Thread: At the Immigration Hearings, Jeff Sessions Stands Alone

At the Immigration Hearings, Jeff Sessions Stands Alone

By JORDAN FABIAN (@Jordanfabian)
May 14, 2013

Sen. Jeff Sessions is frustrated.

The Alabama Republican and chief opponent of the Senate's bipartisan immigration bill has found little success at the two recent hearings to consider amendments to said bill.

That's largely because members of the bipartisan "Gang of Eight" have been able to accomplish their stated goal of defeating amendments designed to gut this legislation, which include some from Sessions.

It helps that Democrats outnumber Republicans on the Judiciary Committee, where amendments to the bill are being considered. But even Republicans who are likely to join Sessions in voting against the final bill aren't on board with all of his ideas on immigration.

The entire committee, save Sessions, voted against a Sessions amendment that would have restricted the number of people eligible to enter the U.S. on green cards and work visas. The amendment would have capped the number of legal immigrants at 33 million over 10 years. The proposal was voted down 17-1.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), a vocal opponent of the "Gang of Eight" bill, rejected the notion that the government should significantly restrict the future flow of immigrants.

"We need to remain a nation that not just welcomes, but celebrates legal immigrants," Cruz said. "I think we should expand legal immigration but do so in conjunction with putting real teeth on border [enforcement]."

Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.), a Republican on the "Gang of Eight," offered up a master class in trolling by claiming that Sessions agreed with "people on the Democratic side," including labor unions, on lower future flow.

Sessions received more support for an amendment that would have made the pathway to citizenship contingent on implementing an ideal, but costly, biometric entry/exit system for visas. Still, that failed six votes to twelve. And the two Gang of Eight Republicans who sit on the Judiciary Committee both voted against it.

"Our bill, in my view, definitely improves the current system and makes it better," said Graham.

Sessions' office rejected the notion that the Alabama senator hasn't been effective in spreading his views.

"Opposition to this flawed proposal broadens each day and on many different fronts – rule of law, wages, impact to taxpayers, etc.," spokesman Stephen Miller said in an e-mail. "One of the most significant developments is a letter from courageous law officers nationwide – including the President of the ICE officers' union – expressing their deep concern over how this legislation will undermine the public's safety and the nation's security."

But throughout the hearing, Sessions appeared exasperated at the efforts to beat back his amendments, and singled out the Gang of Eight.

The Gang of Eight only accepts "modest amendments that don't make much difference," he continued. "They don't accept anything that deals with the integrity of the bill."

Sessions even got into a tiff with Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), who repeatedly attempted to cut off his lengthy monologue about how higher immigration levels would harm the U.S. economy. Sessions insisted his points were important, but Leahy threatened that the committee would have to work through the weekend if the Alabamian continued to go on.

Comprehensive immigration reform still faces a tough road to passage. But for the time being, the man who's leading the charge against it has been pushed to the margins of the debate.

This article was updated at 2:57 PM

http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/...ry?id=19176554

Hope rides alone.

W

No! This article has it all wrong: Senator Sessions stands with millions---the American people!!!

Hmmm...

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), a vocal opponent of the "Gang of Eight" bill, rejected the notion that the government should significantly restrict the future flow of immigrants.

"We need to remain a nation that not just welcomes, but celebrates legal immigrants," Cruz said. "I think we should expand legal immigration but do so in conjunction with putting real teeth on border [enforcement]."

Originally Posted by Newmexican

Hmmm...

As I told you in another thread, his position has since changed. This is the second such post I've seen that has risen from the dead to specifically launch an attack on Cruz.

Ted Cruz releases immigration plan: Suspend issuance of H-1B visas for six months, halt legal immigration if unemployment is high

posted at 6:01 pm on November 13, 2015 by Allahpundit

I can’t possibly summarize the whole thing, as there’s lots of detail. You should read it yourself, with the promise that you’ll find plenty to like. Border wall? Check. Biometric screening system at points of entry? Check. An end to sanctuary cities? Checkity check. Criminalizing visa overstays? Yep, that too. Strengthening E-Verify? Oh yeah. Nary an enforcement mechanism is left unmentioned.

