Posted on 02/06/2016 10:07:52 AM PST by justlittleoleme
Dear Colleagues:
We need to fix our broken immigration system. We must secure our borders, enforce the laws on the books, improve the legal immigration system, and ensure we never again repeat the mistakes of the past. In 1986, the American people were promised that, in exchange for granting legal status to illegal immigrants, the border would be secured and the law enforced. Washington broke these promises. Unfortunately, the so-called "Gang of Eight" immigration bill, S. 744, repeats these past mistakes.
During the Senate Judiciary Committee's consideration of S. 744, common-sense amendments offering real solutions were rejected. The bill's proponents repeatedly referenced an unalterable "deal" that had been struck beforehand. As a result, the core provisions of the bill remain the same. If passed, S. 744 will leave our borders unsecure and our immigration system deeply dysfunctional.
Moreover, the bill's already serious flaws were exacerbated by the adoption of several amendments that significantly weaken current law, hamstring law enforcement, and further complicate our legal immigration system. We were thus left with no choice but to oppose the bill. Below are just a few reasons we were compelled to do so.
1) S. 744 provides immediate legalization without securing the border.
The bill offers more of what the American people are used to from Washington: plans, commissions, studies, and gimmicks. For instance, the bill grants legal status for people here illegally as soon as the Secretary of Homeland Security simply devises a "plan" to secure the border -- not when the border is actually secured. And when the Secretary notifies Congress that she believes her plan has been accomplished, newly legalized immigrants ("Registered Provisional Immigrants" or RPIs) are given a special path to obtain green cards and citizenship. These provisions do not provide border security, only empty promises and unchecked discretion for the Secretary.
Indeed, Secretary Napolitano seems to think that current efforts to secure the border are already adequate, claiming repeatedly that our border is "more secure than it has ever been." Under S. 744, legalization depends on a finding of satisfactory border security by a single, unelected bureaucrat who has stated publicly she believes the border is already secure. There is therefore no reason to believe any additional border security will result from this bill.
During markup, the Committee voted down every attempt to mandate meaningful control of our borders -- including provisions already required by current law, and others included in the failed 2007 immigration bill. For example:
• Grassley 4: Require the Secretary to certify to Congress that she has maintained effective control over the entire southern border for 6 months before legalization begins (rejected);
• Cornyn 1: Require objective metrics for determining border security, real participation by the states in a border commission, and significantly increase border security personnel (rejected);
• Cruz 1: Substantially increase border-patrol manpower and assets, require completion of the fencing and biometric entry-exit system required by current law, and redirect a portion of DHS funding to border states if security is not achieved (rejected);
• Lee 4: Require Congressional approval of the Secretary's border security plan and her assessment of its completion (rejected);
• Sessions 9: Complete the border fence required by current law before legalization begins (rejected).
The bill also substantially rolls back current law mandating a biometric entry-exit system at all ports of entry (air, land, sea), as required by six different statutes dating back to 1996, and as recmmended by the 9/11 Commission. Instead, the bill provides for a non-biometric exit system, which is easily circumvented through fraud, and only at air and sea ports. Amendments to prevent these rollbacks were rejected, including:
• Sessions 4 / Sessions 6: Require the implementation of a biometric exit system at all ports of entry, as required by current law, before legalization begins, or before expanding the Visa Waiver Program (rejected).
But an amendment that perpetuated the roll back was adopted:
• Hatch 6: Require the eventual establishment of a biometric system at a select few airports (rather than all air, sea, and land ports, as currently required by law), but not required before legalization (adopted).
2) S. 744 rewards criminal aliens, absconders, and deportees and undermines law enforcement.
Under this bill, aliens with criminal records are eligible for legalization even if they have committed document fraud, made false statements to authorities, or absconded from court-ordered removal proceedings. Even some who have been deported and are outside the country are eligible for legalization. Remarkably, the bill suspends enforcement during the two and a half year legalization application period, and prohibits law enforcement from detaining or removing anyone claiming eligibility, without any requirement to prove that they are, in fact, eligible. Law enforcement is even required to inform those here illegally about legalization. The bill also gives the Secretary wide and unreviewable discretion to grant numerous deportation waivers. We offered several amendments to close these dangerous loopholes, but each was rejected, including:
• Grassley 43: Make all members of criminal gangs inadmissible (rejected);
• Grassley 11 / Lee 8: Prohibit those ordered removed, those currently in removal proceedings, and those who have absconded and failed to show up for removal proceedings from applying for or being granted legal status (rejected);
• Cornyn 3: Prohibit spousal abusers, child abusers, drunk drivers, and other serious criminals from obtaining legal status; remove the Secretary's authority to waive criminal convictions in determining admissibility; and remove the loophole allowing immigrants here illegally with multiple criminal convictions to be eligible for legalization (rejected);
• Sessions 32: Improve cooperation between the federal government and state and local law enforcement agencies in the enforcement of federal immigration law (rejected).
At the same time, a number of amendments were accepted that further undermine law enforcement:
• Coons 2: Prohibit Border Patrol from returning illegal border crossers to Mexico during nighttime hours (when crossings generally occur) and require Border Patrol to follow guidelines written by the government of Mexico (adopted);
• Blumenthal 8: Limit enforcement actions at certain locations, including college campuses and hospitals, essentially turning public places into sanctuary shelters (adopted);
• Coons 9: Provide immigration judges more unfettered discretion to halt deportations (adopted).
3) S. 744 contains extremely dangerous national security loopholes.
Unlike the 1986 IRCA and the 2007 immigration bill, S. 744 does not require in-person interviews for a single applicant who applies for legal status. Nor does it require implementation of fraud detection and deterrence systems. Just a few of the unsuccessful amendments offered to correct these serious problems include:
• Grassley 56: Remove the provision giving the State Department authority to waive in-person visa interviews for so-called "low risk" applicants (rejected);
• Grassley 68: Delay the provision allowing temporary student visa holders to remain in the U.S. permanently while seeking green cards until a system is in place to track student visa holders (rejected);
• Cornyn 5: Allow increased information sharing among government agencies and with foreign governments about immigrants who have had their status revoked (rejected);
• Sessions 15: Clarify the authority of the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of State to refuse or revoke visas when in the national interest, as was the case with the Christmas Day bomber (rejected);
• Grassley 52: Delay an expansion of asylum and student visa programs until there has been a coordinated review detailing the intelligence and immigration failures of the Boston Marathon terrorist attack (rejected).
4) S. 744 facilitates fraud in our immigration system.
The bill allows employers to accept either a voter registration card or, for those under 18, an affidavit by an individual over 21 stating the person is who he says he is, as proof of identity for employment eligibility. Several amendments to prevent fraud were rejected, including:
• Grassley 45: Increase penalties for trafficking passports (rejected);
• Grassley 34: Criminalize the use of a social security number when the immigrant knows the number is not his own, but does not specifically know the number belongs to another individual, fixing the holding in the Supreme Court case Flores-Figueroa (rejected);
• Grassley 18: Require a person here illegally who applies for legal status to disclose his or her previous identity theft and the social security numbers used, and allow for agencies to notify rightful assignees (rejected);
• Lee 12: Remove "sworn affidavits" from the list of documents that RPIs may use to satisfy the employment requirement for obtaining a green card (rejected).
5) S. 744 creates no real penalties for illegal immigrants and rewards them with entitlements.
Despite contrary claims for this bill's sponsors, S. 744 hardly penalizes those here illegally, as evidenced by the following amendments:
• Lee 10: Require illegal immigrants to pay back taxes before receiving legal status (rejected);
• Sessions 30: Require a social security number to claim the child tax credit, as is required by the Earned Income Tax Credit (rejected);
• Sessions 31: Provide that only U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents are eligible for the Earned Income Tax Credit, thereby prohibiting those receiving legal status from receiving this direct payment (rejected);
• Cruz 2: Provide that illegal immigrants are ineligible for federal, state, or local means-tested welfare benefits (rejected).
6) S. 744 delays for years the implementation of E-verify.
This bill delays for years the implementation of an E-Verify system, through which 99.7 percent of all work-eligible employees are confirmed immediately today. Amendments offered to improve the new employment verification system were rejected:
• Grassley 29: Require implementation of the new system within 18 months (rejected);
• Grassley 35: Delay the preemption of all state E-Verify laws until the new system is fully implemented (rejected).
7) S. 744 does not fix our legal immigration system.
Everyone acknowledges that our legal immigration needs improving. S. 744, however, complicates our legal immigration system by creating even more categories of visas and reducing transparency through a series of exemptions from visa caps. Further, the bill does not make the changes necessary to transform our system into one that is truly merit-based. A rejected amendment could have moved our system in the right direction:
• Cruz 4: Double the annual green card cap from 675,000 to 1.35 million per year, eliminate the diversity visa program and per-country caps, and reduce bureaucracy in the green card system (rejected).
