Immigration debate: Is there a path to compromise?

Republicans and Democrats wrangle over a $39.7 billion House-passed bill that funds the department for the remainder of the budget year while overturning President Obama's immigration orders.

|
Molly Riley/AP
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R) of Kentucky addresses the media with from left, Sen. Roger Wicker (R) of Mississippi, Sen. John Barrasso (R) of Wyoming, Sen. John Thune (R) of South Dakota, and Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn of Texas in the US Capitol in Washington, Tuesday, February 3, 2015.

To hear congressional Republicans tell it, Democrats are so eager to grant work permits to immigrants in the U.S. illegally that they'd risk funding for the Homeland Security Department to do it. Democrats counter that it's Republicans who are jeopardizing the Homeland Security budget in their zeal to deport immigrants brought here illegally as children.

Those two opposing sides are in a high-stakes drama underway on Capitol Hill as lawmakers wrangle over a $39.7 billion House-passed bill that funds the department for the remainder of the budget year while overturning President Barack Obama's executive actions limiting deportations for millions here illegally and giving them the ability to work.

The back-and-forth comes at a time of global threats and terrorist slayings of prisoners. One way or another, most involved agree, Congress will find a way to approve funding for the Homeland Security Department, even if lawmakers have to pass a short-term extension ahead of the Feb. 27 deadline before coming up with a final deal.

But how and when lawmakers will get there is less clear as both parties jockey for advantage in a new era of divided government, with Republicans in full control of Congress for the first time in eight years and Obama ready and willing to wield his veto pen.

"It's so hard to divine how this will all come out," said Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz.

It was a comment echoed Tuesday by lawmakers at both ends of the Capitol as Senate Democrats united against a procedural vote that would have opened debate on a House-passed bill. A total of 51 Republicans voted to advance the bill — short of the 60 needed — while all 44 Democrats, two independents and two Republicans were opposed.

Republicans indicated there would be more votes on the measure in the days to come, and Democrats promised the result would not change unless Republicans removed the language on immigration. In the end, Democrats predicted, Republicans would do just that.

"The Republicans should stop the posturing for the right wing of their party and stand down and do what's right," said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "They'll wind up passing a clean bill, so why stop — why do we wait?"

Some Republicans acknowledged privately, and a few publicly, that outcome was likely. "Ultimately there may be a clean bill," said Rep. John Carter, R-Texas.

But before that could be entertained, House conservatives said they had to be convinced that Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and his Senate Republicans had exhausted every tactic against what they described as an unconstitutional overreach by Obama. Complicating matters for GOP leaders, not every Republican agreed that it was absolutely essential to keep the Homeland Security Department funded.

"It's obviously not the end of the world" for the agency to lose funding, GOP Rep. Matt Salmon of Arizona said Tuesday, because most department personnel would be deemed essential and keep working.

House Republicans were casting about for another solution, such as splitting up the funding bill, Salmon said. He said a lawsuit over Obama's immigration actions, as House Speaker John Boehner has said is possible, wouldn't satisfy conservatives.

In the Senate, Republicans including moderate Susan Collins of Maine were also looking for a way out. Collins said she was working with Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and others on alternate legislation to fund the Homeland Security Department and roll back the new administration policies limiting deportations, but keeping in place protections for immigrants brought to the U.S. as children.

"I think it's a good solution and a way to resolve an impasse that has the potential to cause some real harm," Collins said in an interview.

But with Democratic leaders pledging to oppose any Homeland Security spending bill with immigration language attached, it was not clear whether Collins' proposal would shift the debate. That was especially true with Democrats seeing their stance as good politics in a presidential election cycle in which Latino voters are likely to play an important role.

Obama invited to the White House a group of younger immigrants who would be subject to eventual deportation under the House-passed bill. During the Oval Office meeting Wednesday with the "Dreamers," Obama was expected to defend his policies and criticize the GOP.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Immigration debate: Is there a path to compromise?
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2015/0204/Immigration-debate-Is-there-a-path-to-compromise
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe