote this bill out of committee, but if these issues are not addressed
on the floor, I will vote against this bill on the floor. I think we have come
a long way, and I want us to continue that will get people in the House to
support. Sen. Schumer: We have talked a little about the financial
amendments but he has my commitment to try and work something out. I will give
it my college try best. Each side will have to give, but this has been an
excellent process. We hope to continue this process on the floor. Sen. Klobuchar: I wish we could move forward with marriage
equality, but I understand why. I appreciate all the work and the heart felt
views. I wanted to say how proud I am of this committee. This has been the
longest mark-up I've been involved in. This has been a bill that focused on
security. I'm proud of this bill from the economic perspective. As well as the
pathway to citizenship. Thank you for this civil mark-up. Sen. Flake: Asked for adoption of technical amendments for
Flake 3. Sen. Coons: I want to add my thanks for a positive mark-up on
this bill. But immigration also implicates are most fundamental values. There
has been many tough votes cast. There are many members of the Gang of 8 who had
offers they wanted be refrained from offering. Whether it is through court
decision or amendments on the floor or legislation, Iit is my intent to end
discrimination against same sex couples. I'm grateful at how hard you have
worked. I recognize this evening may have not been the evening to consider
UAFA. Sen. Cornyn: I want to thank you for a good mark-up. My only
regret is that more of my amendments did not pass. None of us are guaranteed
that our amendments will pass. I too have been involved in this debate the
entire time I've been in the Senate. I think I've made clear that the only way
that I can support a piece of legislation if it credibly dealt with border
security, which this bill does not, if it deals with 40% of visa overstays,
which I look forward to working with Senator Feinstein on the floor, and an
effective work site enforcement. The American people aren't mad at people who
come here to work. I believe the American people are fundamentally
compassionate. I believe if we deal with those issues. I regret that I am going
to vote no on the bill coming out of committee. I will vote yes on a motion to
proceed on the floor and encourage my colleagues to do the same. I believe it is
important to get on the bill on the floor. I don't know if it will ever meet my
standards on the floor. I can't vote for something that is not credible but I
will work together with colleagues to further improve the bill on the floor. I
do congratulate the gang of 8 in moving the bill forward. Sen. Blumenthal: Like my colleagues, I want to thank you for
your leadership and the compassion and commitment you brought to this debate. I
also want to thank the ranking member for enabling us to improve this bill. I
want to thank the group of 8. These deliberations have been what I thought the
U.S. Senate would be. Finally, I thank you Mr. Chairman for your commitment to
UAFA which I cosponsored. The greatest nation in the history of the world
should not make people choose between living in the country they love and
living with the person they love. I believe that there will be other
opportunities. Again, I thank you Mr. Chairman. Sen. Hirono: I do support your marriage amendment, I hope we
can move forward to repeal DOMA. As a new Senator, it has been a real honor to
be a part of this process. Sen. Cruz: I would like to than the Chairman for his
willingness to consider the amendments and for allowing vigorous debate on
those amendments. This has been a long and painstaking mark-up, and I thank you
for keeping it open. At the outset, I hoped this mark-up would be a productive
mark-up of this bill. I noted the majority had the votes. I will note with
regret that I believe that is what has happened. I want common sense
immigration reform to pass. I think our immigration system is broken. I think
there are large majorities who want to get immigration reform to pass. This
bill does not stop the problem. Human tragedy would flow as a direct result of
this bill. I believe this bill will not become law because it will not pass the
House of Representatives and become law. In the course of this mark-up, I've
introduced 5 amendments. One of the greatest failings of this bill is that it
is almost utterly toothless with respect to the border. I think it is
unfortunate that we saw the votes that we did. Sen. Grassley: Coming into the debate I think I made my
position clear. I vote for amnesty in 1986. Now we are back discussing the same
problems with the same solutions. I hope we reach that point [where we fix this
once and for all]. The sponsors of the bill want us to believe that it will be
different. No one would dispute that this bill is legalization first and
enforcement later. Yes, immigration reform is very much desired because the
system is broken. But it is pretty much based on securing the borders. I used
the committee process to attempt to strengthen border security. At the end of
the day and with the power of majority, argued against securing the border for
another decade the triggers are inefficient and ineffective. This bill falls
short of what I want to see in a strong immigration bill. In Iowa, one of the
resentments is that people who have gone through legally are resentful of
people who jumped over the gate. I remain optimistic that on the floor we can
vote on common sense amendments to improve the bill. Again, I respect that
process we have had here in this committee. We had an open process which isn't
new or unexpected. I'm glad that we continued this tradition. Now the hard work
begins to fix this bill. Absent significant changes on the Senate Floor, the
house should take up their own product. I thank the Chairman for working
constructively. I will vote this bill to the floor. I hope that nobody has
their mind made up on exactly how this bill will end up. I won't know if I'm
for this bill or not until it gets to this process. The system is broke. Sen. Leahy: I will put my whole statement in the record.
First, I appreciate what Senators have said about the openness and fairness of
this process. I want to thank every single Senator for cooperating. I want to
single out 4 Senators for special recognition who worked many hours beyond to
put this together. We've tried to work out the best and fairest way. This is
not the bill I would have drafted. I voted for amendments that have been
rejected and against amendments that have been adopted. My biggest regret is
that this amendment will not protect all Americans. I hope that our history,
our values and our decency as a people take action. We're Americans. We need an
immigration system that lives up to American values. I call the roll on final
passage of the legislation as amended. S.
744 passes by a vote of 13-5.
