House Vote on Immigration May Signal Party Battle

WASHINGTON â€”  Signaling a potentially bruising congressional battle on immigration reform, the House on Thursday passed a bill that would virtually bar states from issuing driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants, tighten the rules for asylum and close a hole in the border fence between California and Mexico.

The bill passed easily, 261 to 161. But the prospects for its provisions becoming law remain uncertain. Indeed, the House vote underscored the divide between it and the Senate on immigration policy.

Many House Republicans are determined to crack down on illegal immigrants and raise the bar for proving a credible case for asylum. But the GOP-controlled Senate is laying the groundwork for taking up President Bush’s proposal for creating a guest worker program that could legalize the status of millions of illegal workers.

Immigration policy “is the issue that will boil up and spill over and split [Republicans in Congress], if the administration continues to want to drive down this direction,� said Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), a member of the House Immigration Reform Caucus.

This increasingly vocal group, composed mostly of Republicans, advocates cracking down on illegal immigrants and limiting legal immigration. They have arrayed themselves against the White House and those Republicans and Democrats who advocate a guest worker program or more far-reaching reforms that would create a path to citizenship for at least some of the estimated 8 million immigrants believed to be living in the U.S. illegally.

During debate on the bill the House passed Thursday, Republicans insisted it was a law enforcement and border security package aimed at keeping terrorists out of the United States. The driver’s license provision, they argued, would hinder the ability of terrorists to travel freely here if they mange to slip over the borders.

Democrats insisted that the measure, titled the Real ID Act by its sponsor, Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.), was a harsh piece of anti-immigrant legislation.

The bill would require states to verify that any driver’s license applicant was residing legally in the U.S. before issuing a license that could be used for purposes of federal identification.

That would mean states could issue licenses to illegal immigrants -- as 11states now do -- but those licenses could not be used to board airplanes in the United States, open bank accounts or enter federal buildings.

A handful of Republicans and Democrats on Thursday said the standards would be the first step toward a national identification system.

“If you vote for [the bill], you will be voting for a national ID card,� said Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas). The license provision, he said, was not really voluntary, because “if a state opts out, nobody is going to accept their driver’s licenses.�

The provisions targeted for the most criticism from Democrats were those that would increase the burden of proof that applicants for asylum must meet and would restrict the right of judges to review decisions by immigration officials at the borders to reject asylum applications.

“The asylum provisions make it much more difficult for legitimate victims to be granted asylum,� said Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), who offered an unsuccessful amendment to strip the provisions. As a result, Nadler warned, legitimate applicants fleeing persecution in their countries “will be sent back to their persecutors.�

Republicans insisted that the tougher asylum requirements are necessary to keep terrorists from gaming the system and some judges from loosely interpreting the laws to overrule immigration officials.

Sensenbrenner noted that the bill would lift the cap on the number of successful asylum applicants who can apply for legal residency each year. That number is currently 10,000, and immigration advocates have long lobbied for it to be lifted. That is hardly an “anti-immigrant� move, Sensenbrenner said.

But the bill also would make it possible to deport foreign residents if they are found to have contributed to terrorist groups or to have provided other support to such groups. The bill’s supporters said that would make such residents deportable for offenses that would have kept them out of the U.S. if known before they arrived.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which opposed the bill, said it would deny foreign residents the protection of the Constitution.

Even some of the bill’s backers acknowledge there is a good chance it will not be considered by the Senate. As a result, Sensenbrenner extracted a promise from the GOP House leadership to attach it to one of the first pieces of legislation thought certain to be passed by both chambers this year.

That is expected to be the bill the White House plans to send to Congress next week, seeking $80 billion for U.S. military and rebuilding operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But both the Democratic and Republican Senate leaders have said that adding the immigration provisions to the Iraq funding bill would only bog down the Senate’s consideration of the measure, which the White House wants passed quickly.

One Democratic leadership aide, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the House and Senate will probably engage in a “game of chicken� over the fate of the immigration bill -- with the Senate threatening to hold up the Iraq funding measure if it contains the immigration provisions and the House threatening to do the same if they are not included.

That would leave the White House in the awkward position of having to support one side or the other. If it sides with the Senate, it could alienate Sensenbrenner, who could block -- or at least slow -- any guest worker legislation in the House.

In Thursday’s vote, 42 Democrats joined with 219 Republicans in passing Sensenbrenner’s bill.

All but one of California’s 20 Republican House members voted for the bill; the one foe was Rep. Richard W. Pombo (R-Tracy).

Two of California’s 33 House Democrats -- Rep. Dennis A. Cardoza (D-Atwater ) and Rep. Mike Costa (D-Fresno) -- voted for the bill, while 28 opposed it. Three Democrats did not vote: Reps. Michael M. Honda of San Jose, Anna G. Eshoo of Atherton and Loretta Sanchez of Garden Grove.