Senators Jeff Flake (R-AZ), Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) voted with all ten of the Democrats on the committee to move the bill forward. The remaining five Republican members voted against it. (Scroll down after the video to see a list of the votes.)

During his closing remarks, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) explained his objections to the bill including how it is “utterly toothless” with border security.

 Senate Judiciary Committee Vote on S.744.

You can also review FAIR’s summaries of amendments on border security (Title 1), and amendments on H-1B visas, W visas and the JOLT Act in Title IV.

Kenneth Palinkas, NCISC president, echoed the concerns of Chris Crane, president of the National ICE Council, in a statement announcing the position:

Yet, like the ICE Council, the USCIS Council was not consulted in the crafting ofthe Gang of Eight’s legislation. Instead, the legislation was written with special interests- producing a bill that makes the current system worse, not better. S. 744 will damage public safety and national security and should be opposed by lawmakers.

Palinkas also indicated that NCISC would support a letter signed by more than 40 law enforcement and immigration enforcement officials that was released earlier in May.

Since many of the 20,000 employees represented between these two unions are on the front line of immigration enforcement, this announcement made headlines:

New York Times: Larger Union That Enforces Immigration Opposes Bill

A letter to Congress that excoriates the Senate proposal, and that the immigration officers’ union signed for the first time, reveals simmering unrest among Homeland Security employees, who have been asked to carry out broad and fast-paced immigration policy shifts by the Obama administration. Deportation agents have been instructed to focus heavily on removing serious criminal offenders, while immigration officers have been urged to accelerate their decisions on granting legal papers and reprieves from deportation.

The Hill: Union for immigration enforcement officers to oppose Senate bill

“Over 150 conservative leaders, groups and grassroots activists have signed an open letter opposing the Senate immigration reform bill. ‘We write to express our serious concerns regarding the Gang of Eight’s immigration bill, S. 744. We oppose this bill and urge you to vote against it when it comes to the Senate floor,’ the letter to be released Tuesday and obtained by The Daily Caller reads,” the Daily Caller says.

“‘Reforming our immigration system is an important priority. But S.744 is such a defective measure that it would do more harm than good. We urge you to vote against it and against any cloture vote to bring up the bill. Only then can a constructive, measured debate take place on how to improve America’s immigration policy,’ the letter reads.”

Liberals for Low Wages

“[I]s there any other situation [besides agriculture] where progressives are inclined to believe that low wages are the key to competitiveness, and that this is a good reason to keep wages low? Any other industry granted this exception to the general progressive view that workers deserve compensation commensurate with the dignity of labor as such?” asks Noah Milman in the American Conservative.

What would happen if agricultural labor were better-compensated? To some degree American agricultural enterprises would become less-competitive—we’d import more of some kinds of food from abroad . . . The American agricultural mix might change. America farms might focus more on those crops where there is a greater return to the application of capital, while more labor-intensive agriculture moves to countries with lower labor costs.”

Gang of Eight Fight Amendments

“A bipartisan group of senators begin their fifth full day of debating changes to the immigration reform bill Tuesday. So far, the so-called mark up process has left the sweeping overhaul of the nation’s immigration laws–which would legalize most of the country’s 11 million undocumented immigrants–largely untouched,” Yahoo News says.

“On Tuesday, the senators will address some of the final controversial changes to the bill, including increasing the number of visas for the high tech industry and whether to allow people in same-sex marriages to apply for green cards for their spouses.”

DHS Jumps to Counter Union Criticism

“Department of Homeland Security officials, responding to sharp criticism on Monday from a union representing 12,000 of its employees, said they had added many safeguards in recent years to protect against fraud and security violations by foreigners seeking to live in the United States,” the New York Times says.

“The officials reacted swiftly to a statement by Kenneth Palinkas, president of the National Citizenship and Immigration Services Council, in which he called on lawmakers to reject an immigration bill before the Senate, saying security procedures were weak for checking the backgrounds of millions of immigrants who would apply for immigration documents under the legislation.”

While the focus in immigration news is currently with the Gang of Eight amnesty bill in Washington, the state legislature in Florida recently killed seven bills related to immigration issues when they adjourned on May 2. All of the bills would have provided a benefit to illegal aliens such as protection against ICE detainers, in-state tuition, welfare benefits, and driver’s licenses.

