Progress on Immigration Reform, But More Story to Be Written

Details: 12 July 2013

Some power-packed words have been used to describe the overwhelming approval of bipartisan immigration-reform legislation by the U.S. Senate. The roll call June 27, with each of the 100 seated senators rising to call out his or her vote was 68-32 on S.744 (even though Vice President Biden, as presiding officer, bungled the call for a vote by announcing it as S.747).

The Senate’s action has been described as "historic," "dramatic," "landmark," and "monumental." Those seem appropriate given the great need for modernizing and improving the current immigration system. It’s a big issue public-policy-wise, with legal, economic, sociological, psychological, moral and religious dimensions.

Perhaps "productive" and "progress" are other descriptions that can apply, but not "perfect." That case cannot be made from any perspective. Still, given the status quo, S.744 pursues a balance, constituting significant strides toward both fixing a dysfunctional immigration mechanism and strengthening border security.

Neither of Nebraska’s senators saw fit to join in the majority. Mike Johanns and Deb Fischer both decided to stick with the broken status quo over progress as represented by the balanced, bi-partisan, albeit imperfect, proposals supported by more than two-thirds of their colleagues. Their decisions not only put them on the losing side of 68-32, but made their positions irrelevant, at least for the time being, on a major issue.

If nothing else, by voting "No" Nebraska’s duo rejected an opportunity to reduce the federal deficit. At the time the vote took place, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office had projected a deficit reduction of $197 billion over the next ten years and $700 billion in the decade after that. Later, to reflect amendments added during floor debate, most notably costs associated with the Corker-Hoeven border-security "surge" amendment, the CBO lowered the numbers to $158 billion and $685 billion respectively.

Senator Johanns has promised to provide the Nebraska Catholic Conference (and others) with a memorandum that will identify and analyze specific provisions of S.744 that prevented him from supporting it. We look forward to receiving his memorandum with gratitude and to reviewing it thoroughly. Presumably, it will give substance and depth to his rejection of the bill, which occurred notwithstanding his own prior acknowledgment that the current immigration system is flawed and cannot be ignored.

While not really an apt comparison given different contexts, it is interesting nonetheless, and perhaps somewhat instructive, to contrast the "No" votes of Senators Johanns and Fischer on the immigration-reform bill with their recent "Yes" votes on the farm bill, also legislation of considerable substance and significance even though lacking perfection. On it, both Nebraskans were part of a 66-27 majority.

Consider comments such as these attributed to Senator Johanns: With so much on the line for our farmers, ranchers and our state’s economy, we cannot afford to let the great be the enemy of the good (emphasis added); While this isn’t the farm bill I would have drafted, it’s better than no bill at all.

Positive reactions and thoughts of progress regarding the Senate’s action are appropriate, but in reality that action is only part of the story and, hopefully, not meaningless. There is more to be written. S. 744 is not law; it’s only legislation, which garnered nearly 70 percent approval in one of the two houses of Congress. There still has to be action in the House of Representatives, and every scribe, pundit and indicator suggests that action will be a lot different and much narrower in scope.

Will there be enough to cause a conference committee? If so, how much of S. 744 will survive reconciliation and negotiation? There won’t be amnesty; that’s not being considered, but if authentic, effective, humane reform prevails there will be earned legalization and a subsequent path to citizenship over time.

For excellent information about the concepts and details of immigration-reform legislation, as well as the positions and perspectives of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, here are three excellent websites: www.usccb.org/mrs; www.justiceforimmigrants.org; www.cliniclegal.org.

And finally....

A note left over from the 2013 session of the Nebraska Legislature:

Was Coach Tom Osborne a hypocrite when it came to support for football players? The label fit, according to Senator Ernie Chambers, who brought it up during a floor speech on one of this year’s budget bills.

Quite a few years ago, Sen. Chambers steered to passage a legislative bill that symbolically established a mechanism for paying stipends to Husker football players. It was symbolic in that it could take effect only if all other states enacted a similar law. Nevertheless, according to Sen. Chambers, while claiming to support players, Coach Osborne acted rather surreptitiously to persuade then-Governor Kay Orr to veto the bill.

Not sure there is any other Nebraskan who would dare to call Tom Osborne a hypocrite in a public forum. Another Senator Chambers’ moment.