Border bill’s support slipping

Even as the Senate voted Tuesday to restart the stalled debate on immigration legislation, Democratic support for the bill appeared to be slipping, and could jeopardize it as much as fierce Republican opposition does.

A handful of Democrats who could be crucial to the bill’s fate, including California’s Barbara Boxer, remains undecided. And Tuesday, five Democrats who welcomed debate on the issue a month ago switched position and voted to oppose further discussion of the bill.

The 64-35 procedural vote to move to a debate -- four more votes than the required 60 -- resuscitated the controversial bill, which collapsed earlier this month in a partisan dispute. But the vote also exposed hardened opposition among Republicans and increased skepticism among Democrats.

The Senate plans to start debate today on 26 amendments to the bill. A crucial vote on whether to end the debate will probably come Thursday. That will also require 60 votes, a threshold that may be impossible to reach if wavering Democrats reject the bill.

Democrats who are wary of the bill worry about its changes to the family-based immigration system, its border-security provisions, its impact on American workers and its sprawling scope. Conservatives have branded it “amnesty” for lawbreakers who they say should be forced out.

Nine Democrats voted against debating the bill. Illinois Sen. Richard J. Durbin, who as the No. 2 Democrat is responsible for lining up support for the party’s priorities, called them “a tough bunch.” There had been efforts to appeal to them, he said, “but there’s a limit to how far you can go.”

The Democrats who changed their minds and voted against debating the bill were Evan Bayh of Indiana, Mary L. Landrieu of Louisiana, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia and Debbie Stabenow of Michigan.

Bayh, McCaskill and Stabenow said Tuesday that they would watch to see how the bill was amended, but that they were doubtful they would support it.

“I’ll keep an open mind,” McCaskill said, but she quickly added that she could not imagine the bill could get her vote.

Several Democrats who voted to proceed with a debate -- including Boxer, Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, Robert Menendez of New Jersey and Jim Webb of Virginia -- also remain skeptical that they will be able to vote for the bill.

The architects of the bill, the president and top administration officials have deemed the legislation vital to fix the immigration system and have concentrated on winning over Republicans, fashioning several major amendments to appeal to them.

But they have made few public efforts to mollify unconvinced Democrats, whose votes may now make the difference between the bill’s failure or success.

Democrats uneasy about the bill have been allowed to offer several amendments to change the legislation, a factor that convinced some to vote to restart debate and, depending on the outcome, could persuade them to support the bill.

Boxer will be lobbied by Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who plans to be in Washington today to push for the bill.

Senate aides also say the bill’s backers have worked hard to explain it to lawmakers, and insist that Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has been very engaged. “Sen. Reid delivered 80% of his caucus,” said Reid spokesman Jim Manley. “He’s worked hard to convince as many Democrats as possible to vote for this bill.”

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, who a White House staffer said had “basically been in residence” on Capitol Hill pushing for the bill, said Tuesday that he had been working hard with members of both parties.

Even so, Angela Kelley of the National Immigration Forum, an advocacy group that supports the bill, said she had been troubled that efforts to woo Republicans seemed to have been more intense than efforts to bring Democrats on board. “Every vote could be a deciding vote; it’s going to be close,” she said.

She said that the bill’s lead Democratic architect, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, had his hands full with negotiations and might not have had as much time to cultivate Democratic votes as needed. “Kennedy is working the backroom, and you can’t work the backroom and the floor at the same time,” Kelley said. “He’s stretched thin.”

The bill would bolster border security and make it more difficult for illegal immigrants to be hired. Republicans sought the bill’s temporary-worker program and shift in future immigration to a point system that would give weight to immigrants with skills and education, instead of the current emphasis on family ties. In exchange, Democrats got a way for the estimated 12 million people living in the U.S. illegally to become legal by paying fees and fines.

Bush, who has lobbied a number of GOP lawmakers in recent weeks, on Tuesday called the bill “a careful compromise.”

“The bill we’ve worked hard to craft is an important piece of legislation that addresses the needs of a failed system,” he said.

The bill’s critics, meanwhile, promised to keep fighting to kill the legislation in the Senate, and, if necessary, in the House. “It’s DOA in the House,” Rep. Mark Souder (R-Ind.) said at a news conference.

House Republicans passed a resolution Tuesday disapproving of the immigration bill 114-23. Democrats have said that at least 70 House Republicans would have to support a bill for it to pass there.

Senate opponents of the bill made a short-lived bid Tuesday to obstruct debate. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) forced a step that required Senate clerks to read all 373 pages of the amendments to the bill before debate could proceed. That marathon reading was later called off by another opponent of the bill.

On Tuesday, 24 Republicans joined 39 Democrats, including California’s two senators, Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, and one independent in favor of the debate; 25 Republicans, nine Democrats and one independent voted against it.

In addition to the five Democrats who switched positions to vote no, Montana’s Jon Tester and Max Baucus, North Dakota’s Byron L. Dorgan and West Virginia’s Robert C. Byrd also voted against debate -- as they did when the Senate first took up the bill May 21.

Democrats share some concerns with Republicans. Bayh would like to see improved border-security provisions, although the bill includes $4.4 billion to spend on such measures. Tester and Stabenow object to the broad scope of the bill, and said they would prefer a focus on border security. Like almost all of the other undecided Democrats, both said they would wait to see how amendments changed the bill before they decided whether to support it.

“I just think the stuff with border security and port security is fine, but everything else in that bill from my perspective is already taken care of in current law,” Tester said. “And if we can’t enforce current law, how can we enforce new ones?”

Webb said his support would be contingent on the fate of an amendment he planned to offer that would give legal status only to those illegal immigrants who had been in the country for four years or longer, and would eliminate a requirement that they return home first. If it passes, Webb said, he would support the bill. “If not, I won’t,” he said.

McCaskill pinpointed work-site enforcement as a concern, citing a congressional study that concluded the bill would only reduce illegal immigration by 13%. She said she thought enforcement against employers would affect illegal immigration. “We don’t need a new bill to do that,” she said. “We just need a commitment on the part of the Department of Justice.”

McCaskill and Menendez complained about the GOP provision that would limit the number of foreign family members U.S. citizens would be able to bring into the country. McCaskill also questioned the proposed point system’s failure to allot many points for family ties. “The idea that we can’t give points for legal American citizens to get their family into the country? That’s ludicrous,” she said.

Menendez said he was concerned about amendments written by the bill’s Republican backers, including one that would require adult illegal immigrants seeking legal status to make a trip home within two years after the bill’s enactment or face deportation.

“The tilt and tenor of amendments written by the Republican grand bargainers are becoming increasingly onerous and impractical,” Menendez said in a statement.

nicole.gaouette@latimes.com

noam.levey@latimes.com

--

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX)

Immigration overhaul

Here are some key elements of the bipartisan Senate measure ...

* Allows illegal immigrants who were in the country as of Jan. 1 to gain “Z visas” if they pay fees and fines and pass a background check. Allows them eventually to become citizens after paying more fines, holding jobs and learning English. Heads of households would have to return to their home countries to apply for permanent resident visas, known as green cards.

* Creates a temporary-worker program that would allow as many as 200,000 guest workers per year to enter on two-year “Y visas” that could be renewed twice, provided they returned to their home countries for a year between each stint. Ends the program after five years.

* Prevents the Y and Z visa programs from taking effect until security and enforcement triggers are met, including adding 20,000 border agents, 370 miles of fencing, 300 miles of vehicle barriers and a new worker-verification system to prevent the hiring of illegal workers. Provides an immediate $4.4 billion to fund the measures.

* Creates an employment-based point system for new immigrants to qualify for green cards based on their educations and skill levels, and limits visa preferences for family members of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents.

... and some major amendments to be considered before a final vote.

* Crack down on people who remain after their visas expire and require that all illegal immigrant heads of households seeking lawful status return home as long as they meet a certain wealth threshold -- offered by Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) and Mel Martinez (R-Fla.).

* Limit legalization to unlawful immigrants who have been in the country for four years or more, by Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.).

* Require all adult illegal immigrants to return home within two years before gaining permanent lawful status, by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas).

* Award more points in the merit-based green card allocation system for family ties to U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents, by Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.).

* Limit the group of employees whom businesses would have to check for illegal status, by Sens. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.).

* Deny illegal immigrants the chance to become permanent legal residents, by Sen. Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.).

Source: Associated Press