Anti-detainer bill
The Florida Trust Act (Transparency and Responsibility Using State Tools) would have prevented local officials from complying with ICE detainers unless the person had been convicted of or was charged with a serious offense. House Bill 767 and its identical companion bill, Senate Bill 730 died in their respective Criminal Justice Committees.

DREAM Act
The Florida DREAM Act, would have provided in-state tuition to illegal aliens who had (1) attended school in Florida for three years, (2) received a Florida high school diploma or GED, (3) registered at a state university or Florida College System institution, and (4) filed an affidavit with the state university or college stating that he/she has filed an application to legalize his/her immigration status or will do so as soon as eligible to do so. House Bill 1113 died in the House Higher education and Workforce Subcommittee, and its identical companion bill, Senate Bill 624, died in the Senate Education Committee.

Welfare for Illegal Alien Children
Senate Bill 704 and its identical companion bill, House Bill 4023, would have made illegal alien children eligible for the state’s welfare program, Kidcare.  Current law restricts the Kidcare program to “qualified aliens” as defined by federal law to exclude illegal aliens.  SB 704 died in the Senate Health Policy Committee and HB 4023 died in the House Healthy Families Subcommittee.

Driver’s Licenses for Illegal Aliens
Senate Bill 1304 would have made an illegal alien eligible for Florida driver’s license by expanding acceptable proof of identity to include (1) a foreign passport from the applicant’s country of citizenship or (2) a consular ID card.  SB 1304 died in the Transportation Committee.

Learn more about State & Local Issues at FAIR.

The fight to implement an effective, biometric entry-exit system in the U.S. has been a long one. In 1996, Congress passed the first law requiring the government implement an entry-exit system to track aliens as they enter and leave the U.S. (IIRAIRA, Division C of Pub.L. 104–208). At that time, Congress provided that the automated system must:

1) Collect a record of departure for every alien departing the United States and match the records of departure with the record of the alien’s arrival in the United States; and
2) Enable the Attorney General to identify, through on-line searching procedures, lawfully admitted nonimmigrants who remain in the United States beyond the period authorized by the Attorney General. (Sec. 110)

Congress mandated the entry-exit system because it knew the government could not accurately track aliens entering and leaving the United States. The entry-exit system would not only increase national security, but also help enforce the laws against the sizable portion of the illegal population that overstays their visas.

In 2000, Congress passed another law regarding the entry-exit system, this time requiring the system to be “electronic,” and to be implemented at all air, sea, and land ports of entry. (Immigration and Naturalization Service Data Management Improvement Act of 2000, Public Law 106-215).

Again in 2000, when amending the Visa Waiver Program, Congress required a “fully automated entry and exit control system” to record entry and departure information for all aliens participating in the Visa Waiver Program. Congress also required the passports of participants in the Visa Waiver program to be machine-readable. (Visa Waiver Permanent Program Act, Public Law 106-396)

In 2011, after the September 11 terror attacks, Congress once again demanded the government implement an entry-exit system through passage of the PATRIOT Act (Public Law 107-56, October 2001) The intent of Congress was crystal-clear. Section 414 of the PATRIOT Act states:

“In light of the terrorist attacks perpetrated against the United States on September 11, 2001, it is the sense of the Congress that the Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of State, should fully implement the integrated entry and exit data system for airports, seaports, and land border ports of entry… with all deliberate speed and as expeditiously as practicable…”

Importantly, as part of the PATRIOT Act, Congress demanded that the entry-exit system be biometric and based on tamper-resistant, machine-readable documents. (Sec. 414) A biometric system requires that an immigration document match the individual presenting it to an immigration official. There are a variety of ways to make a document biometric. Perhaps the most common way is to incorporate digital fingerprints, which can easily be run through computer databases to match records on file. According to DHS’s own website: “Unlike names and dates of birth, which can be changed, biometrics are unique and virtually impossible to forge. Collecting biometrics helps the U.S. government prevent people from using fraudulent documents to enter the country illegally. Collecting biometrics also helps protect your identity in the event your travel documents are lost or stolen.”

In 2002 Congress reiterated its demand for a biometric entry-exit system. It passed legislation requiring that the government issue aliens “only machine-readable, tamper-resistant visas and other travel and entry documents that use biometric identifiers.” It also required that the government install biometric readers and scanners “at all ports of entry of the United States…” (Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-173, Sec. 303, 8 U.S.C. 1372))

In 2004, Congress again demanded a biometric entry exit system through the passage of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. (Pub. L. 108-458, Title VII, Sec. 7208, Dec. 17, 2004, now 8 U.S.C.S 1365b) That law reads:

“Congress finds that completing a biometric entry and exit data system as expeditiously as possible is an essential investment in efforts to protect the United States by preventing the entry of terrorists.” (8 U.S.C.S 1365b(a))

It also provides that DHS “shall develop a plan to accelerate the full implementation of an automated biometric entry and exit data system.” (8 U.S.C. 1365b(c))

Yet, despite these repeated demands of Congress, the United States government still has not implemented a full biometric entry-exit system. The government has indeed implemented a biometric entry system and is taking digital fingerprints of aliens who enter the U.S. But to-date – 17 years after the first law passed by Congress – the U.S. still has no biometric exit system. So while the government has a reasonable idea of who enters the U.S., law enforcement officials have no idea if the aliens ever leave the country.

Unfortunately, S.744 does not require a biometric entry-exit system. Section 3 of the bill merely requires that before DHS can grant RPI status to illegal aliens, DHS must “certify” that DHS “is using an electronic exit system at air and sea ports of entry that operates by collecting machine-readable visa or passport information from air and vessel operators.” (p.12) Thus, as drafted, the bill falls short of current law. It does not require a biometric system and it only requires implementation at air and sea ports of entry, not land ports of entry, as required by current law.

The amendment offered by Senator Orrin Hatch yesterday was merely a token provision to improve the original language in S.744. The amendment maintains the language in the original bill and, in addition to that, provides that DHS shall establish, within two years of enactment, a mandatory biometric exit data system at the 10 airports with the highest volume of international travelers. Within six years, the amendment requires DHS establish a biometric exit system at the 30 busiest international airports. Finally, no later than six years after enactment, DHS must merely submit a plan to Congress “for the expansion of the biometric exit system to “major” sea and land entry and exit points within the U.S. Thus, the Hatch amendment, like S.744, only requires a fraction of what is already required by current law.

So far, the Gang of Eight – with the exception of Senator Rubio – has steadfastly opposed the full implementation of a biometric entry-exit system. Last week, Senator Schumer complained that implementing a biometric entry-exit system was ineffective and could delay the amnesty program indefinitely.

However, during the debate over the Hatch amendment, Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) offered proof that Senator Schumer was wrong. Sessions pointed to a 2009 DHS report (which was kept secret from most members of Congress) that showed that a biometric exit program would work effectively and was projected to cost much less than airlines –who have opposed the biometric system – have suggested. Specifically, the 2009 report analyzed the results of a pilot program to implement the biometric exit program conducted at the Detroit and Atlanta international airports from May 28, 2009 to July 2, 2009. It found that of more than 500,000 travelers who passed through the pilot program airports, about 30,000 aliens were biometrically processed in accordance with the law. In Detroit, officials identified 44 aliens on terror watch lists and 60 suspected overstayers. In Atlanta, officials identified 131 aliens on terror watch lists and 90 suspected overstayers. (Report at iii.)

Importantly, the pilot program showed “no impact” at Detroit or “no significant impact” to the average boarding time per passenger. Depending on the type of fingerprint scanner, the average processing time took approximately 1 minute. (Report at iv.)

After a long debate over the biometric exit system Monday, the Hatch amendment was adopted 13-5. However, the debate over a biometric entry-exit system will no doubt continue as the Gang of Eight Amnesty bill heads to the Senate floor. Gang of Eight Member Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) has voiced support for a biometric entry-exit program and indicated he will offer an amendment on the floor to ensure it is implemented. It remains to be seen whether Senator Rubio will be satisfied with the watered-down Hatch amendment.

The Gang of Eight bill (S. 744) allows an illegal alien who is a convicted member of a criminal street gang to be eligible for amnesty if he renounces his gang affiliation. A renunciation is not needed for gang members under 18. (See FAIR’s Analysis of the Gang Provisions in the Senate Amnesty Bill) The Grassley amendment would have stricken this section and changed the standards of admissibility relating to aliens in criminal gangs by making it harder for those aliens to be eligible for admissibility or RPI status. It also would have switched the burden of proof from the Secretary of Homeland Security to the alien.

The amendment stated that an alien is inadmissible if they are a member of a criminal street gang unless the alien could demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the alien did not know and could not have known that the organization was a criminal street gang. The amendment used this same standard for determining whether an alien would have been deportable for being in a criminal street gang and for determining whether the alien would have been eligible for RPI status.

You can view the list of amendments being debated today on the Senate Judiciary Committee Website.