8) S. 744 advanced through a process predicated on a deal struck before markup.
It is clear that a deal was made during months of private negotiation between special interest groups, labor unions, and select business interests, to which the only bill's sponsors were privy. Those agreements were strictly enforced during the public markup of the bill, with proponents citing at least a dozen times a "deal" or "agreement" as their excuse for votes against policies they would otherwise support.
Compromises are part of legislating. But this particular deal made the Judiciary Committee markup little more than a formality, and the markup did not alter any of the core provisions of the bill. While votes were held on more than 100 amendments, in reality, these votes were decided long before the markup, with virtually every significant reform rejected out of hand.
9) S. 744 rewards those who have broken our laws by offering a special path to citizenship.
Congress today could pass with overwhelming bipartisan support measures that ensure border security, help agents enforce the laws, and improve our legal immigration system. But that will not happen because the President and others insist on a special path to citizenship for people who intentionally broke our laws, even before our borders are secured.
Critically, the Committee rejected an amendment (Cruz 3) that would have allowed immigrants here illegally to obtain legal status -- to come out of the shadows and work legally -- but not to be eligible for citizenship. The bill proponents said that citizenship is essential to reform; indeed, a senior Democrat confessed, "If we don't have a path to citizenship, there is not reform."
Rewarding those here illegally with citizenship is not reforming our immigration system. The special path to citizenship in this bill is unfair to millions of legal immigrants who followed the law. Furthermore, combined with weak border and interior enforcement measures, this special path to citizenship only encourages more illegal immigration.
We need immigration reform, but the American people deserve better than a 1,000-page bill that makes our immigration system more complex and less accountable without truly ensuring border security.
Americans expect their government to end the lawlessness, not surrender to it. They deserve immigration reform with actual border security, enforcement of the laws on the books, and a legal immigration system that works. We must welcome and celebrate legal immigrants. But S. 744 fails to deliver anything more than the same empty promises Washington has been making for 30 years. The last thing this country needs right now is another 1,000+ page bill that, like Obamacare, was negotiated behind closed doors with special interests.
We want immigration reform to pass, but only if it actually fixes the broken system, rather than allowing the problems to grow and fester.
Ted Cruz
Chuck Grassley
Mike Lee
Jeff Sessions
July 24, 2014: S. 2666 (113th): Protect Children and Families Through the Rule of Law Act
September 8, 2014: S. 2779 (113th): Expatriate Terrorists Act
January 22, 2015: S. 247: Expatriate Terrorist Act
June 17, 2015: S. 1593: Immigration Slush Fund Elimination Act of 2015
July 14, 2015: S. 1762: Establishing Mandatory Minimums for Illegal Reentry Act of 2015
October 21, 2015: S. 2193: Kate’s Law
November 18, 2015: S. 2302: Terrorist Refugee Infiltration Prevention Act of 2015
December 8, 2015: S. 2363: State Refugee Security Act of 2015
December 10, 2015: S. 2394: American Jobs First Act of 2015
Votes on illegal immigration policy:
June 11, 2013: Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act - TED CRUZ VOTED NAY - Outcome: Cloture Invoked - Senate
June 27, 2013: Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act - TED CRUZ VOTE NAY - Outcome : Bill passes Senate
Sponsors
Charles E. 'Chuck' Schumer (NY - D)Co-sponsors
Michael Farrand Bennet (CO - D)
Richard J. 'Dick' Durbin (IL - D)
Jeff Flake (AZ - R)
Lindsey O. Graham (SC - R)
John Sidney McCain III (AZ - R)
Robert 'Bob' Menendez (NJ - D)
Marco Rubio (FL - R)
Letter from Mike Lee, Ted Cruz, Jeff Sessions and Chuck Grassley explain why they all voted nay
