Senate Immigration Debate Shows Party Divisions Ahead Of Vote

AppId is over the quota

POR DAVID ESPO, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON — Memo a partidarios de la legislación bipartidista hacia el piso del Senado: Asegúrese de que insistir en que los inmigrantes que están ilegalmente en los Estados Unidos tendría que trabajar, aprender inglés, pasar una verificación de antecedentes y, sobre todo, pagar impuestos antes de que podría obtener la ciudadanía.

Destacar que el 100 por ciento de la frontera México-Estados Unidos se pondrá bajo vigilancia, que los inmigrantes que obtener estatus legal no será elegibles para el bienestar "para más de una década" y que quienes ingresen a los Estados Unidos ilegalmente en el futuro se bloquearán de situación jurídica.

No se olvide a los críticos de la etiqueta de la cuenta como defensores de un status quo que es impopular con el público.

Este es el Consejo probado encuesta distribuido a los demócratas del Senado recientemente en una medida que ofrece la mejor oportunidad en años para reformar el sistema de inmigración de la nación, al mismo tiempo le da al Presidente Barack Obama una oportunidad para un triunfo nacional del segundo término hito.

Puede sonar simple, dado que un grupo bipartidista de ocho senadores redactó el proyecto de ley y luego la guiado por el Comité Judicial del Senado; que la casa blanca, el trabajo organizado y la cámara de comercio apoyan la medida; y que muchos estrategas políticos republicanos quieren el GOP para mostrar una bienvenida más cara a los votantes hispanos.

No pasará.

Ambiciones presidenciales sólo contribuirán a ello, como el senador Marco Rubio, por ejemplo, intentos un straddle político mientras otros posibles candidatos presidenciales GOP se oponen firmemente a la medida.

El republicano de Florida ayudó a negociar el proyecto de ley bipartidista encabezada actualmente para el pleno del Senado y recientemente ha pedido cambios mientras intenta mantener la fe con los partidarios del tea party y otros conservadores que votarán en las primarias y caucuses 2016.

Divisiones internas en el partido republicano, profundamente sostenido diferencias sobre la política, las preocupaciones sobre los costos y más añadir a la complejidad de la legislación que ha dicho el líder de la mayoría en el Senado Harry Reid, D -Nevada, proceder a una votación final el 4 de julio.

"En verdad, el proyecto de ley es Amnistía primero y una promesa de cumplimiento más adelante," el Senador Jeff Sessions, R -Alabama, dijo el viernes, previsualizar puntos junto a otros opositores conservadores pretenden hacer durante las próximas tres semanas.

Requisito de la ley para el pago de impuestos atrasados "es ineficaz", las medidas prometidas para asegurar la frontera "no funcionará" y millones de inmigrantes actualmente en el país ilegalmente calificaría para bienestar en cinco años, dijo de sesiones. La medida "realmente debilita la ley actual en varias áreas significativas" cuando se trata de casos de inmigración juzgados en los tribunales, añadió.

Sesiones había ridiculizado la coalición bipartidista detrás de la medida como una colección de grupos externos que no representan los intereses nacionales.

En un reflejo de la división del partido republicano, él discrepó con Karl Rove, el ex estratega superior para el Presidente George Bush para W., cuyo intento de revisión de inmigración flameado hacia fuera en 2007.

Escribiendo recientemente en The Wall Street Journal, Rove advirtió republicanos para ser consciente de sólido apoyo público para fronteras seguras y para un camino a la ciudadanía para aquellos en el país ilegalmente.

Instó a los legisladores del partido republicano para evitar el uso del término "Amnistía", que dijo es "perdón de delito sin pena".

La legislación impone costos financieros a los inmigrantes en el país ilegalmente que buscan la ciudadanía.

En su núcleo polémico, la legislación crea una ruta de 13 años a la ciudadanía para un estimado los 11,5 millones de inmigrantes actualmente en los Estados Unidos ilegalmente. También establece objetivos de seguridad de la frontera que el gobierno debe cumplir antes de cualquier cambio en el estatus legal a los inmigrantes.

Tal como estaba redactado, la legislación también crea un programa de trabajadores invitados poco calificado, amplía el número de visas disponibles para los trabajadores de alta tecnología y quita énfasis lazos familiares en el sistema de inmigración legal que ha tenido lugar durante décadas.

En el fondo son preguntas sobre el impacto económico de la legislación a la vez son altos déficit federales y la economía está montando una lenta recuperación de la recesión.

La oficina de presupuesto del Congreso tiene todavía estimar el impacto de la legislación sobre el déficit, aunque los fanáticos reconocen que los cambios serán necesarios si la Agencia predice en última instancia la medida tendría como resultado tinta adicional roja.

Sesiones y otros dicen que lo hará.

"Puesto que un número abrumador de los trabajadores aquí hoy es calificado de bajo que son ilegales... se puede esperar de sus ingresos a ser baja, clasificará para el crédito tributario por ingresos devengados, para Medicaid y el programa tras programa, estampillas y otros," sesiones dijo el viernes.

