The Senate on Thursday rejected immigration legislation crafted by centrists in both parties after President Trump threatened to veto the bill if it made it to his desk.
In a 54-45 vote, the Senate failed to advance the legislation from eight Republican, seven Democratic and one Independent senators. It needed 60 votes to overcome a procedural hurdle.
{mosads}
A few Democrats, including Sens. Kamala Harris (Calif.), Martin Heinrich (N.M.) and Tom Udall (N.M.), withheld their votes until it was clear the measure could not get to 60, and then voted against it.
Udall and Heinrich released a statement explaining the bill would have provided funding for Trump’s border wall.
The centrist deal, backed by Sens. Susan Collins (Maine), Jeff Flake (Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (S.C.) and other Republicans, represented perhaps the best chance to advance legislation in the Senate, but was opposed by Trump and his allies in part because it did not cover all four immigration “pillars” he had demanded.
Two other amendments were rejected before the vote. The first, a bipartisan proposal from Sens. Christopher Coons (D-Del.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.), fell in a 52-47 vote. The second measure, which would have cracked down on cities that don’t comply with federal immigration laws, also fell in a 55-44 vote.
The Senate will now vote on a measure mirroring Trump’s proposed immigration deal, but it is also expected to fail. That will leave Congress with an uncertain path on immigration ahead of a March 5 deadline set by the president.
The centrist bill would have allowed about 1.8 million immigrants brought to the United States illegally as children to remain, providing them an eventual pathway to citizenship. It also included $25 billion in border security and would have prevented the parents of “Dreamers” from being sponsored for citizenship.
“This is the only bill that has a chance to get through the United States Senate,” Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) said during a press conference ahead of the vote.
Trump and conservatives criticized the bill for what it lacked — broad changes to family-based or “chain” immigration and the elimination of the Diversity Visa Lottery program, two demands from the president.
It’s not clear whether the bill would have moved in the House, though its passage by the Senate would have increased pressure on Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.).
The White House in warning the president would veto it said the bill “would undermine the safety and security of American families and impede economic growth for American workers” and result in “a flood of new illegal immigration in the coming months.”
The Department of Homeland Security separately said the proposal “ignores the lessons of 9/11” and “destroys” the ability of the department to remove undocumented immigrants from the country.
Graham fired back that the statement was “poisonous” and the department should say “thank you” whenever they get an offer that includes money for the U.S.-Mexico border wall.
In an early sign that the bill would fall short, Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), who supported the 2013 comprehensive immigration bill, announced on Thursday that he would oppose the bipartisan amendment and back GOP alternative also supported by Trump.
Corker’s decision comes amid speculation that he could change his mind on retiring and run for reelection.
Trump announced last year he was ending the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which allows immigrants brought into the country illegally to work and go to school.
Under that decision Congress had until March 5 to pass a legislative fix. That decision has been thrown into limbo by a pair of court decisions.
Harris’s last-second vote put her on the opposite side of the tally from several other Democratic senators seen as 2020 hopefuls, including Sens. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.) and Cory Booker (N.J.).
Harris said after the vote that she “could not in good conscience” support the centrist group’s proposal.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), another potential 2020 hopeful, defended his vote in support of the proposal, noting it is “clearly … not the bill I would have written.”