The Washington Post

Border deal greatly improves chances for immigration bill

Speaker of the House John Boehner told members of the press Thursday that Americans expect Congress to pass immigration reform. (Sarah Parnass/The Washington Post)

Prospects for the contentious immigration bill that has been working its way through the Senate for months vastly improved Thursday after senators agreed to spend several billion more dollars to fortify the U.S.-Mexico border.

The agreement calls for doubling the number of federal border agents at a cost of about $30 billion, the completion of 700 miles of fencing, and expanded radar and aerial drone surveillance at a time when the domestic use of unmanned aircraft is the subject of an acrimonious national debate.

The deal is expected to secure at least a dozen more Republican “yes” votes for the measure and could help ensure its passage by the sizable margin that proponents have said they need to make it viable in the House.

However, supporters say the chances of immigration legislation advancing in the GOP-controlled House remain a source of concern, and that concern has shaped the Senate negotiations from the outset.

Supporters have insisted that approval by a significant bipartisan majority of senators would politically compel House Republicans to vote on the Senate bill even as its members debate more limited and conservative proposals. But that is an untested proposition, and Thursday’s failure in the House of a federal farm bill, after the Senate passed its version 66-27 last week, only deepened the concerns.

House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) sought Thursday to tamp down expectations about immigration, saying that “regardless of what the Senate does, the House is going to work its will.”

Still, there was optimism in the Senate on Thursday following the announcement of the border security agreement. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said the overall bill “is gaining Republican support” and that the new agreement “will be very helpful.”

The breakthrough is a clear victory for the bipartisan “Gang of Eight” that wrote the immigration bill, and also for several centrist Senate Republicans who were always expected to support the bill but were holding out for stricter border security provisions.

The latest changes came at the request of Sens. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) and John Hoeven (R-N.D.), who negotiated the terms of the deal on behalf of about a dozen colleagues.

“We are investing resources in the border that have never been invested before,” Corker said in announcing the agreement. “The American people have asked us, if we pass an immigration bill on the Senate floor, that we do everything we can to secure the border.”

Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), said, “If this amendment holds together and if it passes as currently constructed, border security . . . will have been achieved at a level that no one thought could have been possible just a month ago.”

In an early demonstration of how the deal might secure more GOP support, Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), who had planned to oppose the bill, said he’ll vote yes because the new border security provisions “will restore the people’s trust in our ability to control the border.”

Most of the 54 senators in the Democratic caucus are expected to support the immigration measure, in addition to McCain, Graham and Sens. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), who are also members of the bipartisan drafting group. Republican Sen. Kelly Ayotte (N.H.) is also on board, while at least 11 other GOP senators might decide to vote yes, according to Senate aides familiar with the issue.

The border security agreement establishes several specific conditions that would need to be met before any of the nation’s 11 million undocumented immigrants begin applying for residency status — an element of the bill that is critically important to Democrats.

First, the U.S. Border Patrol would absorb a “surge” of 20,000 additional agents that Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) called “a breathtaking show of force that will discourage future waves of illegal immigration.” Schumer said “a virtual human fence” of agents could conceivably deploy every 1,000 feet along the 2,200-mile border, “all the way from San Diego, California, to Brownsville, Texas.”

The federal government also would need to complete construction of about 700 miles of fencing along the western sector of the border, essentially forcing compliance with immigration laws passed in 1996 and 2006 that authorized fence construction.

Changes in the E-Verify program that employers must use to verify a job applicant’s immigration status would need to be in place, and a biometric scanning system to catch immigrants who overstay visas would need to be operational at the nation’s largest international airports.

The agreement also authorizes the use of $3.2 billion in new border-tracking technology, including radars, scanners and at least 18 unarmed aerial drones.

“I tell you what, if you’re worried about drones, you lost big here,” Graham quipped Thursday. “If you like drones, your ship came in.”

Members of the bipartisan group that drafted the bill once considered the $30 billion price tag for new border agents too high. But aides said their concession to supply the funds was made possible by this week’s Congressional Budget Office report that estimated that the legislation would reduce federal deficits by nearly $200 billion over the next decade.

“We didn’t know we had the dollars; we have them now,” Schumer said.

The additional funding did not make everyone happy. A group of conservative senators, including Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah), called the new border security deal a weak and costly attempt to stop illegal immigration.

“This is going to repeat a couple of mistakes that too often in Washington we make,” said Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), a leading critic. “Too often success in Washington is measured by input — how much money you’re going to spend — while we ought to be measuring success of legislation by results and the outcomes.”

“This is turning out to be 1986 all over again,” Grassley warned, referring to an immigration bill signed that year by President Ronald Reagan that members of both parties believe failed to sufficiently address the issue.

McCain dismissed the criticism, saying, “If they can’t accept these provisions, then border security is not their problem.”

Aaron Blake contributed to this report.

Ed O’Keefe is covering the 2016 presidential campaign, with a focus on Jeb Bush and other Republican candidates. He's covered presidential and congressional politics since 2008. Off the trail, he's covered Capitol Hill, federal agencies and the federal workforce, and spent a brief time covering the war in Iraq.

The Freddie Gray case

Please provide a valid email address.

You’re all set!

Campaign 2016 Email Updates

Please provide a valid email address.

You’re all set!

Get Zika news by email

Please provide a valid email address.

You’re all set!
Comments
Show Comments
The Democrats debated Thursday night. Get caught up on the race.
The Post's Chris Cillizza on the Democratic debate...
On Clinton: She poked a series of holes in Sanders's health-care proposal and broadly cast him as someone who talks a big game but simply can't hope to achieve his goals.

On Sanders: If the challenge was to show that he could be a candidate for people other than those who already love him, he didn't make much progress toward that goal. But he did come across as more well-versed on foreign policy than in debates past.
The PBS debate in 3 minutes
Quoted
We are in vigorous agreement here.
Hillary Clinton, during the PBS Democratic debate, a night in which she and Sanders shared many of the same positions on issues
South Carolina polling averages
Donald Trump leads in the polls as he faces rivals Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz heading into the S.C. GOP primary on Feb. 20.
South Carolina polling averages
The S.C. Democratic primary is Feb. 27. Clinton has a significant lead in the state, whose primary falls one week after the party's Nevada caucuses.
62% 18%
Fact Checker
Trump’s claim that his border wall would cost $8 billion
The billionaire's claim is highly dubious. Based on the costs of the Israeli security barrier (which is mostly fence) and the cost of the relatively simple fence already along the U.S.-Mexico border, an $8 billion price tag is simply not credible.
Pinocchio Pinocchio Pinocchio Pinocchio
The complicated upcoming voting schedule
Feb. 20

Democrats caucus in Nevada; Republicans hold a primary in South Carolina.

Feb. 23

Republicans caucus in Nevada.

Feb. 27

Democrats hold a primary in South Carolina.

Upcoming debates
Feb 13: GOP debate

on CBS News, in South Carolina

Feb. 25: GOP debate

on CNN, in Houston, Texas

March 3: GOP debate

on Fox News, in Detroit, Mich.

Campaign 2016
Where the race stands
Most Read

politics

Success! Check your inbox for details.

See all newsletters

Close video player
Now Playing

To keep reading, please enter your email address.

You’ll also receive from The Washington Post:
  • A free 6-week digital subscription
  • Our daily newsletter in your inbox

Please enter a valid email address

I have read and agree to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.

Please indicate agreement.

Thank you.

Check your inbox. We’ve sent an email explaining how to set up an account and activate your free digital subscription.