Obama on immigration overhaul: 'Now is the time'
Photo
LAS VEGAS Declaring "now is the time" to fix the nation's broken immigration system, President Barack Obama on Tuesday outlined broad proposals for putting millions of illegal immigrants on a clear path to citizenship while cracking down on businesses that employ people illegally and tightening security at the borders. He hailed a bipartisan Senate group on a similar track but left unresolved key details that could derail the complex and emotional effort.
Potential Senate roadblocks center on how to structure the avenue to citizenship and on whether legislation would cover same-sex couples — and that's all before a Senate measure could be debated, approved and sent to the Republican-controlled House where opposition is sure to be stronger.
Obama, who carried Nevada in the November election with heavy Hispanic support, praised the Senate push, saying Congress is showing "a genuine desire to get this done soon." But mindful of previous immigrations efforts that have failed, he warned that the debate would be difficult and vowed to send his own legislation to Capitol Hill if lawmakers don't act quickly.
"The question now is simple," Obama said during a campaign-style event in Las Vegas, one week after being sworn in for a second term in the White House. "Do we have the resolve as a people, as a country, as a government to finally put this issue behind us? I believe that we do."
Shortly after Obama finished speaking, cracks emerged between the White House and the group of eight senators, which put out their proposals one day ahead of the president. Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake, one of four Republicans in the group, criticized Obama for not making a citizenship pathway contingent on tighter border security, a central tenant of the lawmakers' proposals.
"This provision is key to ensuring that border security is achieved, and is also necessary to ensure that a reform package can actually move through Congress," Flake said in a statement.
House Speaker John Boehner also responded coolly, with spokesman Brendan Buck saying the Ohio Republican hoped the president would be "careful not to drag the debate to the left and ultimately disrupt the difficult work that is ahead in the House and Senate."
Despite possible obstacles to come, the broad agreement between the White House and bipartisan lawmakers in the Senate represents a drastic shift in Washington's willingness to tackle immigration, an issue that has languished for years. Much of that shift is politically motivated, due to the growing influence of Hispanics in presidential and other elections and their overwhelming support for Obama in November.
The separate White House and Senate proposals focus on the same principles: providing a way for most of the estimated 11 million people already in the U.S. illegally to become citizens, strengthening border security, cracking down on employers who hire illegal immigrants and streamlining the legal immigration system.
A consensus around the question of citizenship could help lawmakers clear one major hurdle that has blocked previous immigration efforts. Many Republicans have opposed allowing illegal immigrants to become citizens, saying that would be an unfair reward for people who have broken the law.
Details on how to achieve a pathway to citizenship still could prove to be a major sticking point between the White House and the Senate group.
Obama and the Senate lawmakers all want to require people here illegally to register with the government, pass criminal and national security background checks, pay fees and penalties as well as back taxes, and wait until existing immigration backlogs are cleared before getting in line for green cards. Neither proposal backs up those requirements with specifics.
After achieving legal status, U.S. law says people can become citizens after five years.
The Senate proposal says that entire process couldn't start until the borders were fully secure and tracking of people in the U.S. on visas had improved. Those vague requirements would almost certainly make the timeline for achieving citizenship longer than what the White House is proposing.
The president urged lawmakers to avoid making the citizenship pathway so difficult that it would appear out of reach for many illegal immigrants.
"We all agree that these men and women have to earn their way to citizenship," he said. "But for comprehensive immigration reform to work, it must make clear from the outset that there is a pathway to citizenship."
"It won't be a quick process, but it will be a fair process," Obama added.
Another key difference between the White House and Senate proposals is the administration's plan to allow same-sex partners to seek visas under the same rules that govern other family immigration. The Senate principles do not recognize same-sex partners, though Democratic lawmakers have told gay rights groups that they could seek to include that in a final bill.
John McCain of Arizona, who is part of the Senate immigration group, called the issue a "red flag" in an interview Tuesday on "CBS This Morning."
Washington last took up immigration changes in a serious way in 2007, when then-President George W. Bush pressed for an overhaul. The initial efforts had bipartisan support but eventually collapsed in the Senate because of a lack of GOP support.
Cognizant of that failed effort, the White House has readied its own immigration legislation. But officials said Obama will send it to the Hill only if the Senate process stalls.
Most of the recommendations Obama made Tuesday were not new. They were included in the immigration blueprint he released in 2011, but he exerted little political capital to get it passed by Congress, to the disappointment of many Hispanics.
Some of the recommendations in the Senate plan are also pulled from past immigration efforts. The senators involved in formulating the latest proposals, in addition to McCain and Flake, are Democrats Charles Schumer of New York, Dick Durbin of Illinois, Robert Menendez of New Jersey and Michael Bennet of Colorado, and Republicans Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, and Marco Rubio of Florida.
