Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, along with a significant number of Democrats, voted to move ahead with this bill, resulting in an overwhelming vote of 84-9. Trump and his Republican counterparts have prioritized this legislation since the tragic murder of nursing student Laken Riley in Georgia last year by a Venezuelan individual who had entered the U.S. unlawfully but remained in the country to resolve his immigration case.
Despite facilitating this procedural vote, Schumer has not guaranteed his support for the final legislation. He emphasized that Democrats are eager for bipartisan amendments from Republicans. The procedural step taken on Thursday is intended to catalyze discussions for potential adjustments to the bill.
On the Senate floor prior to the vote, Schumer acknowledged that new Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., had expressed a commitment to foster an environment in the Senate where all members could voice their opinions. He stated, “This bill would be a fine place to start,” indicating a willingness to engage in constructive dialogue.
Schumer’s backing of the legislation comes in the wake of significant losses for Democrats in the recent elections, including the Senate and the presidency. In light of this, they are cautiously choosing their battles against Trump’s administration while trying to halt many of its initiatives. Given the current 53-47 Republican majority in the Senate, it will require seven Democratic votes for major policy decisions, with Schumer highlighting that collaboration with Thune is imperative for progress.
This new approach represents a departure from the adversarial stance Democrats took during Trump’s first term, showcasing the nuanced position Schumer is attempting to maintain following last year’s electoral defeats. Moderate members of his party are particularly motivated to demonstrate their capacity for compromise with the new administration.
Last year, several Democratic candidates leaned towards stricter immigration policies partly to mitigate Republican critiques as the Biden administration faced challenges managing an influx of migrants at the southern border. Some of these lawmakers expressed potential support for the proposed bill moving forward.
For instance, freshman Michigan Senator Elissa Slotkin shared on social media that constituents in Michigan have made it clear they desire stronger measures to secure the southern border, urging an end to “petty partisanship” surrounding immigration debates. Slotkin voiced optimism for an amending process when discussions commence next week. In contrast, Alabama Senator Katie Britt, a key Republican on the bill, remarked that Republicans would welcome collaboration with Democrats for amendments but would oppose any attempts to broaden the bill’s original intent.
Beyond immigration, certain Democrats appear open to cooperating with Trump on his nominee selections. Nevada Senator Jacky Rosen recently met with Elise Stefanik, the GOP representative nominated for the United Nations ambassador role, expressing enthusiasm about future collaboration. Pennsylvania Senator Jon Fetterman has engaged with some of Trump’s more controversial nominees, including those for Secretary of Defense and FBI Director, and disclosed plans to visit Trump in Florida.
Fetterman remarked on a recent news program that he has been encouraging fellow Democrats to move past their concerns, stating that being overly alarmed is unproductive. This sentiment seems to be shared among Democratic leadership, with Schumer focusing on aligning party positions with economic issues rather than solely on Trump.
In his remarks regarding the immigration bill, Schumer clarified that the vote on Thursday was not a defacto endorsement of the legislation but rather a step towards deliberation. He expressed that Democrats are eager for a thorough discussion, enabling them to propose amendments and enhance the bill.
Uncertainty looms over whether Schumer will support the final form of the bill or whether it will garner sufficient backing from Democrats for passage. Earlier this week, the House advanced this legislation, marking it as one of the initial actions of the newly Republican-led Congress, which had used Riley’s tragic story to rally support during the election campaign. This legislation aims to require U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to respond to unauthorized migrants committing theft, burglary, or similar offenses, keeping them detained until their removal from the United States.
Additionally, the legislation would permit states to sue the federal government if they can provide evidence of harm caused by illegal immigrant activity.
Ahead of the vote, former officials and immigration advocates urged the Senate to dismiss the bill, arguing that, if passed, it would be unconstitutional and would assist the incoming Trump administration in advancing an anti-immigration policy agenda. Jason Houser, a former chief of staff at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, criticized the legislation for potentially straining resources and undermining the focus on genuine security threats by prioritizing the detention of individuals with minor infractions over more dangerous offenders. He warned that its enactment would decrease the detention of violent criminals and subsequently diminish communities’ safety.
While the House had previously passed the bill last year, Schumer opted not to advance it when Democrats held the majority, illustrating the evolving dynamics of legislative priorities in light of the current political landscape.
