Skip to comments.Senator Mike Lee asking for unanimous consistent to pass HR 1044!!! Yikes
Posted on 09/19/2019 12:01:39 PM PDT by central_va
Call your Senator now. Stop Sen. Mike Lee now!!!
I ask unanimous consent that the committee on the judiciary be discharged from further consideration of h.R. 1044 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. I ask unanimous consent that the lee amendment, numbered 939 be agreed to, that the bill ab amended be considered read a third time and passed, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. Continued.
(Excerpt) Read more at c-span.org ...
Finally, the means employed by any law should be consistent with the objectives that that law seeks to accomplish. These are not partisan principles. They are simple yet incredibly important guideposts that should affect anyone entrusted with the legal system as we are in this chamber. Unfortunately the laws we pass don't always live up to the standards of fair and effective and consistent law-making. One of the starkest examples of our failure to abide by these same principles involves the way that we allocate employment-based green cards. Few ideas are more central to who we are as americans than the notion that people should be judged and treated by their government based on their own merits as individuals, as individuals with inherent god-given rights and not on the basis of the color of their skin or of the country in which they were born. As our founders wrote, we hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal. Those words are as much of a part of our national creed in this moment as they were when they were written some 243 years ago. And our laws should reflect this. They should reflect the enduring truth found in those words which I believe were inspired, they are inspirational to this day. I believe that they were inspired at the time they wrote them and that that's why they're lasting in their importance and their persuasive effect.
Despite this ideal, section 1152 of the immigration and nationality acts provides the number of employment base visas made available to any single foreign state in any year may not exceed 7% of the total number of such visas made available, close quote. That rather antiseptic language, technical and clinical on its face is on closer inspection deeply out of step with our country's commitment to nondiscrimination and to equal treatment under the law.
In practice, section 1152's 7% cap on immigrants from any one country means that if two immigrants apply for an employment-based visa at precisely the same moment and have the exact same skills and education and the other factors taken into account on their application, one of them may wait 12 months for a green card while his counterpart languishes in the green card backlog for decades. And that's not an exaggeration. I mean literally decades. The only factor that accounts for this gross and unfair, difficult to justify or defend disparity of treatment is the fact that the second immigrant in my hypothetical example happened to have been born in a different country than the first. They are otherwise identically situated to each other. One may processed within a year. The other may languish for decades. This is because under the per country cap system, immigrants from larger, more populated countries are only eligible to receive the same number of green cards annually as immigrants from smaller countries.
As a result, the wait times for immigrants from larger countries have grown and grown decade after decade with no end in sight. This amounts to a de facto cint of origin -- country of origin discrimination, plain and simple and no amount of legalese or wonkish policy arguments can cover up that fact. Beyond its incompatibility with the deep and abiding principles upon which this country was founded, the per country cap system violates another one of those commonsense maxims of good lawmaking that I mentioned earlier.
The need for clarity and for consistency in the law. Title 7 of the civil rights act provides that it's unlawful for an employer, quote, to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. And yet, the conditions created by the per country caps virtually guarantee that employers on some level must take into account the national origin when recruiting certain immigrant workers. If prospective hires from one country will be able to obtain a green card in 12 months while those from another, even from a country or even a person who happens to have superior training and skills will be unable to obtain a green card for possibly decades, it's virtually unavoidable that the employer will take national origin into account. So think about that. One section of the u.S. Code forbids employers from taking national employment into account when making employment decisions. Another section makes it impossible for an employer to take that into account.
The grounds on which that kind of system can be defended as sound public policy are beyond me. And the pernicious consequences of this intrinsically flawed system do not stop there. 95% of immigrants stuck in the green card backlog are already in the united states on temporary visas. In many cases they brought their spouses and their children with them to build a life in this country. Yet, because temporary visa holders can only sponsor their foreign-born children up until the time the child turns 21, many in the backlog waiting decades for a green card are forced to choose between separating from their child as the child ages out of the temporary visa or abandoning their dream of settling in america in order to return to their home country in order to keep their family together. In those cases, in the most heartbreaking among those cases of which there are sadly far too many, a child was brought here at a very young age and may have no memory of the country to which they would be forced to return. It bears repeating, this is happening not because these individuals broke the law. They haven't done anything wrong. And not because they don't satisfy the merit-based eligibility criteria needed to receive employment-based green card -- I understand that immigration laws do have consequences and we have to follow the law. But it doesn't stem from any violation of the law or any lack of eligibility stemming from any factor other than country of origin. It happens for no reason other than the country in which they happened to have been born. Now if that made sense, if there were some sound principle and public policy that anyone could point to, then perhaps we wouldn't have occasion to be talking about changing this law. Perhaps we wouldn't have had 365 votes, democrats and republicans, join together in the house of representatives voting to pass this.
