United States | Immigration reform

The highest hurdle

Getting a bill through the House will be harder than climbing the border fence

|LYNCHBURG, VIRGINIA

AS HIS constituents aired their concerns at a town-hall meeting this week, Bob Goodlatte, a Republican congressman from Virginia, nodded politely. “This immigration bill stinks to high heaven,” thundered one, referring to a package of reforms approved by the Senate that would, among other things, allow most of America’s 11m-odd illegal immigrants to become citizens. “If you legalise 11m illegal aliens, you’re going to be overwhelmed by who knows how many tens of millions more,” declared another. “We will become a third-world country.” A third implores: “Use all your powers to make sure this bill does not get out of the House.”

Mr Goodlatte is the chairman of the judiciary committee in the House of Representatives, which is responsible for immigration policy. The committee has been working on its own approach to immigration, he assures his constituents, and will not slavishly follow the Senate. In fact, he says, the House will not even put the Senate bill to a vote. He wants to see more manpower hunting for illegal immigrants within the country, to add to the 40,000 extra boots the Senate bill puts along the border. No interlopers should win a reprieve until Congress judges the border secure, he says. Even then, they should receive only residency, not citizenship.

This article appeared in the United States section of the print edition under the headline "The highest hurdle"

Egypt’s tragedy

From the July 6th 2013 edition

Discover stories from this section and more in the list of contents

Explore the edition

More from United States

Joe Biden is practising some Clintonian politics

But he needs to do more than crack down on “junk fees” to woo swing voters

A surprising Japanese presence in a traditional American craft

Quilting connects continents


Seaport Tower shows New York’s fight between housing and heritage

Can the city build its future without destroying its past?