But it’s not the provisions on illegal immigration that people are buzzing about on social media. It’s what Cruz has to say about legal immigration. Isn’t he the guy who called for vastly expanding the cap on H-1B visas two years ago, when the Gang of Eight bill was in the works? The Gang settled on 180,000 per year; Cruz had asked for 325,000. But that got him in trouble with some border hawks, who complain that too often H-1B visas operate as a vehicle for corporations to dump higher-paid American workers and replace them with cheaper foreign labor. That was a dilemma for Cruz, who’s always tempered his criticism of illegal immigration with enthusiasm for legal immigration. What would he do about H-1B visas as a candidate?

That question has now been answered:

Suspend the issuance of all H-1B visas for 180 days to complete a comprehensive investigation and audit of pervasive allegations of abuse of the program: Initiate an immediate 180-day investigation and audit of the H-1B visa program and enact fundamental reforms of this program to ensure that it protects American workers. In recent months, more and more reports have become public of companies replacing American workers with cheaper foreign workers, contrary to the stated intent of the H-1B visa program. This will stop, and the H1-B program will be suspended until we can be certain that the program is no longer being abused.

That’s not all. He also wants, among other things, more rigorous standards for applying for the visas — requiring foreign applicants to hold advanced degrees, for starters, enforcing stricter accreditation requirements for those degrees, and mandating a “cool off” period for companies that have laid off an American worker before they can access the H-1B system. The 180-day suspension feels like a concession to righties without clearly backing off his earlier effort to raise the cap: He’s not going to limit legal immigration but he will make sure that it meets organic demand among businesses, not demand manufactured by firing Americans. It’s a compromise.
Actually, wait, hold that thought. Maybe he is going to limit legal immigration:

Halt any increases in legal immigration so long as American unemployment remains unacceptably high. The purpose of legal immigration should be to grow the economy, not to displace American workers. Under no circumstances should legal immigration levels be adjusted upwards so long as work-force participation rates remain below historical averages.

Is that the same Ted Cruz who said this to the Washington Examiner back in April after Scott Walker started talking about adjusting legal immigration caps in response to downturns in wages for U.S. workers?

“There is considerable bipartisan agreement outside of Washington that we need to improve and streamline legal immigration so that we can remain a nation that welcomes and celebrates legal immigrants,” Cruz said in an interview with the Washington Examiner during a brief campaign swing through Las Vegas.
“I think it is a mistake for any politician to on the one hand embrace amnesty, embrace a pathway to citizenship for those who are here illegally, and on the other hand seek to restrict or punish legal immigrants,” Cruz continued. “I am the son of an immigrant who came legally from Cuba. [President Ronald] Reagan referred to legal immigrants as Americans by choice and there is no stronger advocate of legal immigration in the U.S. Senate than I am.”
“I think the right approach is to secure the border, follow the rule of law and embrace and improve legal immigration,” Cruz said.

He emphasized the distinction between embracing legal immigration and opposing illegal immigration as recently as three days ago at the Republican debate. It’s always been key to Cruz’s pitch. He wants to run on his bio in the general election as the son of immigrants, who made good on the American dream, and he knows Democrats will come after him hard as not wanting to extend that dream to others. That’s why he’s always been careful to extol the glories of legal immigration. Now, suddenly, he’s cooling off. Hard to believe that’s not a quick reaction to Rubio accusing him of having essentially the same stance on immigration. Cruz is searching here for a way to accentuate the differences, knowing that he’s in trouble if Trump voters decide that Rubio’s right about their similarities. This is one way to do it, I guess. In fact, there’s another (smaller) flip-flop on that point: Although Cruz has consistently said in the past that we should get rid of birthright citizenship for illegals, he’s also said that that can’t be done by simple legislation. The Fourteenth Amendment protects birthright citizenship for all; if we’re going to change it, we’ll need an amendment, which will be difficult to the point of impossible. That was his way in the past of nudging conservatives not to obsess about that issue as it ain’t going to change. In today’s plan, though, he says, “As President, I will take immediate steps to pass legislation or a constitutional amendment to end birthright citizenship.” Legislation? Does Cruz no longer believe the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees citizenship for illegals born here?

