A defiant Lindsey Graham forced a White House-backed asylum restrictions bill through his Senate Judiciary Committee Thursday, following what he described as seven weeks of agony waiting unsuccessfully for Democrats to negotiate before the August recess.
“There is a crisis that’s turning into a disaster, and somebody needs to shut off the flow,” Graham said during the bill mark-up Thursday morning.
The committee voted along party lines 12-10 in favor of the South Carolina Republican’s Secure and Protect Act, setting it up for a full Senate vote. The bill is meant to be a comprehensive conservative response to the border crisis.
Because Graham did not include amendments from Democrats, it is unlikely Republicans will get the 60 votes needed to pass the Senate, even if all 53 Republicans backed it. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is not required to bring it up for a vote.
Committee Democrats criticized Graham Thursday for not considering any of the dozens of proposed amendments.
“We are proceeding in this manner to force a vote on a partisan immigration vote even though the chairman did not reach out to try to find a compromise or solution,” ranking Democrat Dianne Feinstein of California said. “Today, if Republicans move forward in this manner, we will take one more step toward fundamentally altering the Senate and turning this body into a second House of Representatives.”
Since mid-June, Democrats have partially skirted committee meetings in order to avoid dealing with the bill. Last Thursday, all Democrats except Feinstein skipped the meeting. Under the bipartisan committee rules, no bill can be marked up or voted on unless seven majority members and at least two minority members are present.
Graham told the committee last week he was prepared to call for a vote without Democrats, even if it meant overriding the agreed-upon rules. Taking the threat seriously, 10 Democrats showed up at the committee Thursday in order to vote “no” and received an upbraiding from Graham for trying to delay moving on his proposal.
“Last week, you chose not to show up so that I couldn’t proceed with the bill that I’ve been trying to work on for two to three months,” Graham said. “The committee can’t be a place where nothing happens because the House may not pass it.”
Sen. Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat, physically tore up papers that he said contained the rules Graham was threatening to ignore. Graham remained adamant and said his colleagues’ frustrations would not derail him.
“It would be different if I had not tried for seven weeks. I withheld marking up this bill, and I got nowhere,” said Graham. “You may not like what we do over here. You can vote no. But this committee is not going to be the ‘dead in committee’ on things that matter. We’re actually going to act. I hope it’s bipartisan, but if it’s not, we’re going to deal with the nation’s problems.”
He also said Democrats in his position would do the same thing and go rogue if Republicans refused to come to the table on an important piece of legislation.
Graham introduced the bill on May 15 in an effort to take emergency action to stem and respond to the record-high number of migrant families arriving at the U.S.-Mexico border.
His bill would allow the Department of Homeland Security to double the number of federal immigration judges in order to more quickly decide asylum cases, force all asylum-seekers to apply for credible fear at processing centers in their home countries, and allow those in Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody to be held up to 100 days, instead of 20 days, while their asylum proceedings go forward.
The Secure and Protect Act was intended to reform the country’s “broken and outdated” asylum laws, including the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Reauthorization Protection Act of 2008, Graham said in May. The trafficking act mandated children from noncontiguous countries, those from nations others than Canada and Mexico, be protected from immediate deportation due to the possibility they may have been trafficked to the U.S. against their will.
The change to detainee holding lengths is a legislative attempt to overhaul a 2015 court ruling by U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee of the Central District of California. Gee ordered immigrant children arriving alone or with a parent not be held by ICE more than 20 days. At the time, families could be held for any duration.
Another part of the proposal would force those fleeing violence in their home countries — primarily El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras — to present themselves at “refugee processing centers” there instead of traveling to the U.S. and applying at ports of entry or illegally entering and claiming a credible fear, as most are doing.
In addition, 500 new immigration judges would be hired, though the senator did not share the time constraints of that plan.
Susan Ferrechio contributed to this report.
