Susie
09-27-2007, 05:41 AM
Durbin bill triggering lobby blitz
By Jessica Holzer
The Hill (DC), September 25, 2007
The immigration battle may reignite this week over Senate legislation that would allow hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants who arrived in the U.S. as children to achieve legal status after attending college or enlisting in the military.
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), the majority whip, wants to offer the legislation, dubbed the DREAM Act, as an amendment to the defense authorization bill, which the Senate could vote on this week.
But the Illinois Democrat has yet to strike a deal with Republicans, who may block the amendment from consideration, and he faces intense competition from Senate colleagues fighting to attach other provisions to the defense bill.
Although procedural obstacles could bottle up the amendment, the possibility of a vote has spurred groups on both sides of the immigration debate to ratchet up their lobbying efforts, three months after sweeping immigration reform collapsed in the Senate.
NumbersUSA, which was instrumental in sinking the earlier Senate legislation, has alerted its 550,000-strong activist network to the prospect of a vote on the DREAM Act and on Thursday it flooded lawmakers with more than 260,000 faxes opposing the legislation, according to a spokeswoman for the group, Caroline Espinosa.
Meanwhile, the roster of Hispanic, civil rights, church and labor groups that have been pushing for a relaxation of the immigration laws are supporting the legislation. They are joined by new allies, such as the National Education Association and the American Council on Education, that believe the legislation will help keep talented students in school. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, however, is not throwing its weight behind the DREAM Act because it doesn’t do enough to help businesses, the group’s director of immigration policy, Angelo Amador, said.
Durbin’s legislation would allow only those illegal immigrants under the age of 30 who came to the U.S. at least five years before the date of enactment to apply for permanent residency. Also, candidates must display “good moral character” and have completed two years of college or military service.
Because it would allow undocumented immigrants to join the military, Durbin contends that the defense authorization is an appropriate vehicle for the legislation. Spokesmen for the Defense Department have voiced support for the DREAM Act, arguing that it would help the military meet its recruiting goals.
Proponents portray the DREAM Act as a targeted measure that would give a limited group of high-achieving immigrants a chance at legal status, while critics say it will lead to untold cases of fraud and encourage more illegal immigration.
“It’s narrower, yes, but it’s still an amnesty,” Espinosa said. “If you seek to reward illegal immigration, you’ll only encourage more of it.”
To persuade his Republican colleagues to allow a vote on his amendment, Durbin added the maximum-age provision and stripped out language that would allow states leeway on granting undocumented immigrants in-state tuition.
Last week, the Illinois Democrat said he has gone as far as he is willing to go. “To some people, there aren’t enough concessions to make. They’re never going to support it,” he said.
Supporters of the DREAM Act note that the legislation was adopted unanimously as an amendment to the immigration legislation that passed the Senate in the last Congress and was also included in the Senate’s broader immigration bill earlier this year.
However, critics contend that the current legislation faces a tougher environment due to the earlier legislation’s failure. Mark Krikorian, the executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, a think tank that supports tighter controls on immigration, believes that the majority whip will have a hard time wooing Republicans and moderate Democrats who otherwise might have supported narrowly tailored immigration relief. Positions have hardened on the issue, he said: “I think it’s a more difficult sell for Dick Durbin than it would have been had they not tackled broader legislation.”
. . .
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/durbin-bill-triggering-lobby-blitz-2007-09-25.html
By Jessica Holzer
The Hill (DC), September 25, 2007
The immigration battle may reignite this week over Senate legislation that would allow hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants who arrived in the U.S. as children to achieve legal status after attending college or enlisting in the military.
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), the majority whip, wants to offer the legislation, dubbed the DREAM Act, as an amendment to the defense authorization bill, which the Senate could vote on this week.
But the Illinois Democrat has yet to strike a deal with Republicans, who may block the amendment from consideration, and he faces intense competition from Senate colleagues fighting to attach other provisions to the defense bill.
Although procedural obstacles could bottle up the amendment, the possibility of a vote has spurred groups on both sides of the immigration debate to ratchet up their lobbying efforts, three months after sweeping immigration reform collapsed in the Senate.
NumbersUSA, which was instrumental in sinking the earlier Senate legislation, has alerted its 550,000-strong activist network to the prospect of a vote on the DREAM Act and on Thursday it flooded lawmakers with more than 260,000 faxes opposing the legislation, according to a spokeswoman for the group, Caroline Espinosa.
Meanwhile, the roster of Hispanic, civil rights, church and labor groups that have been pushing for a relaxation of the immigration laws are supporting the legislation. They are joined by new allies, such as the National Education Association and the American Council on Education, that believe the legislation will help keep talented students in school. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, however, is not throwing its weight behind the DREAM Act because it doesn’t do enough to help businesses, the group’s director of immigration policy, Angelo Amador, said.
Durbin’s legislation would allow only those illegal immigrants under the age of 30 who came to the U.S. at least five years before the date of enactment to apply for permanent residency. Also, candidates must display “good moral character” and have completed two years of college or military service.
Because it would allow undocumented immigrants to join the military, Durbin contends that the defense authorization is an appropriate vehicle for the legislation. Spokesmen for the Defense Department have voiced support for the DREAM Act, arguing that it would help the military meet its recruiting goals.
Proponents portray the DREAM Act as a targeted measure that would give a limited group of high-achieving immigrants a chance at legal status, while critics say it will lead to untold cases of fraud and encourage more illegal immigration.
“It’s narrower, yes, but it’s still an amnesty,” Espinosa said. “If you seek to reward illegal immigration, you’ll only encourage more of it.”
To persuade his Republican colleagues to allow a vote on his amendment, Durbin added the maximum-age provision and stripped out language that would allow states leeway on granting undocumented immigrants in-state tuition.
Last week, the Illinois Democrat said he has gone as far as he is willing to go. “To some people, there aren’t enough concessions to make. They’re never going to support it,” he said.
Supporters of the DREAM Act note that the legislation was adopted unanimously as an amendment to the immigration legislation that passed the Senate in the last Congress and was also included in the Senate’s broader immigration bill earlier this year.
However, critics contend that the current legislation faces a tougher environment due to the earlier legislation’s failure. Mark Krikorian, the executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, a think tank that supports tighter controls on immigration, believes that the majority whip will have a hard time wooing Republicans and moderate Democrats who otherwise might have supported narrowly tailored immigration relief. Positions have hardened on the issue, he said: “I think it’s a more difficult sell for Dick Durbin than it would have been had they not tackled broader legislation.”
. . .
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/durbin-bill-triggering-lobby-blitz-2007-09-25.html