Thread: Jim Jordan: Vote for Border Wall and Immigration Reforms Before Election

Jim Jordan: Vote for Border Wall and Immigration Reforms Before Election

0

Michael Brochstein/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images7 Sep 20184Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan wants the House to pass a border-security and immigration-reform package before the elections, amid pressure from other GOP leaders who want to delay the debate until after the election.

“Right now, we should be passing — this month, this week — a spending bill that includes the border wall funding, and make that a fight and get it done before the election,” Jordan told Breitbart News in a September 6 interview.


Jordan, who is the co-chair of the House Freedom Caucus and is running to replace retiring House Speaker Paul Ryan, continued:

I think that is a central promise, maybe the promise voters remember most from the 2016 campaign, so I think that is front and center … The risk of it being delayed is that some our our voters are not going to come out and vote.

Voters “elected us in 2016 to build the border security wall, fix immigration, get rid of the visa lottery [and] chain migration, reform our asylum laws, [and] get rid of this crazy sanctuary city policies all over the country,” he said.


Many of those legal reform goals can be achieved by passage of the bill drafted by Rep. Bob Goodlatte, chairman of the House judiciary committee, Jordan said. The House voted on the Goodlatte bill in June, and despite opposition from the GOP leadership, it got support from 193 GOP legislators. “Not quite over the finish line,” Jordan told Breitbart News.


House leaders should revive that bill and join the push to get it over the line, he said.


The border wall would get $5 billion in funding from Rep. Kevin Yoder’s draft 2019 appropriations bill for the Department of Homeland Security.


But Yoder’s bill also includes sections which expand the outsourcing of many blue-collar and white-collar jobs. Also, Senate GOP leaders are reluctant to fight Democratic Senators’ furious opposition to border-wall funding and pro-American reforms.
There is no evidence that Democrats will be more accepting of a border wall and of reforms if the GOP pushes those goals during the planned lame-duck session between the election and the arrival of a new Congress in 2017.


“What we are trying to achieve is what we told the voters in 2016 we were going to do,” Jordan said.

https://www.breitbart.com/2018-elections/2018/09/07/jim-jordan-vote-for-border-wall-reforms-before-election/

If Jim Jordan is supporting an immigration reform Amnesty deal bill like the one's we have been fighting in Washington then we will have to drop our endorsement for him.

Originally Posted by ALIPAC

If Jim Jordan is supporting an immigration reform Amnesty deal bill like the one's we have been fighting in Washington then we will have to drop our endorsement for him.

It appears he may be. He did not mention eliminating the amnesty. I hope someone will ask, and he needs to clarify.

I will be really disappointed if Jim Jordan is supporting amnesty...another RINO!

I don't really believe he is an amnesty supporter. He supported the Goodlatte Immigration Bill despite the DACA amnesty provision, not because of it.

The Goodlatte bill would have abolished the extended-family chain migration categories and the visa lottery, authorized wall funding and extra border agents, cracked down on sanctuary cities and asylum abuse, and mandated E-Verify. Basically the bill would have essentially codified DACA for the current beneficiaries only, rather than open a whole new can of worms for 2 or 3 million DACA eligible illegals, as all the other proposals would have done.

There were many non-amnesty supporters that got behind the Goodlatte bill because they considered it a good trade-off. There were even some anti-amnesty groups that supported the Goodlatte bill but, like Jordan, they supported it despite the amnesty, not because of it.

Originally Posted by MW

I don't really believe he is an amnesty supporter. He supported the Goodlatte Immigration Bill despite the DACA amnesty provision, not because of it.

The Goodlatte bill would have abolished the extended-family chain migration categories and the visa lottery, authorized wall funding and extra border agents, cracked down on sanctuary cities and asylum abuse, and mandated E-Verify. Basically the bill would have essentially codified DACA for the current beneficiaries only, rather than open a whole new can of worms for 2 or 3 million DACA eligible illegals, as all the other proposals would have done.

There were many non-amnesty supporters that got behind the Goodlatte bill because they considered it a good trade-off. There were even some anti-amnesty groups that supported the Goodlatte bill but, like Jordan, they supported it despite the amnesty, not because of it.

ALIPAC opposed the Goodlatte Amnesty bill trick to try to get conservatives and people in our own movement to support their own Amnesty doom.

If Jim Jordon is on board with a Goodlatte Amnesty deal that would give Amnesty and voting rights to millions of illegals then our endorsement for him must be dropped with as much fanfare as possible to warn fellow patriots.

Can anyone do us a big favor and compare votes on the Goodlatte Amnesty to the ALIPAC endorsements list?

The Grassley bill in the Senate had a pathway to citizenship for the DACA's after 12 years. The Goodlatte bill in the House had 3, 3 year renewals of existing DACA's, but no pathway to citizenship.

Originally Posted by Judy

The Grassley bill in the Senate had a pathway to citizenship for the DACA's after 12 years. The Goodlatte bill in the House had 3, 3 year renewals of existing DACA's, but no pathway to citizenship.

That's right, there was no path to citizenship in the Goodlatte bill. It only allowed those already enrolled in the program to stay. Personally, I could see why a lot of Republicans from our camp supported the Goodlatte bill. In their mind it was not amnesty and the benefits that could be realized were undeniable.

The Goodlatte bill was the best representation of what Trump had asked for in his 71 point DACA deal plan, but we opposed it here. It was no amnesty no matter what we gave up for it. It would have been changed to get through the Senate, so it was a good try but would have never flied. Trump tried, but the political reality is: we have to win 10 more Republican seats in the US Senate while still keeping and/or growing our majority in the House to ever pass any immigration bill we want and need.