Senator Rubio and the "Immigration Bill"

[Leanne King]

FORWARD TO YOUR LISTS

The new 844-page Senate immigration bill is 100% pure amnesty and taxpayer benefits with near-instant legalization and work permits for nearly all of the 12-20 million illegal aliens and foreign criminals and terrorists currently hiding in the U.S. There are zero guarantees of any future border security and enforcement. This is a horrible bill obviously written by La Raza and other foreign and special interest groups to fundamentally destroy America’s immigration system and national security. The American People must rise up now and kill this latest amnesty scam.

Call blast Sen. Marco Rubio now! Tell his offices you will not support him for higher office if he keeps pushing this destructive amnesty bill and lying about it to the American people. Rubio promised the public in January that he would only support a bill with solid enforcement-first triggers, but he has flip-flopped over to the Obama mass amnesty side by supporting this amnesty-first, open borders, jobs killing bill.

202-225-3041 (DC office)
561-775-3360 (Florida office)

www.numbersusa.com/content/news/april-18-2013/sen-rubio-facing-majo...

Send in free Faxes to Congress at www.NumbersUSA.com to STOP the Amnesty Bill.

Neil B. Turner
Member, San Diegans for Secure Borders Coalition

www.SDSB.weebly.com

[amanda choate]

Opinion of course comes in many different flavors. A good thing. But these two articles portray facts that are diametrically opposed. Amnesty and stating that the bill was written by LaRaza are serious claims and claims Rubio states are patently false. So we agree that a solution needs to be found. Well so do the facts. Also I think we should subtract from the discussion emotions and stick to the facts. How do achieve a solution tyat benefits this nation, its citizens, and people who hope to become its citizens. Our strength has been derived from bringing in people from the world over who want to be here.

[Leanne King]

Amanda, let me make this simple for you.

1. I put the post up for people to read and take action on.

2. I put the additional information out here for people to read. The Pro and the Con. Thought they would like to see Rubio's comments as he is one of the individuals working on the Bill.

3. I have no idea what you are talking about when you ask if there is a 3rd party. And I am not into the bald face lie thing.. People often have very different opinions on the same issue.  Not always a lie.

4. "Is it the general concensus that we need to act?" I would not have put this here if I had not been looking for people to act, if they are supportive of the post. There are many Tea Parties around Florida that are on the same page with this post. So, General concensus?  I guess so if you are listening to other "like minded" organizations.

5. "That we must act to remedy the fact that there are 12 million people in this country who are here without legal status"   Let me say that I am not saying that YOU or anyone else MUST act..  Let me tell you what Beck always says. "Do your own research and decide for yourself."

6. If you choose to do nothing, well that is your choice.

7. Are you asking me if there are solutions?  Of course there are, otherwise there would never be any hope of fixing anything...

8. I have my own personal opinions but I am not in DC. I am only the one who tries to inform those who believe in the Constitution and live by a set of principles and beliefs with a deep rooted set of values. I know that Tea Party members are informed, I know that they will act on these posts only if they believe it is the right thing to do for themselves and this country. They are the informed. I trust that they will research when they might question a requested action item and decide for themselves.

6. We have enough uninformed people who are blindly following someone called a leader and we can see the results of that.

So, I guess the answer to your major question is this, you do your research and you decide for yourself if you even want to act on the post..Thank God we still live in a country where we have the individual freedom to do that.

[amanda choate]

So which is true, Rubio's claims or these other claims, I am confused. Is there a third party that has determined who is lying here, because one of these two is a bald faced lie.

Is it the general concensus that we need to act? That we must act to remedy the fact that they are 12 million people in this country who are here without legal status. What is the answer? Has someone oferred a solution that can gain passage in the House and Senate and be signed into law by the President. Is that even the desired outcome or do we choose to do nothing.

Are there solutions? Because for me, that is the most important thing. Identify a problem and fix it.

[Leanne King]

Here you go with some information on the other side:  Just fyi......

Immigration bill ridden with loopholes?

Critics claim Rubio's assurances of enforcement are empty promises

Can ‘exceptions’ cancel enforcement triggers?

Proponents of the bill have claimed “real triggers” for enforcement will make it good policy.

Immediately following the “triggers” listed in the immigration bill, however, there is a subparagraph titled “Exceptions” (subpara. B, p. 12).

There are several exceptions listed: One states if “10 years have elapsed since the date of the enactment of this Act,” illegals could “apply for an adjustment to lawful permanent resident status” (subpara. B(ii), p. 12-13).

Another exception says that “if litigation … has prevented one or more” of the four triggers described above, then illegals could “apply for an adjustment to lawful permanent resident status” (subpara. B(i)(I), p. 12).

Mickey Kaus, writing in the Daily Caller, suggests if the ACLU can just tie up” the legislation long enough, then “all the legalized illegals get green cards anyway, whether the system is in place or not.”

Are the “triggers” really triggers?