The fact is I have yet to meet anyone in this body or in the house of representatives who can defend this flawed policy on its merits because it makes no sense. Finally the per country cap system is irredeemably flawed because among its other problems, it's also incompatible with the goals that our employment-based visa system is meant to advance in the first place. The employment-based visa system is to supposed to enable american businesses to bring the best and the brightest to this country, and yet under the per country caps, a factor that has nothing to do with a person's skills or merit, distorts and in many cases ultimately determines the recruitment process. This weakens the merit-based portion of our immigration system. Indeed, it is directly at war with the supposed purpose of our employment-based green card system. Despite its obvious deficiencies, the per country caps have been part of our immigration laws since the 1950's. It is something that came into our law during the elvis presley era, during the buddy holly era , not exactly something that was intended to remain on the books very long regardless of what they intended at the time as far as how long it should last. I don't believe they had good, legitimate reasons to put it into law then. Whatever reasons they had then certainly don't apply now. They're not even discernible to anyone I know today. So it's long past time that we replace that flawed policy with a more rational and equitable approach. Fortunately the solution to these problems is not only straightforward but agreed upon by a broad bipartisan coalition of senators and of representatives. We must simply eliminate the per country caps in order to ensure a fair and reasonable allocation of employment-based green cards.
That is exactly what the fairness for high-skilled immigrants act would accomplish. Without the per country caps, our skills-based green card system would operate on a first come, first served basis, ensuring that immigrants would be admitted into the united states based purely on their merit rather than their country of origin. This reform would also ensure the hardships caused by decades-long wait times are eliminated. As I've said in the past, there's no question that immigration is one of if not the most politically fraught issues in congress right now. It makes it all the more important for us, at least to come together, to get something done in the areas where we can find common ground. The fairness for high-skilled immigrants act is an important point of common ground. Any immigration bill that has 35 senate cosponsors, 20 republicans and 15 democrats as this bill does presents a unique opportunity to secure a victory for the american people. The reason why this bill commands such widespread support if all points along the political spectrum is because as I've explained, the arguments in its favor are not your typical partisan or ideological arguments. No, they're common sense about the way any rational legal system should work in that it makes clear that the per country caps system must go. That's what is needed to make our immigration laws consistent with our principles. Consistent with other laws on the books and consistent with the merits-base objectives. This component of our immigration system is meant to promote. The other reason that fairness for high-skilled immigrants act has been so successful in attracting support from both sides of the aisle is because we've scrupulously avoided the typical poison pills that so often doom many good-faith attempts at immigration reform.
This bill is not comprehensive in its approach. It's not a comprehensive immigration reform package. It's not even close to that. And that is this fact why this bill is something that we can actually get down now. That's why this bill is so close to being passed. It's why this bill really should pass into law today. While it does not fix many of the other flaws that fix our broken immigration system, it is a great and vitally important start to reform. If we are ever to have a chance at modernizing and repairing our immigration laws, we need to recognize that we cannot necessarily solve all of our problems at once. The fact is that -- the fact that this is the case shouldn't stand in the way of us starting to work on the issues that the american people set us here to solve. We cannot allow the perfect to be the enemy of the excellent. That's why I've come here to seek unanimous consent to pass this legislation today. Now look, I understand that it's drawn an objection. It's drawn an objection in a way that it drew an objection a few weeks ago from another member. We've been able to work through that member's concerns. I'm hopeful, I'm optimistic that my colleague who raised an objection today can be persuaded that this bill needs to be passed. We can address his concerns and that we can resolve them. I'll be working with my distinguished friend and colleague from georgia throughout this weekend to try to find a solution, some explanation or if necessary language that can win his support. We're very, very close on what we believe is appropriate and acceptable.
Now, I remain steadfastly convinced that this law as written, as amended, as offered up by unanimous consent today could and should be the law of the land today. I believe it's ready for prime time. It's ready to become law. But when seeking unanimity on a measure in order to pass it, one must do everything one can do in order to seek actual unanimity and that is what I intend to do in the coming days. I intend to be back next week making yet another attempt to pass this bill into law, and I hope and expect that we will be able to do so. Thank you, mr. President.
They want to pass via unanimous consent because they don’t want a roll call vote.
All the traitors want the bill to pass. But NONE of them want to answer for it.
Title should say “consent” not “consistent”.
Unanimous consistent is consistently unanimous.
This will end my political participation in the voting process if this goes thru and the President signs it.
Why is equity in the market for green cards a concern of the US Congress?
The guy who has to wait? Sucks to be him.
Over and out.
None of them is opposed. If so, they know how to register opposition.
If this goes thru it will prove the entire Senate is made up of Free Traitors.
The only thing consistent from this body is bad law.
Isn’t this the “solid conservative” who some back benchers wanted as their first pick for the Supreme Court?
Please call your Senator to stop S.386 passing with “unanimous consent”.
POTUS will sign it.
If it isnt brain dead liberals, its magic underwear wearing cult Mormons trying to be king! I cant stand any of them.
Still on Trumps list of candidates for the USSC, as is Mike Lees brother.
This is Mitt Romney’s handiwork. Someone has someone’s hand where it should or shouldn’t be depending on your inclination ...
Then chances are POTUS will be a 1 termer.
Isnt this the solid conservative who some back benchers wanted as their first pick for the Supreme Court?
Its the same one. He has proven to be a friggin POSEUR.
Trump ran as a nationalist and a populist. There is nothing nationalist or populist about HR1044.
That was before his tag team partner Mitt Romney assumed his chair in the House of Lords.
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.