Results 1 to 3 of 3
Like Tree2Likes

Thread: Pro-Immigration Provision Stripped From Defense Bill

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Super Moderator Newmexican's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Heart of Dixie

    Pro-Immigration Provision Stripped From Defense Bill

    Pro-Immigration Provision Stripped From Defense Bill

    By Emma DumainPosted at 7:27 p.m. on May 14

    Brooks’ amendment prevailed Thursday. (Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call File Photo)

    A bipartisan coalition came close Thursday to protecting immigration-related language in the fiscal 2016 National Defense Authorization Act — but not close enough.

    A 221-202 vote on an amendment, offered by Rep. Mo Brooks, R-Ala., stripped a provision in the underlying bill encouraging the Pentagon to study options for enlisting undocumented immigrants into the military in exchange for a pathway to legal status.

    All 182 Democrats voted “no,” joined by 20 Republicans.

    Passage of the Brooks amendment will prompt a sigh of relief from GOP leaders, who feared its failure would put the entire NDAA bill in jeopardy — at least 25 House Republicans said their support for the measure was contingent upon removal of the amendment adopted during the markup in the House Armed Services Committee, offered by freshman Democrat Ruben Gallego of Arizona. And with almost every Democrat prepared to vote against final passage, every GOP vote counted.
    Plenty of Republicans likely voted for the Brooks amendment out of loyalty to leadership and to protect the NDAA bill. One such member was Rep. Joe Heck, R-Nev., who typically supports similar immigration measures but also sits on the Armed Services panel.

    But while passage of Brooks’ amendment ensures smooth sailing for the NDAA when consideration wraps Friday, the vote could have reverberations for the rest of the 114th Congress.

    The vote showed conservatives are still resolved to fight any pro-immigration measure that may arise, especially as it relates to fighting President Barack Obama by proxy.

    “The House should not take action to legitimize the president’s unconstitutional overreach on immigration,” proclaimed Judiciary Chairman Robert W. Goodlatte, R-Va., referring to the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program that protects from deportation the certain undocumented immigrants who would be eligible for military enlistment in some future scenario.
    It also showed the extent to which mainstream GOP lawmakers still have little to no appetite to wade into the politically treacherous waters of immigration.

    “Remember, the Gallego language does not change any laws, it is a sense of Congress,” said Armed Services Chairman Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, during floor consideration of the amendment. “A sensitive debate where there could be no resulted changes … only distracts from the essential provisions in the bill that do matter.”

    But perhaps more than anything else, the number of Republicans who voted “no” on the Brooks amendment sent a strong signal that perhaps the tides are shifting in the chamber on the issue.

    Leading up to the suspenseful Thursday evening vote, a contingent of House Republicans were actively whipping colleagues to keep the Gallego amendment in place. Rep. Jeff Denham, R-Calif., appeared to be leading the effort to rally fellow GOP lawmakers, while Gallego told reporters earlier in the day Thursday he was actively coordinating with members on the other side of the aisle — a significant development for two parties long considered fundamentally divided on the issue.

    “We’re doing a little texting,” Gallego said with a smile.

    Denham also teamed up with two other House Republican veterans, Mike Coffman of Colorado and Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, to circulate a letter urging “no” votes on the Brooks amendment in the final hours before the vote.

    “We are opposed to the amendment in part because it would seek to perpetuate the current disparate treatment of non-citizens who seek to enlist in the Armed Services,” Denham, Coffman and Kinzinger wrote in their letter, obtained by CQ Roll Call. “Voting ‘yes’ on this amendment would run counter to the tradition of immigrant service that is as old as our Republic.”
    Denham opted not to speak in opposition on the House floor during amendment debate on Thursday, but Rep. Jamie Herrera Beutler, R-Wash., expressed similar sentiments to those in the letter.

    “I do support the ability to earn citizenship,” she said, “and if a person who has the courage and conviction to take the oath and join our nation’s warriors to defend you and I, what more can they do to prove their allegiance?”

    Denham, Coffman and Kinzinger were among the 26 House Republicans who voted “no” on an amendment to an early iteration of the fiscal 2016 Homeland Security appropriations bill to defund DACA. Herrera Beutler was not one of them.
    But her support this time around regarding a legal status pathway in exchange for military service showed an openness that is sure to hearten immigration overhaul advocates, especially Denham, who has been trying for years to get a vote on the “ENLIST Act,” which would basically put the force of law behind the Gallego amendment.

    On Wednesday, Denham wasn’t predicting how things would go, but he suggested making a statement was crucial, if nothing else.

    “I think it’s important to show where we stand in Congress on amendments like this,” he told CQ Roll Call. “I think this amendment is bad for the country.”

