GovernmentExecutive.com

The White House is vowing not to choose sides in fights over most amendments to the immigration bill, deferring to the bipartisan group of senators who crafted the legislation.

But administration officials will be out again in force this week to push for the overall bill, the president's top domestic priority, and will wage battle over select provisions.

In a telephone briefing Monday, Deputy Chief of Staff Joel Kaplan said the administration would oppose an amendment by Finance Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., ranking member Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, and Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., that would ease requirements for businesses to verify the legal status of employees.

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff has been leading the administration charge against the amendment. "He obviously feels very strongly that this provision would undermine the effective employer verification system," Kaplan said. "And that's a big concern, so we'll be advising senators to vote against it."

Kaplan predicted the legislation would gain the 60 votes needed to move back onto the floor.

Kaplan also suggested displeasure with an amendment by Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., to toughen restrictions on the receipt of Social Security benefits by illegal immigrants.

"The underlying bill takes one approach, which is pretty tough, I think, in generally . . . denying credit to the illegal workers for their contributions to Social Security," Kaplan said. "The Ensign amendment, as I understand it, would tighten that up a little bit further, and we'll work with the members of the Senate to see whether . . . the underlying text or the Ensign amendment strikes the right balance."

But Kaplan said the White House backs an amendment by Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., to beef up some of the bill's enforcement provisions and eliminate a requirement for completing background checks in 24 hours.

Nevertheless, Kaplan argued that removal of the 24-hour provision was unnecessary, saying it would not have resulted in immigrants "getting any kind of a free pass."

Kaplan said Bush would make calls to senators only as needed to round up support.

But the president will speak publicly about his support for the bill Tuesday at the White House.

The president made calls last week and devoted his Saturday radio address to the issue.

He emphasized a line of argument the White House plans to push broadly this week, suggesting something needs to be done about illegal immigration, and the current bill is the only game in town.

"What the president and his Cabinet secretaries and others are doing is explaining why this bill is necessary and reinforcing the message as to why the status quo is unacceptable, and how the pieces of this legislation fit together to provide a solution to the unacceptable circumstance we face today on our border and within the interior of the country," Kaplan said.

COMMENTS

• Illegal is the key word here. I read the other day that there are 12 million, well, if we know that then we must know where they are! Let's face it, all politicians are worried about are losing that powerful "vote" from the legal family members of the illegal immigrants. We make it to easy, give all the benefits of health care, education, food stamps, to name a few, to these illegals, no one said they weren't bright! Everyone is worried about social security which was never established to support only supplement and not last forever, yet let one have a baby and the world is theirs. Let's really tackel the issues, stop the corruption of our great benefits, make it fair and there will be enough for every LEGAL citizen. Kathleen Jensen Posted July 9, 2007 2:50 PM
• This is not a good bill and the U.S. Congress is not representing its constituency! Illegal is illegal! I was thrown in jail in Brazil for having the wrong entry document, and detained in Mexico City for not having the correct work visa. My first wife was from South America and I had to get an immigrant visa for her to come to our country. Send them back and make them go through the legal process to get a visa to enter our country and enforce the time limit constraint and purpose of the visa. Otherwise, we don't need a new law, just follow the law that are in place! Larry Richardson Posted June 27, 2007 12:28 PM
• What I would like to point out is the opening statement, “The White House is vowing not to choose sides in fights over most amendments to the immigration bill”. For those not familiar with legalese, that means this will be a partisan shopping list. Did I hear a “Cha-CHING!!”? All the talk about vetoes to hold the line on budgetary restraint, earmarks, etc will go out the window in an attempt for Dubya to buy his geo-political heritage. I have heard SOOoo much about the newly invested party acting like spendthrifts; please know that is all politics as usual and applies to everyone living within the beltway. You want something passed? Give something away. Kind of reminds me of that MASH episode where Hawkeye Pierce makes 20 deals for a single pair of boots. Tip off Posted June 27, 2007 12:13 PM