Posted on 04/24/2015 5:04:36 PM PDT by ObamahatesPACoal
The most potent illustration that Republicans have shifted their attitudes on immigration came Tuesday morning when all GOP members of the Senate Judiciary Committee rejected an amendment from Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., to severely limit the number of legal immigrants allowed into the country.
The committee’s overwhelming ‘No’ vote shows that the battle for Republicans’ souls on immigration has shifted away from groups that want to reduce the influx of foreigners, like the Heritage Foundation, NumbersUSA, and Fairness for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), toward free-market groups that applaud increased immigration, such as Americans for Tax Reform and the CATO Institute.
(SNIP)
But it was a big surprise that those rejecting it included hard-core tea-party senators who are almost certain to vote against the immigration bill--Sens. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, Mike Lee, R-Utah, John Cornyn, R-Texas, and Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa.
Lobbyists were buzzing about the vote as the committee broke for lunch. "Can you believe it? That was amazing," said one lobbyist. "It was a smackdown. That was the defining moment," said another.
(SNIP)
Sessions found himself all alone in defending the argument that has been used most often by the scrappy grassroots groups NumbersUSA and FAIR. His amendment would have limited the total immigration to the United States to about 23 million over 10 years, not including the current undocumented population.
“We don’t want to invite people to America that can’t find work and go on welfare and on dependency,” he said.
Those same arguments held considerable sway in stopping the progress of similar immigration bills in 2006 and 2007. NumbersUSA and FAIR also managed to unseat several Republicans who embraced immigration reform, most notably the moderate Rep. Chris Cannon, R-Utah in 2008.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationaljournal.com ...
End all mass immigration, this is a silly game everyone is playing about legal/illegal.
The democrats need numbers and they actually prefer legals, because they can vote sooner, and there are so many millions more of them and with an endless supply for the future, since no one seems to care that we become a hell hole of a billion or 2 billion people.
“The GOP” better watch out-because the base hasn’t forgotten nor “shifted” on Immigration.
those immigrants are being brought into USA for a purpose
and it AINT to elect any more R’s
indeed, quite the contrary:
The reason I see for restricting legal immigration is to give the country a chance to assimilate the immigrants. Before 1965, the immigrant pool was restricted to 250,000 people a year, mostly from Europe.
As for illegals, catapult them back to where they originated.
Immigration could drive Sarah Palin to enter this race.
It is completely wrong that Cruz and Lee are selling out America on this.
(unless I misunderstood?)
The GOP needs to support American businesses right here in America, and discourage illegal immigration.
They are not currently taking that stand.
Nobody is currently taking that stand.
Except for the “immigration critic” in the title.
Of course, prior to sometime in the 1920s, legal immigration was somewhat less restricted, as far as I know.
This article is from 2013 and from the National*Journal*
I don’t think it’s correct, either, about Sens Cruz and Lee’s votes.
Here’s another article, from that time, that says the only three (RINO) Republicans voting “yes” were Sens. Lindsey Graham (S.C.) and Jeff Flake (Ariz.), who are members of the Gang of Eight, which crafted the bill, and Sen. Orrin Hatch (Utah).
I think Cruz has said he is not for legalization of illegals. He has said that he supported an increase in work visas for immigrants. He has been pretty consistent in his statements.
I don’t agree with Cruz on this. It’s the one thing in the CON column for him. We need a temporary halt on all immigration. We are being overrun and there are way too many. We need to get this sorted out.
I think I’m done.
Sadly, he is. He proposed such in his dealings in the Senate and has intimated as much. However, his official cover is that to state so currently would encourage more illegal crossings, and so his position is not to state so until after the border is secured:
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.