top
US
US
Indybay
Indybay
Indybay
Regions
Indybay Regions North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area California United States International Americas Haiti Iraq Palestine Afghanistan
Topics
Newswire
Features
From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature

5/26: NIF Analysis on Senate Passing Immigration Reform Bill

by National Immigration Forum
On May 25, by a vote of 62 to 36, the Senate passed S. 2611, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006. 38 Democrats were joined by 23 Republicans (and one Independent) in voting for the bill.
Senate Passes Immigration Reform Bill
National Immigration Forum
May 26, 2006

On May 25, by a vote of 62 to 36, the Senate passed S. 2611, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006. 38 Democrats were joined by 23 Republicans (and one Independent) in voting for the bill.

A coalition of Republican and Democratic Senators, over the last two weeks of Senate floor debate, successfully fended off the worst of the hard-line amendments. The result is a compromise, with virtually no one completely happy about it. Still, given the intense pressure the Senate has been under, with anti-immigrant calls flooding the offices of especially the crucial group of Republican reformers, it is a minor miracle that a bill has emerged that would legalize millions of undocumented immigrants, and significantly increase the number of visas available for immigrants coming to join family here in the U.S. and for those coming here with employer sponsorship.

§ Final Vote:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00157

The next step will be for the bill to be sent to a conference committee with members of the House of Representatives. The conference committee, on the House side will be stacked with anti-immigrant members of the House. On the Senate side, there will be several members of the coalition group of pro-immigrant reformers, Democrat and Republican. A bill must be acceptable to both the House and Senate conferees before it can be passed out of a conference committee. The timeline for the start of the conference committee is not known at the moment. We don’t expect the conference committee to complete its work (or to end in stalemate) until at least September. It may well not be done before a post-election lame-duck session.

Additional Amendments Considered on May 24

To clarify confusion that may have resulted from a note in the previous update, the amendment proposed by Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA) having to do with making international adoptions easier was passed by voice vote.

§ Amendment: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SP4025:/

Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) offered an amendment that would require employers to take additional steps before hiring immigrants in the future temporary worker program. The amendment was accepted by voice vote.

§ Amendment: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SP4144:/

Amendments Considered on May 25

An amendment by John Cornyn (R-TX) would have essentially stripped the confidentiality provisions relating to applications for legalization. The amendment was rejected on a 49 to 49 tie.

§ Amendment: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SP04097:/

§ Vote:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00151

There was an amendment by Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), that would place a cap on immigrant visas in the employment-based categories and would, depending on its interpretation, create a potential bottleneck for green cards as workers coming through the temporary worker program and undocumented immigrants here less than five years who are eligible for legalization, seek to adjust their status. The amendment passed 51 to 47.

§ Amendment: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SP4131:/

§ Vote:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00152

An amendment was offered by Senator Russell Feingold (D-WI) to strike a provision of the law that would prohibit a court from staying the deportation of someone whose case was still on appeal in the federal courts. This amendment is especially important to asylum seekers—the underlying bill would have allowed the government to send an asylum seeker back to his or her persecutor before there was a final decision in the asylum case. The amendment passed 52 to 45.

§ Amendment: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SP04083:/

§ Vote:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00153



An amendment by Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) would prevent undocumented immigrants who become legalized by the bill to collect tax credits through the Earned Income Tax Credit (for past and future tax years). That amendment was defeated by a vote of 37 – 60

§ Amendment: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SP04108:/

§ Vote:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00154

In a related amendment, Senator John Ensign (R-NV) offered an amendment that would prevent undocumented immigrants who are legalizing from collecting tax refunds or credits for tax years prior to 2006. That amendment passed by a vote of 50 – 47.

§ Amendment: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SP04136:/

§ Vote:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00155



Managers Amendment: Technical Fixes

Just prior to a final vote on the immigration bill, the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Arlen Specter (R-PA), offered a “manager’s amendment” of more than 100 pages, containing technical fixes in various parts of the bill. Some of these fixes aimed to ameliorate some of the problems that were of concern to advocates. However, a complete analysis of the manager’s amendment is not available at this time. The manager’s amendment was agreed to by a vote of 56 to 41.

§ Amendment: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SP04188:/

§ Vote:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00156

A very brief document with a few of the more significant highlights and lowlights of the Senate bill is available on the Forum’s Web site at:

http://www.immigrationforum.org/documents/PolicyWire/Legislation/SenateBillHighlightsLowlights.pdf

Also available on the Forum’s Web site is a press statement reacting to passage of the bill.

http://www.immigrationforum.org/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabid=818
Add Your Comments
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!

Donate

$210.00 donated
in the past month

Get Involved

If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.

Publish

Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.

IMC Network