Citó un estudio realizado por la conservadora Heritage Foundation, estimando que los costos del gobierno para las personas cuyo estado de residencia se hará legal agregará $6,3 trillones al déficit en más de 50 años.

Sesiones no dicen así, pero el estudio ha sido ampliamente criticado desde la izquierda y derecha. Parcialmente fue escrito por un economista cuyas tesis 2009 afirmaron que los inmigrantes tienen IQs inferiores que la "población indígena blanca" en los Estados Unidos.

También se perfila como el debate se mueve en un escenario más nacional apenas está sumergido las tensiones raciales.

Sesiones y el senador Mike Lee, R-Utah, se refirieron a los viernes. Algunos en el otro lado de la cuestión se refirió a la carrera cuando la casa de control republicano votó el jueves para reanudar la deportación de los inmigrantes que trajo a los Estados Unidos ilegalmente como niños, muchos de ellos procedentes de países de América del sur o Central o México.

Los partidarios de la legislación a veces afirman que sus opositores son "de alguna manera anti-inmigrante, o es una persona infructuosa, que tu corazón está hecho de piedra, que las costillas están hechas de concreto y que no tienes corazón", dijo Lee. Llamó a este tipo de comentarios "debajo de la dignidad" del Senado.

Sesiones dijo: "hay mucho poder detrás de esta legislación. Lo puedo sentir. Cuando plantean cuestiones, viene el retroceso. "Eres cruel. No te gustan los inmigrantes,'"dijo, parafraseando a la crítica.

"Eso es ofensivo para mí."

Los partidarios del enfoque general adoptadas por la legislación hace clara la crítica no va a parar.

"Casa GOP da el proverbial dedo medio a la comunidad Latina con voto" para deportar a los inmigrantes más jóvenes, ex asesor de Obama David Plouffe escribió poco después de que la casa actuado.

También en HuffPost:

Debbie Stabenow Pledges To Oppose Monsanto Protection Act Extension Without Full Debate

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

WASHINGTON -- Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), the chairwoman of the Agriculture Committee, pledged to oppose the extension of the so-called the Monsanto Protection Act, a victory for advocates who have been pressing for its repeal.

Stabenow made her pledge in a conversation with Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), who has been pushing the Senate to vote on an amendment to the farm bill that would repeal the provision. That vote was blocked by Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) and on Thursday morning the Senate voted to end debate and move to final passage.

When two senators have a pre-arranged public conversation on the Senate floor, it's known as a colloquy and is typically the bow that ties up a deal struck beforehand. While Merkley was unable to get a repeal vote, the colloquy is a significant concession, with Stabenow promising she will oppose any attempt to extend the Monsanto Protection Act in backroom negotiations.

Monsanto is a global seed and herbicide company that specializes in genetically modified crops. The MPA prevents judges from enforcing injunctions on genetically modified seeds even if they are deemed unsafe. Monsanto has argued that it is unfair to single the company out in the nickname for the law, which is technically known as the Farmer Assurance Provision, when other major agribusiness players also support it.

The measure was originally enacted into law by being inserted into an unrelated spending bill and is set to expire later this year. "The Monsanto Protection Act refers to a policy rider the House slipped into the recently passed continuing resolution and sent over to the Senate," Merkley noted on the floor. "Because of the time-urgent consideration of this must-pass legislation -- necessary to avert a government shutdown -- this policy rider slipped through without examination or debate."

"I wish to assure my friend that I think it would be inappropriate for that language to be adopted in a conference committee or otherwise adopted in a manner designed to bypass open debate in the relevant committees and this chamber," Stabenow told Merkley. "I will do my best to oppose any effort to add this kind of extension in the conference committee on this farm bill or to otherwise extend it without appropriate legislative examination."

In an interview with The Huffington Post, Blunt made the case for the MPA, arguing that the measure aimed to protect farmers who had already purchased seeds that were later deemed unsafe. "I was raised -- my mom and dad were dairy farmers -- once you've made a decision to plant a crop for that year, you can't go back and undo that decision," he said. Requiring Monsanto or other seed companies to compensate the farmer for lost income wasn't a viable strategy, he said, if the seeds had previously been okayed before the court ruling. "You can't sue them for selling a crop that the federal government said is okay to plant," he said.

The measure enables the secretary of the Department of Agriculture to block a judicial injunction and allow the planting of a seed. The USDA, he said, called the provision redundant. "All that did was repeat authority that the secretary in a hearing the other day ... said he already had," Blunt said. "And it didn't require the secretary to do anything that the secretary thought was the wrong thing to do. Which is one of the reasons I thought it was fine."

Merkley's repeal effort saw an outpouring of grassroots support, and a petition announced by his office quickly garnered more than 100,000 signatures. A petition put out by Food Democracy Now, which organized a protest at the White House shortly after the MPA became law in March, similarly picked up a quick 100,000 signatures, and a petition pushed by CREDO Action, an online progressive group with some three million members, did the same.

