Toned Down Bill on Immigration Passes in House

Republican congressional leaders on Saturday struck a deal with the White House on toning down hotly contested immigration reforms, leading to House passage of a measure that aims to tighten access at the nation’s borders and impose stricter penalties on those who arrive here illegally.

The bill, which would make the most sweeping changes to the nation’s immigration laws in a decade, had become snagged when President Clinton objected to proposals targeting legal immigrants. Rather than see the whole bill scuttled over this issue, GOP leaders yielded to his demands that they either delete or soften those provisions.

The accord linked the immigration measure to an overall government spending bill which won House approval Saturday night. The Senate is scheduled to vote on the package Monday, with approval expected.

Saturday’s compromise on the immigration measure left both sides claiming victory, with Democrats arguing they killed the bill’s most mean-spirited provisions and Republicans maintaining that the bulk of the legislation was left intact.

“We’re getting . . . 90% of the immigration bill,” said House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.).

“The very meanest provisions are now gone,” said Rep. Howard L. Berman (D-Panorama City), who was involved in the talks.

“We’re a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws, and this agreement respects both those ideas,” said White House immigration advisor Rahm Emanuel after the compromise was reached. “It respects the distinction between legal and illegal immigrants.”

*

Provisions in the bill would:

* Double the Border Patrol over the next five years to 10,000 agents.

* Install additional fencing and other barriers along the boundary between the United States and Mexico.

* Impose tougher penalties on those who smuggle immigrants into the country or sell them fraudulent documents.

* Streamline the deportation process to more quickly eject those who are in the country illegally.

* Create pilot projects to verify the immigration status of job applicants.

Removed from the bill was a contentious provision to subject legal immigrants to deportation if they received more than one year of government benefits in their first seven years in this country.

Negotiators also softened a proposal to raise the annual income requirement for citizens seeking to sponsor immigrant relatives. It would be increased 25% from the current level of about $15,600 for a family of four. The original immigration bill passed by the House called for a substantially higher income threshold.

Also deleted was a measure that would have prevented legal immigrants from using Medicaid benefits to pay for the treatment of, or testing for, AIDS. Immigrants with AIDS or the virus that causes it are not allowed into the country. But once they arrive, they may receive government help with the costly treatments.

*

The deal appeared to end months of wrangling over legislation primarily aimed at curbing the entry of illegal immigrants, preventing them from receiving services once they are here and speeding up the deportation process if they are caught.

Initially, both the House and Senate had attempted to include significant cuts in legal immigration as well. Proponents argued that both legal and illegal immigration had reached unacceptable levels that were angering American citizens.

The cuts in legal immigration were eliminated from the legislation months ago, but GOP lawmakers later added strict measures to ensure that legal immigrants do not receive government benefits after they arrive.

The White House objected, forcing the showdown over the bill’s fate during the last few days.

Earlier, the White House had also objected to a provision that would have allowed states to restrict public schooling for the children of illegal immigrants. Republicans dropped that measure last week when it threatened to derail the entire legislation.

The schooling ban, sponsored by Rep. Elton Gallegly (R-Simi Valley), is still alive as a separate bill, but its chances of passage in the Senate are considered slim.

*

The legislative wrangling has occurred against the backdrop of the looming November elections. Aware of the political potency of the immigration issue in California and other border states, Democrats and Republicans alike have been eager to deliver legislation that focuses on stemming the flow of illegal entry.

As evidence of this bipartisan approach, Doris Meissner, commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, called the final version of the GOP legislation “a strong endorsement of the efforts the administration has been making” at cracking down on illegal immigration. “It really strengthens our hand.”

As final passage neared, immigrant-rights groups that had been trying to derail the legislation all year acknowledged improvements to the measure. But they still criticized various provisions, including those that would make it easier to exclude refugees fleeing persecution and that would insulate the INS from some lawsuits.

“There’s serious shortcomings in this bill, but in the end it turned out better than I expected,” said Frank Sharry, executive director of the National Immigration Forum. “It is much less extreme and harsh than it could have been. It went from a horrible bill to a bad bill.”

Even with the compromises forced by the White House, legal immigrants still face tough new regulations handed down by Congress this year.

The welfare reform law Clinton recently signed restricts legal immigrants from receiving Supplemental Security Income, food stamps and most other federal benefits. States have the authority to choose whether legal immigrants are eligible for Medicaid.

Before the latest modifications, the immigration bill would have gone even further with the provision allowing the deportation of noncitizens who received one of dozens of government benefits.

The GOP also wanted to raise by as much as 100% the minimum income of those seeking to sponsor immigrant relatives. Such sponsors must now live at least above the poverty level, currently set at an annual income of $15,569 for a family of four.

Opponents argued that large numbers of Americans would have been prohibited from sponsoring immigrants under the proposal, amounting to a backdoor cut in legal immigration.

While the compromise would increase sponsors’ income requirements to 25% over the poverty level, the sponsors would be allowed to include other assets, such as a car or home, to reach that level.

Gingrich called the compromise figure too low, arguing that people without the financial resources to support an immigrant during hard times should not be able to apply for sponsorship.

But Democrats said working-class Americans should not be restricted from sponsoring their immigrant spouses or other family members.

“Because of President Clinton standing up to the Republicans, the really disastrous provisions in this bill dealing with legal immigrants were dropped,” Berman said.