Login

Register | Forgot Your Password? | Close
U.S. Sen. Orrin Hatch addresses the Utah Republican Party's annual organizing convention Saturday, May 18, 2013, in Sandy, Utah. Hatch says staffers at the Internal Revenue Service, which recently apologized for unfairly targeting tea party groups, "are either deliberately incompetent or they are evil." Hatch mentioned the IRS scandal while addressing thousands of fellow Republicans in Sandy on Saturday for the state party's annual organizing convention. Hatch says the IRS scandal is more concerning than almost anything else he's seen in the 36 years he's been in the U.S. Senate. (AP Photo/Rick Bowmer)

WASHINGTON (AP) - Foreigners leaving the country through any of the nation's 30 busiest airports would undergo mandatory fingerprinting under an amendment senators added Monday to a sweeping immigration bill.

Lawmakers called it a step toward a more expansive biometric system that would use identifiers such as fingerprints to keep track of immigrants and visitors exiting the U.S. Currently no such system is in place, something viewed as a security weakness, particularly because some 40 percent of the 11 million immigrants in the country illegally overstayed their visas and there's no good system for tracking them.

"This is an agreement that we need to build toward a biometric visa exit system," said Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., who offered the amendment by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, who was absent Monday. "Implementing this biometric exit system is long overdue."

A full-fledged biometric entry-exit system is favored by many senators but was deemed too expensive and unworkable to include in the bill. Current law already requires such a system to be in place, but the Department of Homeland Security has not implemented it. Instead the bill seeks electronic scanning of photo IDs.

Under Hatch's amendment, the nation's 10 busiest airports would have to establish a fingerprinting system within two years after enactment of the immigration bill. Within six years it would have to be in place at the 30 busiest airports.

The amendment passed 13 to 5.

"The entire system, as current law requires, should be implemented," said Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., who voted no. "It's a retreat from current law, a weakening of current law."

The committee last week rejected an amendment by Sessions to fully implement a biometric screening system. After Sessions' amendment failed, one of the authors of the immigration bill, Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., announced publicly that he regretted the failure of Sessions' amendment and would continue pushing for a biometric system to be put in place. The passage of Hatch's amendment Monday allows authors of the legislation to argue that they're working to boost security provisions in the bill as Rubio and others have said is necessary to ensure its passage.

The vote happened as the Senate Judiciary Committee plunged Monday into its third week of deliberations on the immigration legislation, which aims to secure the borders, improve workplace enforcement and legal immigration, and offer eventual citizenship to millions of people here illegally. The committee is wading through around 300 amendments as it aims for a final vote on the bill by Wednesday night. Democrats have enough votes on the committee to ensure its passage, which would send it to the Senate floor.

Also Monday the committee approved adding more visas for Tibetans, increasing information sharing among federal agencies when people overstay their visas, and tightening up the nation's asylum and refugee system so that people would lose their asylum or refugee status if they returned home to the country they fled, unless they can show a good reason for doing so.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said the asylum change was merited in light of the Boston Marathon bombings. The brothers who allegedly set off the bombs arrived in the U.S. as boys when their family sought asylum here.

An attempt by Sessions to block immigrants who gain legal status under the bill from getting the earned income tax credit was defeated on a party-line vote.


(Copyright 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)

Associated Press,

share this story:
facebook

122 Comments   |   Join the conversation »
  • Add A Comment 
  • Abuse
    Steve wrote...
    The cost
    Creating a path to citizenship for so many illegal aliens would result in significant costs to state, local and federal governments. An often cited 2004 study that illegal immigrants paying taxes and getting access to such social services as Medicaid or food stamps would cost taxpayers $29 billion annually. Illegal aliens create a large deficit is not their heavy use of social services but their lack of education, which results in low paying jobs and small income tax contributions. If you think Obamacare is screwed up now just wait and see if Amnesty is passed.
  • Abuse
    1redcav wrote...
    Just say NO
    to amnesty!
  • Abuse
    Michoacan wrote...
    Steve throws his support behind a union
    which fights for what it sees as better working conditions. Oddly, he doesn't support other unions that want better and safer working conditions. Still, it's good to see his change of heart in backing the working man and collective action.
  • Abuse
    gilbert armenta wrote...
    It really is reassuring
    to hear all these people continuing to want to fight this. What that means is the GOP will continue to lose and ultimately be incapable of much of anything. Keep up the good fight you hardline GOPers, that's worked very well these past few years.
  • Abuse
    wrote...
    Have the GOP considered
    That Mitt Romney was the problem at the ballot box? This is an action which is doomed to failure. Current illegals have no desire to "pay" for their citizenship, as this bill basically requires. It will fail.
  • Abuse
    Steve wrote...
    The illegal are counting on Obama
    He is their Moses...leading them to the promised land.
  • Abuse
    Steve wrote...
    CIR will turn out to be a joke
    completely watered down by Obama and nothing will happen.
  • Abuse
    wrote...
    Please define "Border Security"
    Talk about a nebulous term ~ does anyone have a definition of Border Security? The border with Mexico runs 2,000 miles from Baja California through Texas - would a 2,000 mile fence make the "border security" advocates happy - and any enterprising person can tunnel under or climb over a fence. So how about guards every 200 ft. for 2,000 miles - that would require 50,000 border guards times 3 (150,000) working in 8-hr. shifts. Would the individual states (California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas) work that into their budgets?
  • Abuse
    Steve wrote...
    Border security is not
    difficult. Washington makes if difficult.
  • Abuse
    gmm wrote...
    Their plan is only good in theory
    The plan means squat if they don't close the border and restrict and enforce employmeny and benefit laws internally. Let's be fair. Close the border, all of it, make no exceptions for those who cross illegally; beef up E-verify and link Social Security to the IRS to prevent ID theft for employment; deny benefits unless you are a legal citizens. Crack down on employers who hire illegals. No citizenship for convicted criminals. All illegals wanting citizenship go to the end of the line and wait for those who have applied legally, and have done the right thing.