    In addition to Denham, Coffman, Kinzinger and Herrera Beutler, the following 16 Republicans also voted in favor of keeping Gallego’s language in the NDAA bill:

    Carlos Curbelo of Florida
    Charlie Dent of Pennsylvania
    Mario Diaz-Balart of Florida
    Robert Dold of Illinois
    Chris Gibson of New York
    Richard Hanna of New York
    John Katko of New York
    Frank A. LoBiondo of New Jersey
    Tom MacArthur of New Jersey
    Martha E. McSally of Arizona
    Dan Newhouse of Washington
    Dave Reichert of Washington
    Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Washington
    Elise Stefanik of New York
    Fred Upton of Michigan
    David Valadao of California

    The 114th: CQ Roll Call’s Guide to the New Congress

  2. #2
    Senior Member JohnDoe2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    PARADISE (San Diego)

    Don't reward the criminal actions of millions of illegal aliens by giving them citizenship.

    Sign in and post comments here.

    Please support our fight against illegal immigration by joining ALIPAC's email alerts here

  3. #3
    Super Moderator Newmexican's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Heart of Dixie
    House cancels illegal immigrant Dreamer path to military service

    Rep. Ruben Gallego. D-Ariz., gives his victory speech in Phoenix. Two dozen House conservatives are threatening to oppose a sweeping defense policy bill over a non-binding provision aimed at allowing immigrants brought illegally to this country as kids to serve ... more >

    By Stephen Dinan - The Washington Times - Thursday, May 14, 2015

    House Republicans voted Thursday to strike language that would have pushed the administration to allow illegal immigrant Dreamers to sign up for the military, in a move whose symbolism far outstripped its effect.

    GOP lawmakers said if they hadn’t removed the language from the annual defense policy bill, it could have been seen as a congressional endorsement of President Obama’s 2012 deportation amnesty, which granted Dreamers tentative legal status and work permits.

    Democrats were enraged at the move, saying it insulted those willing to sign up and put their lives on the line to defend their adopted country.

    “This is yet another example of an anti-immigrant attitude on the part of House Republicans,” said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.

    And Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton weighed in with a statement from her campaign accusing Republicans of discrimination against illegal immigrants.

    “If these courageous young men and women want to serve, they should be honored and celebrated, not discriminated against,” said Mrs. Clinton’s political director, Amanda Renteria.

    The vote to nix the Dreamer provision was 221-202, with all “Yes” votes coming from the Republican side. Twenty Republicans did defect to join with Democrats.

    Republican leaders argued that the immigration fight was too poisonous to mix with the defense bill, which usually attracts strong bipartisan support. But Democrats, aided by a handful of Republicans, added the Dreamer provision in the Armed Services Committee last month.

    The author of the Dreamer language, Rep. Ruben Gallego, Arizona Democrat and Marine veteran who served in Iraq, said his provision had no teeth — it was a symbolic statement that the Defense Department should consider allowing Dreamers to enlist.

    Republicans, though, said the effect would be to endorse Mr. Obama’s 2012 amnesty, which granted temporary status to young adult illegal immigrants who had completed a certain level of education and had kept out of major criminal trouble. GOP lawmakers said Mr. Obama was acting beyond his powers when he issued his policy.

    “This Congress cannot send a message to ratify the president’s lawless actions,” said Rep. Steve King, an Iowa Republican who said he would have had to vote against the defense bill if the Dreamer provision was left intact.

    Rep. Mo Brooks, the Alabama Republican who led the fight to nix the Dreamer language, said allowing them to enlist would push Americans out of the military

    But Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler, a Washington Republican who defended Mr. Gallego’s provision, said those who volunteer to enlist should be welcomed.

    “The military is not a jobs program,” she said. “If someone through their merit and hard work earns acceptance into that elite fighting force where they could die defending you and me, then I leave you with this question: what country’s flag would you have draped on the casket of that brave soul?”

    Thursday’s vote was the latest skirmish over Dreamers.

    Mr. Obama said he acted unilaterally because House Republicans wouldn’t work with him to legalize illegal immigrants in the first place.

    The GOP, in retaliation, has voted to end the amnesty program altogether — though that has never been signed into law.

    Read more:
    Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Similar Threads

  1. Conservatives: No immigration riders in defense bill
    By Jean in forum illegal immigration News Stories & Reports
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-04-2014, 12:09 AM
  2. Rubio Calls Free Phone Charges 'False and Reckless,' Immigration Bill's Provision 'Im
    By Jean in forum illegal immigration News Stories & Reports
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-17-2013, 05:28 PM
  3. GEORGIA - Higher ed provision stripped from immigration bill
    By HAPPY2BME in forum illegal immigration News Stories & Reports
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-28-2012, 01:03 PM
  4. LA mayor opposes English provision of immigration bill
    By had_enuf in forum illegal immigration News Stories & Reports
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 06-01-2006, 03:33 PM
    By Bootsie in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 12-17-2005, 03:16 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts