Now that the Senate has approved comprehensive immigration reform and forced a showdown with House Republicans who prefer the enforcement-only approach, the question is whether the differences between the two bills can be reconciled over the summer so that a final bill might be delivered to the president for his signature.
There's one major sticking point. It revolves around what lawmakers think should be done about the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants now living in the United States. More than enforcement or employer sanctions or even English as the national language, this was always the biggest obstacle in this debate.
The Senate has a plan to deal with these folks. Under the Senate bill, approved last week on a vote of 62 to 36, most but not all of the illegal immigrants now in the country would be put on a path to legal residency and eventual U.S. citizenship. Those who made the cut – that is, those who have been in the country five years or more – would have to register with the government, undergo a criminal background check, pay back taxes, pay a $2,000 fine and learn English, among other requirements.
You may think this is too lenient and it amounts to amnesty. You'd be wrong.
But let's see what the House Republicans propose as a viable alternative to dealing with the millions of illegal immigrants who are already here. That loud silence should give it away. They have nothing to say about what should be done with these people. Instead, they focus on hiring more Border Patrol agents and building 700 miles of border fencing.
That won't end illegal immigration. We need not only more security but also a guest-worker plan, and a means of allowing some immigrants who are here illegally to become legal residents and productive members of society.
We're hopeful the Senate and House can focus on what their bills have in common, and not get bogged down over the disagreements. Although there are those who think we're headed for a legislative meltdown with two bills that simply can't be reconciled, we see a way out. The major concern in the House seems to be that the Senate bill is a mirror image of the failed Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. But, as the co-author of that bill, former Sen. Alan Simpson, made clear recently in an interview with the Union-Tribune, the main reason IRCA failed was the lack of a tamper-proof identification card. That isn't a problem this time around. The bill passed by the Senate allows for just such a card.
So what's this feud really about? The rhetoric has taken on a life of its own, but this may be a battle that doesn't need to be fought. And maybe, in this case, not fighting is the surest way to victory.
Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C., is absolutely correct when he says that if the GOP blows this historic opportunity and returns home empty-handed – no border guards, no guest workers, no nothing – voters may decide to back another team in November and for many Novembers to come. It's something for Republicans to ponder during what could turn out to be a long summer.