1. S. 744 provides immediate legalization without securing the border
2. S. 744 rewards criminal aliens, absconders and deportees and undermines law enforcement
3. S. 744 contains extremely danngerous national security loopholes
4. S. 744 facilitates fraud in our immigration system
5. S. 744 creates no real penalties for legal immigratigrants and rewards them with entitlements.
6. S. 744 delays for years the implementation of E-Verify
7. S. 744 does not fix our illegal immigration system
8. S. 744 advanced through a process predicated on a deal struck before markup
9. S. 744 rewards those who have broken our laws by offering a special path to citizenship
Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act--Continued--Ted Cruz Floor Speech
June 18, 2013: Requires US-VISIT System to be Established at Every Port of Entry - Vote Yea - Outcome: Amendment Rejected - Senate
Prohibits the Secretary of Homeland Security from granting temporary legal status to or altering the citizenship status of any undocumented immigrant until an electronic integrated entry and exit data system has been implemented at every land, sea, and air port of entry and has been confirmed by the following measures:
June 18, 2013: Requires the Completion of the Fence Along the United States-Mexico Border - Vote Yea - Outcome: Amendment Rejected - Senate
Sponsored by John R. Thune
Prohibits the Secretary of Homeland Security from adjusting the status of individuals currently classified as registered provisional immigrants until the secretary certifies to the President and Congress the completion of the following measures:
The "substantial" deployment and operation of the Comprehensive Southern Border Security Strategy;
The implementation and "substantial" completion of the Southern Border Fencing Strategy;
The completion of 700 miles of southern border fencing;
The implementation of the employment verification system; and
The operation of an electronic exit system at air and sea ports of entry.Specifies that double-layered fencing constructed in a way to effectively restrain pedestrian traffic is the only fencing that meets the 700 mile requirement in this bill.
October 20, 2015: Stop Sanctuary Policies and Protect Americans Act - Vote Yea - Outcome Cloture not invoked - Senate
About that Number 9:
Cruz is on the record lying that the American people want a pathway to “legalization”.
That is treachery.
By saying such a thing, means Cruz not only supports the Cheap Labor Express “CARTEL”, he encourages the FUNDAMENTAL TRANSFORMATION OF OUR POPULATION, turning us into Mexico and South America, future Democrats, making RED states BLUE.
You can not screw around with words and intentions. Cruz has NEVER backed off from his words and intention.
NEVER.
Cruz is dangerous.
TRUMP 2016
You might want to read that letter again.... This is one of the reasons they rejected the bill...
“Below are just a few reasons we were compelled to do so.”
9) S. 744 rewards those who have broken our laws by offering a special path to citizenship.
All of the these men where putting in amendments meant to sabotage this bill. The rest is just being distorted by the Rubio campaign to hide the fact that Rubio was one of the Co-sponsers of this bill.
If you look at this honestly at not through the lens of TRUMP = GOOD so CRUZ = BAD then you would see the truth and not the political spin.
You might just want to read Cruz lips.
He has said Americans support a pathway to legalization and he recommended the same.
NOWHERE has he ever backed off from the sentence for a “pathway to legalization”.
NOWHERE does he utter the word DEPORTATION for all those socialist invaders who are already here. NOWHERE. They stay. We get transformed.
EVERYWHERE Cruz says he wants to enforce federal law which declares those who are “caught”. Sometimes he says the word, “FELONS”.
He never uses the word DEPORT related to those ALREADY here who are not known felons.
Never addresses those hundreds of thousands ALREADY here, but for pathway to legalization.
“....meant to sabotage the bill”, but NOWHERE does he disavow “PATHWAY TO LEGALIZATION”.
You will never hear that phrase denied.
He’s killin us.
TRUMP 2016
I’m strongly opposed to illegal immigration/ I am categorically opposed to amnesty. And I strongly support legal immigrants who follow the rules and come here to work towards achieving the American dream. Now with respect to securing the borders, I approach this as someone who has spent much of his adult life with law enforcement. It makes utterly no sense that we don’t know who is coming in to this country, we don’t know their criminal backgrounds. Our borders are largely unsecure, and particularly in a post 9/11 world, that is lunacy. I support any and all possible efforts to secure the border. That includes fences. That includes walls. That includes technology. That includes helicopters. That includes drones. That includes manpower. That includes employment verification. That includes approaching it as a law enforcement priority, and right now neither party is serious enough about doing it.”
Cruz has been consistantly against illegal immigration...
You can just believe whatever you want to. Keep drinking the coolaid.
Ted Cruz: “If I am elected president, I will enforce the law. Federal immigration law says, if we aprehend an individual who is here illegally, we will deport them.”
