WASHINGTON — A senior Republican senator said Friday that the approaching political debate about an immigration overhaul should take into account the revelation that the Boston Marathon bombers had apparently emigrated to the United States from the former Soviet Union.
Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, the most senior Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, opened a hearing on immigration legislation by stressing that the issue was important “particularly in light of all that’s happening in Massachusetts right now and over the last week.”
“Given the events of this week, it’s important for us to understand the gaps and loopholes in our immigration system,” Mr. Grassley said in his opening statement. “While we don’t yet know the immigration status of people who have terrorized the communities in Massachusetts, when we find out it will help shed light on the weaknesses of our system.”
He added: “How can individuals evade authorities and plan such attacks on our soil? How can we beef up security checks on people who wish to enter the U.S.?”
Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York and a member of the bipartisan group that drafted the new immigration legislation, urged caution about linking the bombings to flaws in the country’s immigration system.
“Before I get to the bill, I’d like to ask that all of us not jump to conclusions regarding the events in Boston, or try to conflate those events with this legislation,” Mr. Schumer said. “In general, we are a safer country when law enforcement knows who is here, has their fingerprints, photos, etcetera, conducted background checks and no longer needs to looks at needles through haystacks. In addition, both the refugee program and the asylum program has significantly strengthened in the past five years, such that we are much more careful about screening people and determining who should and should not be coming into the country.”
The hearing formally kicked off consideration of a bipartisan plan that would increase border security and would quickly legalize many of the 11 million unauthorized workers in the United States, eventually offering them a path to full citizenship. Opponents of the plan had already begun citing the Boston bombings as a reason to move slowly.
But the connection between the Boston attacks and the immigration debate is still tenuous. With the manhunt still under way for one of the two suspects, their background is still uncertain. Early reports appeared to indicate that the pair came to the United States legally years ago.
If those reports prove right, and the pair did not cross into the country illegally, that could undermine attempts by opponents to link the bombings to political concerns about the immigration overhaul.
Still, proponents of the the 844-page legislation — who include President Obama and the bill’s authors, a group of eight senators —were already facing a delicate task in trying to pass legislation in the next six weeks. To succeed, they need to navigate issues of economic fairness, border security, deportation, and charges that the bill would inspire a new wave of illegal immigration.
The Boston bombing not only injects a new issue into that debate, but also potentially robs the president and the lawmakers of some of the momentum that had been building behind the push to overhaul the nationa’s immigration laws.
Proponents of the legislation quickly rejected Mr. Grassley’s assertions, saying that no connections should be made between the Boston attacks and the immigration overhaul until more information was known.
“The situation in Boston is still developing and it’s too soon to jump to conclusions, let alone use the tragedy to make political points,” said Alex Conant, a spokesman for Senator Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida, who is one of the chief sponsors of the immigration bill.
Frank Sharry, the executive director of America’s Voice, a group backing an immigration overhaul, criticized Mr. Grassley for bringing the Boston attacks into the debate.
“I think it’s shameless.” Mr. Sharry said. “Boston is in lockdown, the situation on the ground is fluid, and the ranking minority leader of the Senate Judiciary Committee is exploiting it to try to derail a piece of legislation. It’s outrageous.”
But Mr. Sharry added that he did not think opponents of the immigration legislation would get very far by using the Boston bombing to help defeat it.
“I know our opponents on the far right are going to try to politicize it and exploit it. I don’t think they’ll succeed,” he said. “They were opposed to reform before Boston. Using Boston, without all the facts being clear, is regrettable.”
Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, the most senior Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, opened a hearing on immigration legislation by stressing that the issue was important “particularly in light of all that’s happening in Massachusetts right now and over the last week.”
“Given the events of this week, it’s important for us to understand the gaps and loopholes in our immigration system,” Mr. Grassley said in his opening statement. “While we don’t yet know the immigration status of people who have terrorized the communities in Massachusetts, when we find out it will help shed light on the weaknesses of our system.”
He added: “How can individuals evade authorities and plan such attacks on our soil? How can we beef up security checks on people who wish to enter the U.S.?”
Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York and a member of the bipartisan group that drafted the new immigration legislation, urged caution about linking the bombings to flaws in the country’s immigration system.
“Before I get to the bill, I’d like to ask that all of us not jump to conclusions regarding the events in Boston, or try to conflate those events with this legislation,” Mr. Schumer said. “In general, we are a safer country when law enforcement knows who is here, has their fingerprints, photos, etcetera, conducted background checks and no longer needs to looks at needles through haystacks. In addition, both the refugee program and the asylum program has significantly strengthened in the past five years, such that we are much more careful about screening people and determining who should and should not be coming into the country.”
The hearing formally kicked off consideration of a bipartisan plan that would increase border security and would quickly legalize many of the 11 million unauthorized workers in the United States, eventually offering them a path to full citizenship. Opponents of the plan had already begun citing the Boston bombings as a reason to move slowly.
But the connection between the Boston attacks and the immigration debate is still tenuous. With the manhunt still under way for one of the two suspects, their background is still uncertain. Early reports appeared to indicate that the pair came to the United States legally years ago.
If those reports prove right, and the pair did not cross into the country illegally, that could undermine attempts by opponents to link the bombings to political concerns about the immigration overhaul.
Still, proponents of the the 844-page legislation — who include President Obama and the bill’s authors, a group of eight senators —were already facing a delicate task in trying to pass legislation in the next six weeks. To succeed, they need to navigate issues of economic fairness, border security, deportation, and charges that the bill would inspire a new wave of illegal immigration.
The Boston bombing not only injects a new issue into that debate, but also potentially robs the president and the lawmakers of some of the momentum that had been building behind the push to overhaul the nationa’s immigration laws.
Proponents of the legislation quickly rejected Mr. Grassley’s assertions, saying that no connections should be made between the Boston attacks and the immigration overhaul until more information was known.
“The situation in Boston is still developing and it’s too soon to jump to conclusions, let alone use the tragedy to make political points,” said Alex Conant, a spokesman for Senator Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida, who is one of the chief sponsors of the immigration bill.
Frank Sharry, the executive director of America’s Voice, a group backing an immigration overhaul, criticized Mr. Grassley for bringing the Boston attacks into the debate.
“I think it’s shameless.” Mr. Sharry said. “Boston is in lockdown, the situation on the ground is fluid, and the ranking minority leader of the Senate Judiciary Committee is exploiting it to try to derail a piece of legislation. It’s outrageous.”
But Mr. Sharry added that he did not think opponents of the immigration legislation would get very far by using the Boston bombing to help defeat it.
“I know our opponents on the far right are going to try to politicize it and exploit it. I don’t think they’ll succeed,” he said. “They were opposed to reform before Boston. Using Boston, without all the facts being clear, is regrettable.”