"That's big for us, the fact that it went from zero to 100,000 just in 24 hours," Becky Bond, the head of CREDO, told HuffPost at the time. "People are really passionate about this issue. A lot of the time people feel helpless with regard to corporate decisions ... The fact that there's someone in the Senate who's fighting for this is exciting to people and they're eager to get their names on it."

Watch the exchange between Merkley and Stabenow above, or read the transcript below:

Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I rise to talk about an issue that is important to many Oregonians, section 735 of the continuing resolution, also known as the Monsanto Protection Act. I appreciate this opportunity to engage in a dialog about it with Senator Stabenow, who, as the chair of the committee, is doing a magnificent job of guiding this farm bill through the Senate.

The Monsanto Protection Act refers to a policy rider the House slipped into the recently passed continuing resolution and sent over to the Senate. Because of the time-urgent consideration of this must-pass legislation--necessary to avert a government shutdown--this policy rider slipped through without examination or debate.

That outcome is unfortunate and unacceptable because the content of the policy rider is nothing short of astounding. It allows the unrestricted sale and planting of new variants of genetically modified seeds that a court ruled have not been properly examined for their effect on other farmers, the environment, and human health.

The impact on other farmers can be significant. The current situation in Oregon of GMO wheat escaping a field test--resulting in several nations suspending the import of white wheat from the United States--underscores the fact that poorly regulated GMO cultivation can pose a significant threat to farmers who are not cultivating GMO crops.

Equally troubling to the policy rider's allowance of unrestricted sale and planting of GMO seeds is the fact that the Monsanto Protection Act instructs the seed producers to ignore a ruling of the court, thereby raising profound questions about the constitutional separation of powers and the ability of our courts to hold agencies accountable.

Moreover, while there is undoubtedly some difference in this legislative body on the wisdom of the core policy, there should be outrage on all sides about the manner in which this policy rider was adopted. I have certainly heard that outrage from my constituents in Oregon. They have come to my town halls to protest, and more than 2,200 have written to me.

In an accountable and transparent legislative system, the Monsanto Protection Act would have had to be considered by the Agriculture Committee, complete with testimony by relevant parties. If the committee had approved the act, there would have been a subsequent opportunity to debate it on the floor of this Chamber. Complete transparency with a full opportunity for the public to weigh in is essential.

Since these features of an accountable and transparent legislative system were not honored and because I think the policy itself is unacceptable, I have offered an amendment to the farm bill which would repeal this rider in its entirety. To this point, my efforts to introduce that amendment have been objected to, and it takes unanimous consent. This type of rider has no place in an appropriations bill to fund the Federal Government, and a bill that interferes with our system of checks and balances should never have become law.

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I absolutely understand Senator Merkley's concerns about the issue and the concerns of many people about this issue. There has been a long-running understanding that we should not be legislating on appropriations, and I share the concern of my colleague that the Agriculture Committee and other appropriate committees didn't have an opportunity to engage in this debate.

As the Senator from Oregon knows, this language was included in the continuing resolution, the bill that funds the government, and that bill will expire on September 30 of this year. I agree with my colleague; we should not extend that provision through the appropriations process. We should have the same type of full and transparent process that both Senator Merkley and I have talked about today.

I wish to assure my friend that I think it would be inappropriate for that language to be adopted in a conference committee or otherwise adopted in a manner designed to bypass open debate in the relevant committees and this Chamber.

I will do my best to oppose any effort to add this kind of extension in the conference committee on this farm bill or to otherwise extend it without appropriate legislative examination.

Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I thank Senator Stabenow. I deeply appreciate the commitment of my colleague to ensure that the Monsanto Protection Act is not tucked into subsequent legislation in a manner that bypasses full committee examination and Senate debate.

The farm bill is extremely important to our Nation. The Senator from Michigan has worked with me to incorporate a number of provisions that are important to the farmers in Oregon, including disaster programs, responding to forest fires, specialty crop research programs, improvements in insurance for organic farmers, and low-cost loans offered through rural electrical co-ops for energy-saving home and business renovations.

It has been a real pleasure to work with Senator Stabenow on those provisions and, again, I thank the Senator for her support for them and for advocating responsible legislative examination of measures such as the Monsanto Protection Act.

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Oregon for his advocacy on so many important policies in this legislation. We worked together closely on forest fires. Senator Merkley and I have been on the phone many times. He wanted to make sure I was aware of what has happened to farmers, homeowners, and landowners in Oregon.

We share a great interest in so many areas as it relates to our organic growers and rural development as well as what is happening in terms of energy efficiency, and, as my friend mentioned, rural electric co-ops.

I thank Senator Merkley for his leadership in many areas, and I look forward to working with the Senator from Oregon as we bring the farm bill to a final vote.

Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, again, I thank the chair for her leadership. I know how much she looks forward to the conclusion of this process as we try to enable folks to have various amendments which are appropriate for the farm bill debated on the floor.

Related on HuffPost:

Get Alerts