Cruz’s pathway to legalization:
1. Go home.
2. Apply for legal entry.
3. Enter legally if approved.
Cruz has NEVER supported legalization. He’s been the most vocal member of the Senate AGAINST legalization. His words about a pathway to legalization were part of a bit of kabuki theater intended to prove the point that the supporters of the Gang of 8 bill wanted CITIZENSHIP, and not legalization, although they were publicly claiming that the purpose of their bill was to provide a way to get people “out of the shadows” and get them to legal status. Cruz simply called their bluff. He submitted an amendment that would have removed the ability for those folks to get citizenship, but would have still allowed them to become legalized. The point of his amendment was not to actually implement such a plan - it was to show the lies of the Gang of 8 folks. If they TRULY wanted just legalization and not a path to citizenship, they could have voted for Cruz’s amendment, but they didn’t. Cruz knew this was the path they’d take, and so did Jeff Sessions. Even if the moderate backers of the Gang of 8 bill had supported and passed Cruz’s amendment, he knew that it would have then lost the DEMOCRAT support that it would need to pass. It’s called a poison pill amendment, and if it had worked (it didn’t because Cruz’s amendment didn’t pass and the final bill did), there’d be no doubt that the final bill’s defeat was due to Cruz’s handiwork.
You can disagree with Cruz’s strategy, but acting as if Ted Cruz is some kind of pro-illegal wacko is not going to work. Most conservatives know that he’s been one of our very best friends on this issue.
Cruz said:
” And I strongly support *legal* immigrants who follow the rules and come here to work towards achieving the American dream. “
Cruz wants to MAKE THEM LEGAL, idiot. Read with your eyes wide open.
HE SAYS NOTHING OF DEPORTATION of illegals, beyond FELONS!
You are getting a job and don’t even know it. You’re killin’ us.
The bill was passed in the Senate, Cruz is in the Senate.
It was rejected in the House because they House members were afraid to go through with it after Cantor got tossed for David Brat.
Cruz has obviously planned his strategy well in advance and seems to have a plan to spread out the attacks on his rivals.
No one should underestimate Cruz’ intellect and tactical and strategic planning.
Then you might want to reread the letter. Particularly the last line.
"We want immigration reform to pass ---"
Odd if your intent is "sabotage".
Exactly!
” Cruz also noted that he had not called for deportation or, as Mitt Romney famously advocated, self-deportation. Cruz said recent polling indicated that people outside Washington support some reform, including legal status without citizenship.....So post-Gang of Eight, Cruz stressed that he hadn’t opposed permanent legal status, called *citizenship* the “poison pill,” noted that he hadn’t called for mass deportations, and touted polling in support of the position he’d advocated (legal status without citizenship). I don’t have a problem with Cruz’s stance, mind you — I just think it’s disingenuous for Cruz to pretend that it isn’t — and never was — his own.”
No, Accurately Fact-Checking Cruz on Immigration Isn’t a ‘Smear’
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2015/12/18/no-im-not-smearing-ted-cruz-for-factchecking-his-immigration-claims-n2094577
GOOD ARTICLE!
And THAT is the point too often missed by Cruz supporters. It’s a disservice to Cruz, and FR for that matter, to post such easily dispelled falsehood.
Cruz and Rubio are both singing a different hard line tune now thanks to Trump, and that’s a good thing for everybody.
The whole sentence was...
“We want immigration reform to pass, but only if it actually fixes the broken system, rather than allowing the problems to grow and fester.We want immigration reform to pass, but only if it actually fixes the broken system, rather than allowing the problems to grow and fester.”
At the close of the letter about voting no on the bill. It isn’t that complex to understand. They want immigraion reform to pass, but not in the mostrosity of the bill that was passed. Granting amnesty is one of many reasons they voted no on the bill.
Cruz, Lee and Session all attempted to put ammendments in the bill designed to deride the bill. Those amendments where voted down by the opposition
The senate passed the bill.
Using your logic. Trump donated to Harry Reid, so obviously Trump agrees and Supports Harry Reid.
I guess they wanted it to pass so bad they said it twice?
That makes your claim of “sabotage” even more curious.
No question they wanted it to pass with their provisos. It amounts to comprehensive immigration reform light.
lol.. Copy and paste grabbed it twice..
It’s not really just a claim.. I was watching all of it has it happened. CSPAN and all... Not depending on revisionist history as it is being presented by the rubio campaign.
Good. PBS frontline has a great documentary which covers the whole thing through the house version.
It’s funny, had Rubio not abandoned the bill after it passed, the house may have hurried their version through faster. Not only was he integral for its creation, he’s likely the cause of it’s demise.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