But wait. Haven’t we forgotten the big question? Cruz has been needled (by, among others, me) for the past 48 hours over the fact that he won’t clearly say what we should do with the 11 million illegals who are already here. Surely his new immigration plan will answer that question. Won’t it?

Amazingly, his otherwise very detailed plan doesn’t address legalization. There’s language about deporting illegals who have criminal records and there’s vague language about enforcing the law, but Ted Cruz isn’t a guy known for circumlocution. He speaks plainly and eloquently about America’s problems. If he was intent on mass deportation instead of legalization, not only would his plan say that forthrightly, it would be emphasized at the very top in the security section. It isn’t. How come?

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/11/13/ted-cruz-releases-immigration-plan-suspend-issuance-of-h-1b-visas-for-six-months-halt-legal-immigration-if-unemployment-is-high/

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rafael the opportunist & hillary will say anything to get elected..... wife Heidi is also a Council on Foreign Relations member.....

Ron Paul explains CFR – North American Union – Threat to US Constitution

CFR and Trilateral Commission threatening the sovereignty of the United States

Daily Paul - April 6, 2015

Ron Paul explains how the CFR (a JP Morgan et al creation) and the Trilateral Commission (Rockefeller founder) are threatening the sovereignty of the United States and the US Constitution by attempting to create a North American Union.

Heidi Cruz is a CFR Member.
Ted Cruz is Canadian born and his father is Cuban-born, moved to Canada when Rafael “ted” was born.

Candian – Latino – US President married to the CFR.
whoa.

Wake up Sheeple.



http://www.infowars.com/ron-paul-exp...-constitution/

rtist wrote:

Candian – Latino – US President married to the CFR.
whoa.

Whoa, Ted Cruz is a natural born American and has nothing to do with CFR. He has actually called the CFR a "pit of vipers." His wife was only a board member of the CFR for one year (she's no longer a member). Cruz has made his disgust of the CFR and United Nations well known. Furthermore, his being half Hispanic has absolutely nothing to do with anything. The color of your skin or one of your parents heritage has nothing to do with the kind of person you are or how capable a president you'll make.

If my grandfather was a member of the KKK for one year, would you label me because of it?

Attempting to tie Ted Cruz to the CFR simply because his wife served one year in the past as a board member is a huge stretch.

Oh, and to my knowledge ALIPAC supports legal immigration. It's illegal immigration we're against.

Personally, I think that Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen.

Originally Posted by Newmexican

Personally, I think that Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen.

He's actually a birthright citizen under modern naturalization law. Under older naturalization law, he would not have even been that. A natural born citizen requires no naturalization statute to clarify or grant citizenship, that's why the term natural born is different than birthright citizen. Natural born is the combination of soil and blood, born in the US to 2 US citizens, the parents can be naturalized citizens but they must be US citizens at the time of birth, for the birth to generate sole unchallenged indisputable citizenship that can not be changed by law or statute and conversely is not granted by law or statute.

But everyone is entitled to their opinion and that's why voters have decided this matter with each election since we were founded.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), a vocal opponent of the "Gang of Eight" bill, rejected the notion that the government should significantly restrict the future flow of immigrants.

"We need to remain a nation that not just welcomes, but celebrates legal immigrants," Cruz said. "I think we should expand legal immigration but do so in conjunction with putting real teeth on border [enforcement]."

Cruz supported permanent legalization without citizenship.

Crux supported border security first, then legalization.

Cruz supported great expansion of legal immigration.

Sure, any and every candidate can change their minds for political purposes in a race for President to try to win votes. Almost all the candidates have done that in response to public opinion generated by Donald Trump.

But of all the candidates, Ted Cruz is the only one who lied about it. He denied being for legalization. He denied being for amnesty. All he had to do was admit it and say something like things have changed, I've heard the people, they're right and I was wrong. But Ted Cruz didn't say that on December 15 in the GOP Debate. He tried to avoid answering the question and when ultimately forced to answer by the Moderator, he chose to lie.

We don't want people in our government who will lie to us and run deceptions for political gain. Why would anyone want any more of that? Don't we already have enough of it?

I think most people are fed up with all talk no action politicians who lie to the American People to keep their government job or try for a promotion to a bigger house with a bigger paycheck.