WASHINGTON — Republican Senator Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire said on Sunday that she would support the bipartisan immigration overhaul, saying ''the broken immigration system we have now is unworthy of a great nation.''
In a television interview and in a longer statement on her website, the senator became one of the first Republicans who did not write the bill to line up behind the proposal that would offer a pathway to citizenship for the estimated 11 million immigrants living in the country illegally. Ayotte's support helps the bill's advocates move closer to the 60 votes needed under Senate rules to avoid a filibuster.
''The status quo isn't working. It's de-facto amnesty. We need immigration reform that serves the best interests of our country,'' Ayotte wrote on her website.
A bipartisan group of eight senators — four Republicans and four Democrats — drafted the bill and then guided it to approval in the Senate Judiciary Committee, where Senator Orrin Hatch joined the Republican authors in supporting the bill. However, Hatch says he will vote for the measure again only with changes.
Separately, Senator Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida, said he will vote for the bill he helped write only with changes.
As drafted, the legislation also creates a low-skilled guest-worker program, expands the number of visas available for high-tech workers, and de-emphasizes family ties in the system for legal immigration that has been in place for decades.
The legislation creates a 13-year route to citizenship for an estimated 11 million immigrants living in the United States illegally.
The bill is a ''tough but fair way'' for the estimated 11 million to come ''out of the shadows'' and ''earn citizenship — go to the back of the line, pay taxes, pass a criminal background check, learn English,'' Ayotte told CBS's ''Face the Nation.''
It also sets border security goals that the government must meet before immigrants living illegally in the nation are granted any change in legal status.
''As a nation of immigrants, we must remember that we're all descended from people who came here from somewhere else in search of a better life,'' she said.
What does ‘rural’ mean? Senators will weigh in
WASHINGTON — Lenoir is a small town in western North Carolina. It has 18,000 people, a Walmart, a Waffle House, and an annual parade famous for people carrying pans of blackberry cobbler.
Is it a rural place? The US government has an answer: Yes. And no.
The problem is that the federal government has at least 15 official definitions of the word ''rural,'' two of which apply only to Puerto Rico and parts of Hawaii.
All of these definitions matter; they're used by various agencies to parcel out $37 billion-plus in federal money for ''rural development.'' And each one is different.
In one program, for instance, ''rural'' is defined as any place with fewer than 50,000 residents. So Lenoir is rural, and eligible for money. But in another, only towns smaller than 2,500 residents are ''rural.'' So Lenoir isn't, and isn't.
And so on. There are 11 definitions of ''rural'' in use within the Department of Agriculture alone. This week, as soon as Monday, the Senate is expected to pass a bill that would pare down the list of definitions. Not down to one, however.
Down to nine.