The Boston Marathon tragedy is a reason for Congress to move faster – not slower – to overhaul the nation’s immigration system, according to two co-authors of a Senate reform package.
Some conservatives on Capitol Hill have suggested Monday’s deadly bombings – allegedly orchestrated by a pair of young immigrants from Russia’s volatile Caucasus region – should cause lawmakers to move more deliberately in their approach to immigration reform this year.
But Sens. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) – chief architects of a sweeping bipartisan immigration proposal unveiled last week – argued Sunday that their bill will help prevent future terrorist attacks at home and should be taken up as soon as possible.
“Now is the time to bring all of the 11 million [undocumented immigrants] out of the shadows and find out who they are. Most of them are here to work, but we may find some terrorists in our midst,” Graham said in an interview on CNN’s “State of the Union” program. “What happened in Boston … should urge us to act quicker, not slower, when it comes to getting the 11 million identified.”
Schumer echoed that message and accused those urging a slower process of using the Boston tragedy as “an excuse” to kill the bill.”There are some – some on the hard right, some otherwise – who opposed our immigration bill from the get-go and they’re using this as an excuse. We are not going to let them do that,” Schumer added. “If they have a reason – a suggestion – as to how to change it [the bill] based on what happened in Boston, we’ll certainly be open to it. But we’re not going to let them use what happened in Boston as an excuse because our law toughens things up.”
“The protestations of the sponsors of this bill, that we’re going to be a lot safer if the new bill is passed, I think is incorrect,” Sessions told Hugh Hewitt, a conservative radio host. “The 9/11 Commission, in their analysis of what should be done, back then, they said we needed a biometric visa exit/entry system. This legislation said that was going to happen initially, but now we hear it’s not going to be biometric. It’s not going to cover land entries and exits. And therefore, it’s not, the experts have told us, that’s not going to be effective.”
