Capitol Hill

Known for its martial discipline, the Roman Empire developed a form of corporal punishment for negligent soldiers that involved being beaten to death with sticks by their comrades whose faith they had betrayed. This exercise came to be known as "running the gauntlet." Although there's no evidence any members of the Roman senate ever ran the gauntlet, proponents of comprehensive immigration reform in the U.S. Senate were compelled to run a gauntlet of amendments in May. But against stark odds, Senate leaders of both parties—along with a revolving core of more than 60 senators—stuck together to defeat amendments and emerged with the basic framework of a workable immigration reform package.

A different approach

In December 2005, the House passed a bill (HR 4437) that focuses solely on border security and workplace enforcement.

On May 25, the Senate opted, by a vote of 62-36, for a balanced and strikingly different approach than the House, S 2611. S 2611 is a sweeping overhaul of our nation's immigration laws, and though not perfect, it constitutes a sound legislative blueprint that addresses the security and economic needs of the U.S. Its provisions break down into three broad categories: border security and interior enforcement, a new temporary guest-worker program, and a path for those here illegally two years or more to earn legal status and remain in the country.

S 2611 provides for 1,000 new Border Patrol agents, thousands of National Guard troops to support them, 375 miles of triple-layer fencing along the Mexican border, unmanned aerial vehicles, electronic fencing, additional jail cells and tamper-proof identification documents with biometric identifiers. It also would require all employers to use a new employment verification system to determine work eligibility for current and new hires and impose stiff penalties for employer violations.

The second component to S 2611 would provide 200,000 new temporary guest-worker visas per year while creating a separate guest-worker program for immigrant farm laborers. The visas would be valid for three years and could be renewed once for a total stay of six years; at the end of the visa period, a worker would have to return home or be in line for a green card.

The third and most politically contentious aspect of the bill is one that would divide the nation's estimated 12 million illegal immigrants into three groups. Those who have lived in the U.S. for five years or more—about 7 million people—would be allowed to remain and apply for citizenship provided they were employed for at least three of the previous five years, pass background checks, pay fines and back taxes, register for the Selective Service, learn English and complete U.S. civics classes.

Those illegal immigrants who have lived here two years to five years—about 3 million people—would be authorized to stay and work in the U.S. for three years but required to return to a U.S. port of entry to apply for a temporary work visa before returning as a guest worker. Eventually, these immigrants would be allowed to apply for permanent residency and, ultimately, citizenship.

The 1 million to 2 million illegal immigrants who have been in the U.S. less than two years would be required to leave the country. They would be permitted to apply for admission to the temporary guest-worker program but would receive no guarantee of acceptance.

Another gauntlet

U.S. House members and senators are expected to begin working soon to reconcile the two immigration bills, but immigration reform champions appear certain to run another gauntlet during conference negotiations. However, there are two reasons to be optimistic comprehensive reform proponents will emerge victorious. First, the public overwhelmingly supports the idea of wedding tougher enforcement to a temporary worker program and a path for illegal immigrants already here to earn legal status. And second, House Republicans are faced with a dilemma. For the past year, they've nurtured anger within elements of the GOP base, who now demand a solution to our porous border. If Senate conferees refuse to budge during negotiations, will House conferees be willing to walk away from the table with no bill? If so, they might be running an electoral gauntlet themselves come November.

R. Craig Silvertooth is NRCA's director of federal affairs.