Farmworker Justice Immigration Update 5/22/2013
On May 21st, the Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC) concluded its mark-up of S. 744, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act. It passed the bill out of committee by a bipartisan vote of 13-5, with the support of all Democratic Senators and three Republican Senators (Senators Hatch, Flake and Graham). The Committee action marks an important step toward enactment of comprehensive immigration reform. The next step is a debate and vote on the Senate floor, which is expected to take place in June. Farmworker Justice’s statement on the passage of the S. 744 out of the SJC is here.
The mark-up in the SJC included two amendments directly impacting the blue card program, which allows undocumented farmworkers and their immediate family members to earn immigration status and permanent residency.
Read full update on our blog:
On May 21st, the Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC) concluded its mark-up of S. 744, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act. It passed the bill out of committee by a bipartisan vote of 13-5, with the support of all Democratic Senators and three Republican Senators (Senators Hatch, Flake and Graham). The Committee action marks an important step toward enactment of comprehensive immigration reform. The next step is a debate and vote on the Senate floor, which is expected to take place in June. Farmworker Justice’s statement on the passage of the S. 744 out of the SJC is here.
The mark-up in the SJC included two amendments directly impacting the blue card program, which allows undocumented farmworkers and their immediate family members to earn immigration status and permanent residency. Sen. Feinstein’s amendment 13 would ensure that the grant program for organizations working on legalization would include those assisting applicants for blue card status. As originally written, the grant program authorized under section 2106 provided for grants to assist applicants for the RPI (general legalization) and DREAM programs, but not blue card workers. Sen. Schumer’s 2nd degree amendment to Sen. Flake’s amendment 3 would require spouses and children of blue card workers to have been present in the U.S. on or before December 31, 2012 and to have maintained “continuous presence” in the U.S. from that date until the date on which blue card status is granted.
The lengthy list of amendments is available at http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/. One significant amendment that was adopted reflects an agreement made by the “Gang of 8” with Sen. Hatch to secure his support for S. 744. Sen. Hatch’s amendment made a series of reforms to expand employer access to the H-1B visa program, including by weakening protections for U.S. workers seeking jobs. During the debate, Sen. Durbin, noting the painful concessions made to win Sen. Hatch’s support, said that he hoped this was a good faith effort on Sen. Hatch’s part. Sen. Hatch responded that he would vote for the bill out of committee but stated that he still needed to get a “reasonable” resolution on 4 other amendments as a condition for his support on the Senate floor. As we understand it, those 4 amendments would include Hatch amendments 21-24, which are all very troubling. Amendment 24, for example, would deny legalizing workers Social Security credit for contributions made when they were undocumented. Amendment 23 would impose an additional 5 year waiting requirement on those who adjust to lawful permanent residency before becoming eligible for subsidized health care access under the Affordable Care Act. Sen. Grassley then offered a series of amendments to Hatch’s amendment addressing the H-1B program’s protections for U.S. workers, all of which failed.
The Committee defeated several harmful proposals, such as Sen. Grassley’s Amendment 17, which would have eliminated judicial review for denial or revocations of legalization applications. Sen. Cruz made clear his attitude towards the current undocumented with his amendments 2 and 3, one of which would have prohibited those who entered illegally from ever being eligible for means-tested benefits and one of which would have prohibited those who have been present in the United States while not in lawful status from ever gaining citizenship. In response, Sen. Durbin questioned the kind of America Sen. Cruz was trying to create, and noted that Sen. Cruz himself had benefited from government means-tested loans for college. Sen. Sessions relentlessly pursued many amendments designed to undermine the immigration bill.
At the same time, several positive amendments did not pass because they were deemed inconsistent with the core of the “Gang of 8” agreement. Sen. Hirono’s unsuccessful amendment 10 would have allowed a U.S. citizen suffering “extreme hardship” to petition for an immigration visa for a sister, brother or adult child (an important proposal because the bill’s future immigration system eliminates certain family-based visa categories, including married children over 31 and siblings).
Several positive amendments passed, including Sen. Franken’s amendment 9 to ensure that victims of domestic violence would be eligible for certain housing assistance.
In perhaps the most emotional moment of the markup, Sen. Leahy spoke in favor of his amendment 7, which would have allowed LGBT U.S. citizens whose marriages are recognized by state law to be treated as spouses under immigration law for purposes of sponsoring applications for immigration status. In his heartfelt speech, Sen. Leahy noted that “discriminating against people based on who they love is a travesty.” Several other Senators also spoke, noting their support in principle for the amendment. However, because several Republicans in the Gang of 8 opposed the amendment and characterized it as a “deal killer,” Democratic members of the Gang of 8 who said they supported the goal of the amendment announced that they would oppose it to win passage of the bill. Sen. Leahy then withdrew the amendment without calling for a vote.
When the bill reaches the Senate floor, some Senators, with support from various constituencies, will seek to improve the bill while others will seek to undermine key components of immigration reform. We expect the Gang of 8 to attempt to win a large majority of votes in favor of the bill by preventing changes that affect the core of their agreement. Efforts at major changes to the agricultural worker programs in the bill could reopen the long, complex negotiations, and cause farmworker, agribusiness and some Senators to stop supporting the legislation. For this reason, we believe it is likely that the essential elements of the agricultural compromise, including the painful concessions made by all parties, would not change even if some amendments are approved. However, it is not clear how much control the Gang of 8, or the group of four Senators who negotiated the agricultural compromise, will retain over the bill once it reaches the Senate floor. Farmworker Justice will continue to monitor and analyze the amended immigration bill and its impact on farmworkers and their families and support farmworker organizations’ quest for positive immigration reform.