A Flake speaks

Thank you for contacting me about the President's executive action on immigration.

On November 20, 2014, President Obama announced unilateral executive actions regarding the enforcement of U.S. immigration laws. Among other provisions, these actions seek to postpone the deportation of the parents of children who are either U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents and provide them with a work permit. The criteria for those eligible for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, a program that allows certain illegal immigrants who entered the United States before their sixteenth birthday and before June 2007 to receive a work permit and temporary authorization to stay in the U.S., would also be expanded. Through this action, the President intends to potentially shield up to five million illegal immigrants from deportation.

On December 16, 2014, the President signed H.R. 83, the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act of 2015, into law. H.R. 83 provides funding for federal agencies for fiscal year 2015. Specifically, it funds the operations of the federal government through September 30, 2015, with the exception of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which it funded through February 27, 2015. Subsequently, the House of Representatives approved a measure that would have funded DHS for fiscal year 2015. The measure approved by the House would have prohibited President Obama's executive actions on immigration from moving forward. With insufficient support in the United States Senate for the House-passed funding measure, Congress instead passed H.R. 240, which funds the Department of Homeland Security for fiscal year 2015 without any limitations, on March 3, 2015. The measure was signed into law by President Obama on March 4, 2015. Due to growing concerns over the consequences of the lack of funding for the Department of Homeland Security's functions, I supported this bill.

To be clear, I oppose the President's executive action on immigration. The issue of immigration is clearly within the purview of the United States Congress and I believe the President has gone beyond his authority. But rather than risking a shutdown at the Department of Homeland Security at a moment of global instability, I believe that Congress' duty is to legislate. Congress would have been better served using the time spent debating funding for the department to address the underlying problem and move legislation seeking to fix our broken immigration system that is in desperate need of reform.

While I support a comprehensive approach to the immigration issue, I am similarly supportive of a so-called piecemeal approach in which individual pieces of legislation addressing issues associated with separate and specific immigration topics are taken up. Toward that end, I was pleased to join Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee Chairman Ron Johnson (R-WI) and Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) in introducing S. 208, the Secure the Border First Act, on January 21, 2015. This legislation would require the Department of Homeland Security to achieve operational control of the border. Similarly, I have joined several of my colleagues in introducing S. 153, legislation that will provide critical reforms to the nation's immigration laws for high skilled workers and ensure that the U.S. economy has the talent it needs to be competitive in the global marketplace. Congress should address those and other facets of the immigration issue through the legislative process rather than the President's use of administrative fiat.

Thank you again for contacting me. Please do not hesitate to do so again in the future. I also encourage you to visit my website, which may be found at flake.senate.gov.

Flake was on a Tucson local radio the other morning. He was asked about BOs DOJ apppointee, Lorrretta Lynch:

(If memory serves)

“I think elections have consequences. The president should get his appointee, if that person is qualified. I am voting for her. We should just keep moving forward.”

He was in town to talk about water. This give me great fear. The government wanting to nationalize our water concerns. We have people in place that know our water history usage and results. Let’s work on this ourselves.

Side note: Cattle that does not have access to federal land, causes the vegetation to grow and the water table to drop. The same with planting groves of trees like junipers. One state legislature said on his land, he chopped down the junipers on his land and his creek came back.)

Why not print this questionaire up encircle your answers and send it to your US Senator

Dear Senator
INS...Amnesty.. Forget about Ebola
We don’t allow cattle to enter without a background health and ancestry check which we also reqiure of legal immigrants who wait years and still go thru health and record checks. We also require that any legal immingrant demonstrate prior to entry that they offer a contribution to our society and not dependency upon it .

Yet we’re letting children and gang bangers in without doing any of this which has resulted in dispersing virulent new diseases (measles) and drug use which has resulted in unreported cases in schools where these illegal kids were placed.. Plus shoved a severe financial strain on local governments where they are placed .

Should any candidate for Attorney General supporting that practice be denied confirmation ?(Yes) (No) . Should the senate reject any such candidate to be Attorney General by applying the simple majority Reid rule citing the Hanen court injunction ruling that would restrict the use of the Reid rule only when such a ruling by a Judge were made ? (Yes) (No)

Should those given this bypassed favored treatment who miss their INS hearing be deported fortwith ? (Y) (N).. ? Denied re-entry (Y)(N) ? Snould that also apply to any illegal convicted of a felony (Y)(N)

In “countries where an American citizen decides to be a “legal” emigree never mind being a seasonal visitor still are denied voting privledges. Own land in their own name. Face steep fines before getting kicked out let alone denied income and energy subsistance including food stamps, or bring in family members .

I (do) (don’t) believe we should allow such full citizenship privledges mentioned above which are denied by the country of national origin of the above, to a legal American immigrant , deny such full citizen privledges to any (emigree) (seasonal vistor) (illegal) if their country does not allow those same privledges to any citizen of the United States, .
While such a position will be condemed as defacto deportation particularly by the political establishment .Would you continue to support a Senator who refuses to support such restrictions ? (Y) (N) Does that also include erecting border barriers such as fencing designed to discourage surrepticious or uncontolled entry ? (Yes) (No)

Should any American citizen which goes overseas to join a foreign entity fighting against the United States (such as ISIS) Be denied re-entry (Y)(N) and their citizenship revoked? (Y) (N) Should that person be charged with treason (Y)(N)

Very Truly Yours For Restoring the value of American citizenship and Conservative Government

Include your return address label below along with your signature and date

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.