Also Tuesday, in another sign of Congress' increased attention to immigration issues, a group of four senators introduced legislation aimed at allowing more high-tech workers into the country, a longtime priority of technology businesses. The bill by Republicans Rubio and Orrin Hatch and Democrats Amy Klobuchar and Chris Coons would increase the number of visas available for high-tech workers, make it easier for them to change jobs once here and for their spouses to work, and aim to make it easier for foreigners at U.S. universities to remain here upon graduation.
Julie Pace reported from Washington. Associated Press writer Erica Werner contributed.

Jan 30, 2013 at 1:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
OK Pasta -- lets do whats right. They are here illegally -- so -- we round them all up and send them home. I would agree to that. Works for me. Then let them apply legally and have armed drones flying over the border.
It would only take one incident of a an illegal coming across and the influx would stop.
Jan 30, 2013 at 1:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
Lets see Sandman.....That would have been... Saint Ronald. Correct?
Even Saint Ronald would not pass muster with today's Republicans.
Jan 30, 2013 at 10:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
No, "the time" was 20-30 years ago when the problem of illegal immigration was not properly dealt with and the tide should have been stemmed THEN. There were always LEGAL ways to get into this (or any other) country - what was the problem with properly enforcing them these past several decades?
But then we haven't stemmed speeding, drunk driving, domestic violence, or the "War on Drugs," so why should we think that "the government" will do anything else properly (aside from collecting and OVER-spending our tax dollars...and when I say "our" I mean, of course - the rapidly diminishing percentage of the population that actually works and is forced to contribute taxes!).
Jan 30, 2013 at 10:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
@RetiredAirForce.......That's not on Obama's agenda! ;-)
Jan 30, 2013 at 10:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/b...
Jan 30, 2013 at 6:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
Sadly the president has not stated "now is the time" to fix our nations financial problems.
Jan 29, 2013 at 11:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
Oh you mean this law???
Of the three branches of the U.S. government, Congress has the power to determine federal spending, pursuant to Article I, Section 9, of the U.S. Constitution, which states, "No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law." The drafters of the Constitution sought to secure the federal Spending Power with legislators rather than the president, to keep separate the powers of purse and sword. In The Federalist No. 58, James Madison wrote, "This power of the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people."
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionar...
Jan 29, 2013 at 10:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
THE KING HAS SPOKEN..........!!!!!!!
Jan 29, 2013 at 10:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
4 years....budget is required by law, potus and dem's disregard the law.
Jan 29, 2013 at 10:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
Back to name calling...typical.
Jan 29, 2013 at 9:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
Heil Obama!
Jan 29, 2013 at 9:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
I wonder if Winklady breaks down the cost of every speech by every conservative politiciaan? Doubtful.
Every issue in the world could never be more important than putting forth a budget. Unfortunately the budget issue is moot, the president has put forth a budget shot down by politics, plain and simple. The repubs in the house have done the same thing. The reason we have no budget is as a result of our broken politics, not solely the president. Please give up on your repetetive narrative, you sound like a parrot more and more every day.
Should we talk about the house Republicans voting 34 times to repeal a law (Obamacare) that is and will remain on the books? Not a whisper from our tea bagger friends.
Jan 29, 2013 at 8:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
Hail to the furor!
Jan 29, 2013 at 7:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
Another idea is make them unable to vote for five years after the request to become a citizen.
Jan 29, 2013 at 7:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
outstanding definition ... unpaid - not paid; "unpaid wages"; "an unpaid bill"
Jan 29, 2013 at 6:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
I wonder if they had trouble filling up the gym for his visit.
Jan 29, 2013 at 6:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
First guns,then he violated the constitution with his NLRB appointments, now immigration? He hasn't even been in his second term for 2 weeks and he is charging full steam to the left. Whats it going to be like in 4 years? Hammer and sickle? I give him credit he was a very good con man in his first term pretending to be a centrist president.
Jan 29, 2013 at 6:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
I was fortunate to have been there for his speech. An outstanding presentation by an outstanding American President.
Jan 29, 2013 at 5:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
In other words, for you anti 2nd amendment people, immigration is the new topic to distract you from the fact he doesn't have the needed gun control votes.
Jan 29, 2013 at 5:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
Having a pathway to citizenship should not be a guarantee. The line of law abiding people that have followed the rules, is long and those that did not, need to start at the back of the line. I also feel that if a decision comes down to a maybe, and the individual came in illegally -- then thats enough to tip the scale to a no.
Jan 29, 2013 at 5:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
The media won't report it, but Pres. Obama's immigration speech today cost taxpayers $519.82 per word. I doubt it was spellbinding, even at that cost.
Jan 29, 2013 at 4:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
Now is the time..............for a BUDGET, first.
Jan 29, 2013 at 4:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
Why even have a law if you are not going to enforce it
We should not award those that did not obey the law in the first place
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.