The “Southern Border Security Strategy” mentioned in the first of the four triggers is supposed to have an effectiveness rate of 90 percent or higher at “high risk border sectors,” defined as a border sector in which more than 30,000 individuals were apprehended during the most recent fiscal year ((5), p. 10).

The act doesn’t mention, however, sectors that are not “high risk,” or what happens if there is a lower effectiveness rate in those sectors.

Because of past controversies, there is a context of scrutiny surrounding border-fence issues. In 2011, Obama said that the border fence was “basically complete.” The Washington Post, however, rated this claim “mostly false.” The 2006 Secure Fence Act was supposed to provide for a viable fence. However, funding for the fence was reduced, rendering the Secure Fence Act less effective than fence advocates expected.

The third trigger, the employment verification system, has furthermore been criticized as a move towards national identification.

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., has said that he opposes E-verify, while immigration reform groups see it as crucial to ensuring a legal workforce. If Affordable Care Act waivers are any indication, employers may seek waivers if E-verify implementation is too costly or time-consuming.

The fourth trigger, an electronic passport system, is “already required,” according to Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies.

He points out, “The political class has ignored immigration-security requirements passed over the years, and now is promising to water down the requirements it has long ignored.”

According to the proposed legislation, if the border effectiveness triggers are not reached in five years, a bipartisan “Southern Border Security Commission” will be established (Sec. 4, p. 14). This commission is supposed to “submit to the president, the secretary and Congress a report setting forth specific recommendations for policies for achieving and maintaining the border security goals” ((d), 17).

In sum, Homeland Security submits a plan to Congress, and if that plan fails, a commission is created, which then submits a different plan.

“If there is no plan, then there is no legalization at all,” says Rubio’s press secretary, Conant.

However, the act is silent about what happens if Homeland Security, Congress and the Commission all fail to produce a plan or the plan fails.

Limits on illegal immigrant family members removed

Aside from the effectiveness of the triggers, the text of the act presents other questions.

In a section entitled “Numerical Limitations Do Not Apply,” the proposed act does away with existing limits with regard to family members seeking legal status under the act: “The numerical limitations under sections 201 and 202 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1151 and 1152) shall not apply to the adjustment of aliens to lawful permanent resident status under this section” ((d)(1), 178-79).

Sections 201 and 202 currently place a cap of roughly 200,000 on the number of family-member visas the U.S. can issue.

It is commonly estimated that there are 11 million illegal immigrants in .... If the actual number turns out to be greater, the act does not place any limit on the number of who can receive amnesty.

Use of welfare programs allowed

The bill states that an illegal immigrant will not be given legal status unless he establishes he is “not likely to become a public charge” ((i)(II), p. 81; (II), 97). “Public charge” is a term that comes from a long-established U.S. immigration law. Whether or not an illegal immigrant is likely to become a public charge depends on a set of factors including age, health, family status, assets, education and skills.

Ranking Republican senators, however, have criticized DHS for giving immigrants access to many welfare programs, yet not be considered a “public charge.”

The following programs are, by law, not allowed to be considered when determining whether one is likely to become a public charge: food stamps, the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC), the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Program, Medicaid, Head Start, the Children’s Health Insurance Program and housing benefits.

Last year, the Department of Homeland Security admitted that, in all of 2012, it brought only one case against an immigrant for becoming a public charge.

Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation puts the cost of amnesty at $2.5 trillion dollars for Medicare and Social Security alone.

 

http://www.wnd.com/2013/04/immigration-bill-ridden-with-loopholes/

[Leanne King]

The post. The comment was placed here for information only to share Rubio's  comments which many question.

[amanda choate]

So Leanne is it the post you want us to act on or your comment, they seem to be in conflict with one another?

[Leanne King]

Press Release: April 16, 2013

MYTH: There are no real security triggers in the legislation. Illegal immigrants will ultimately get access to green cards regardless of border security and enforcement.

FACT: After 10 years, there are six security trigger steps that must be met before any currently illegal immigrant is given access to a green card. If any of these triggers are not achieved, no person currently here without documentation will be granted a green card. For example: If e-verify is not implemented for 20 years, then it will be 20 years before any current illegal immigrant could have access to a green card.

The six steps are as follows:
1. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) must create, fund, and begin a border security plan within six months.
2. DHS must create, fund, and begin a border fence plan within six months.
3. DHS must achieve 100% awareness and 90% success in apprehending those trying to cross the border in high-risk sectors of Mexican border within 5 years.
4. If DHS fails to achieve step three, a Border Commission made up of border-state governors and officials is created and charged with implementing a plan to successfully achieve 100% awareness and 90% success in apprehending those trying to cross the border in high-risk sectors of Mexican border.
5. A universal E-Verify system must be implemented within 10 years.
6. A visa-exit system must be implemented for all international airports and seaports within 10 years.
Reporting on the six security trigger steps:
• “[The bill contains the] toughest immigration enforcement measures in the history of the United States. … But according to the details of the proposal, they would not be able to apply for green cards and start the citizenship process until several border security and enforcement conditions are in place. Those include finishing most of the border security fence, implementing a mandatory worker verification system and developing a process that identifies each time an immigrant enters and exits the country. Once those parameters are met, immigrants who had been in the country for at least 10 years would be able to apply for green cards provided they paid all their back taxes, held steady employment and demonstrated a working knowledge of English.” (Franco Ordonez, “Details of immigration bill: more focus on workers, less on families,” McClatchy, 4/16/13)
• “At Republicans’ insistence, the proposal mandates that border security must be improved before undocumented immigrants already in the U.S. can start down a citizenship path. Before immigrants can obtain provisional status, the Department of Homeland Security must submit to Congress a plan for securing high-risk sectors along the U.S.-Mexico border as well as a separate plan for improving fencing and other infrastructure. Those plans must be implemented, an electronic verification system for employers to determine whether a prospective employee is authorized to work in the U.S. must be deployed and an electronic entry-exit system must be established at U.S. ports of entry before any undocumented person can apply for a green card.” (Kathleen Hunter, “Senate Immigration Bill Pairs Security with Visas,” Bloomberg, 4/16/13)

• “According to a policy backgrounder distributed to members of the media last night (regarding the imminent immigration reform legislation), six security triggers would have to be achieved before any green cards could be awarded. … None of these triggers, in and of themselves, will solve the problem. Collectively, though — over the course of ten years — this is a huge step toward fixing immigration reform concerns.” (Matt Lewis, “Immigration Reform Outline: Six Security Triggers Required Before Green Cards Issued,” Daily Caller, 4/16/13)
• “Maybe Republican senators are better negotiators than their Democratic counterparts … the bipartisan immigration reform tips rather significantly in favor of conservatives — at least those who aren’t opposed to any legislation. … Critics of any immigration reform may argue that the pre-green card legalization (‘registered provisional’ status) doesn’t require all that, ‘only’ a criminal background check, fine and payment of back taxes. But understand these people are here now, with no real threat (or ability on the U.S. government’s part) of sending them ‘home.’ … In essence, if you accept that you have to start somewhere and we have no capability to uproot 11 million people, this is a very conservative-friendly plan. No wonder immigrant-advocacy groups are complaining that the path is too difficult.” (Jennifer Rubin, “Immigration Goodies for Conservatives,” WaPo, 4/16/13)
• “[The bill] also mandates a series of rigorous enforcement measures, including at least $3 billion for the Department of Homeland Security to fortify border surveillance and apprehensions. The department will have six months to present a plan to begin securing the border and identify where more border fencing might be required. No immigrants would be allowed to apply for ‘registered provisional immigrant’ legal status — which would allow them to live and work here legally, as well as travel outside the country — until both plans are complete.” (Ashley Parker, “Immigration Overhaul Proposal Is Likely to Ignite Fierce Debate,” The New York Times, 4/16/13)
• “In addition, billions of dollars would be invested in new border-control measures, including surveillance drones, security fencing and 3,500 additional federal agents charged with apprehending people attempting to enter illegally from Mexico. … The senators say the bill will require the government to implement strict new border-control measures — including up to $7 billion in new surveillance drones, fencing, border guards and workplace tracking systems — before the undocumented immigrants are granted green cards. The bill stipulates that the government must surveil 100 percent of the border and apprehend 90 percent of the people trying to enter illegally in high-risk sectors.” (David Nakamura, “Senators To Release Immigration Plan, Including a Path to Citizenship,” WaPo, 4/16/13)
•
• “Homeland Security would then face a big test five years after starting its border security program. The agency will have to prove that it is monitoring 100% of the border, and intercepting 90% of people trying to illegally cross it in ‘high-risk’ areas. If Homeland Security doesn't reach those goals, the job would be handed over to a newly-created "Southern Border Security Commission" made up of governors from the four border states - California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas - and other border experts appointed by the president and leaders of both parties of Congress. The commission would receive an additional $2 billion to develop and implement a strategy to reach those goals.” (Alan Gomez, “Senate Immigration Bill Offers Status, Boosts Borders,” USA Today, 4/16/13)
• “The pathway to legalization and citizenship hinges on the government achieving a series of border-security benchmarks. Within six months of the bill’s passage, the Homeland Security secretary would need to submit two separate plans to Congress — one to achieve and maintain effective control of all high-risk areas along the southern border, and another for additional border fencing. The bill would appropriate $4.5 billion for these efforts, including additional border patrol and customs agents, surveillance systems and unmanned aerial systems. Immigrants wouldn’t be able to seek permanent legal residence until the Homeland Security secretary submits the plans to Congress and both are substantially completed, and the implementation of a mandatory verification system for employers to check their workers’ immigration status and an electronic exit system at air and sea ports of entry to track visa holders. If border agents aren’t reaching a 90 percent apprehension rate in high-risk areas by the fifth year, the bill calls for the establishment of a commission composed of four border state governors and an additional $2 billion in appropriations.” (Manu Raju, Carrie Budoff Brown and Anna Palmer, “Immigration Ready for Debut,” Politico, 4/15/13)
Permalink: http://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2013/4/myth-vs-fact-se...