CQ Today
July 10, 2006

Isakson Still Hopes to Pull ‘Trigger’ to Reach Compromise on Immigration
By Michael Sandler

Even though his staggered, two-tiered approach for solving the immigration dilemma died on the Senate floor May 16, Georgia Republican Johnny Isakson predicted moments after the vote that his “trigger” concept would resurface.

And right he was. Nearly two months after the amendment failed, 40-55, the idea has gained new currency as a possible basis for compromise on legislation to overhaul the nation’s immigration laws.

Isakson’s proposal — to start with border security and phase in the more contentious guest worker program and earned citizenship at a later time — created a buzz over the July Fourth recess, just as House and Senate leaders commenced their summer-long competition for public sentiment over two highly different immigration proposals. A White House legislative affairs director introduced the concept as a potential means to move the two chambers closer to a compromise, and even some senators who opposed Isakson in May expressed flexibility.

“I have been optimistic,” Isakson said in an interview July 7. “I’m hoping in the end we can get a trigger. Because if you don’t secure the border, you are never going to get comprehensive immigration reform.”

But despite the revival and the buzz, the trigger concept faces major hurdles. It received a tepid response from key lawmakers — and structuring it in a way that would satisfy enough people to get a conference report through both chambers could prove daunting.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said July 6 that President Bush is “interested in finding a way forward,” but that he is not committed to any particular idea. Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter, who had warmed to the potential solution before leaving Washington for the weeklong break, downplayed the trigger’s significance after conducting an immigration field hearing in Philadelphia on July 5.

“I think if we can agree substantively on what we want to get done, we can abandon the concept of triggering or what is first,” said the Pennsylvania Republican, the Senate’s lead negotiator on the measure.

The trigger’s appeal, as Specter’s “if” suggests, is that it offers a way to bridge a gap that otherwise might not be bridgeable.

As with many other aspects of the immigration debate, the trigger concept is highly subjective; it might mean one thing to one lawmaker and something else to another For many, it only magnifies the already wide rift between the two chambers.

The Senate bill (S 2611) would combine border security and enforcement with a legalization plan for most of the illegal immigrants here and a new guest worker program for an additional 200,000 immigrants a year. The House bill (HR 4437) does not include either of those provisions, and focuses on border security and verification of the citizenship status of all workers.

For those House Republicans who consider the Senate bill too lenient on illegal immigrants, an endorsement of the trigger would translate into accepting a guest worker plan and a path to earned citizenship. They also worry about putting the final decision to pull the trigger in the hands of the Homeland Security secretary.

“If I thought it was a good idea, I would have proposed it when I first reviewed it several years ago,” said Steve King, R-Iowa, on July 6.

Texas Republican Lamar Smith, a senior member of the House Judiciary Committee, calls a trigger “nebulous” and said as long as Bush continues to talk about “comprehensive immigration reform,” the president undercuts his credibility on border security.

“If it is the same provisions you object to, then a trigger doesn’t really address the problem,” Smith said in an interview July 6. “If it consists of an individual making a decision, that’s clearly meaningless.”

Isakson called Smith’s concerns “valid,” but said they refer to the first draft of his amendment, which would have triggered the legalization and guest worker programs after the Homeland Security secretary certified that the borders are “reasonably secured.” The amendment that ultimately failed on the Senate floor would have required that certification come when all of the border and mandatory work site enforcement provisions are “funded, in place, and operational.”

“We went through the leadership and the parliamentarian to make sure it was measurable and objective, and not subjective,” Isakson said July 7.

For now, lawmakers from both chambers continue seeking support for their respective bills through field hearings.

John W. Warner, R-Va., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, will hold a hearing in Miami on Monday that will focus on the contributions immigrants have made to the military.

Warner will be joined by Florida’s two senators — Republican Mel Martinez and Democrat Bill Nelson — and Arizona Republican John McCain. All four supported the Senate bill.