Thread: Appropriations Committee Approves Fiscal Year 2019 Homeland Security Funding Bill

Originally Posted by stoptheinvaders

R's are responsible ---they are the majority and did not vote it down.

Not only did they not vote it down, if this report is correct -----
But no members could be heard saying “nay” when the amendment was put to a voice vote.
not a single R voted "nay".

I understand, but I expect R's will vote these bad amendments down including the DACA amnesty one as the bill works its way through the process. I certainly expect them to do so, and I believe they will. Most Republicans don't want more temporary worker visas, most Republicans want this Asylum crap stopped dead in its tracks, and most Republicans oppose DACA amnesty. But if you want to vote for DemoQuacks in November or encourage others to do so and hang your hat with them, that's certainly your choice to do so.

Caught: GOP Traitor Sneaks Through Amnesty Bill Letting Anyone into the US

If I've said it once, I've said it a million times. The GOP truly thinks they can get away with pushing amnesty through because they don't believe you're paying attention.The major amnesty bills were just the beginning. Conservatives like you raised your voices and forced the Republicans to vote down all of the amnesty bills that Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell brought to a vote.The establishment knows they can't win in the light of day, so now they're pushing amnesty in the shadows.

As you know, Congress is in the middle of what is known as Appropriations Season. This is when committees and sub-committees decide what will be in the spending bills that come to the floor in September.Yesterday, while debating the Homeland Security spending bill, the Democrats introduced an amendment. They wanted to expand the United States' asylum policies to help more migrants get into the country.Currently, in order to get asylum at the Southern Border, a migrant has to prove that they are being specifically targeted in their home country, usually as a means of political or religious persecution. The Democrat amendment -- written by Rep. David Price (D-NC) -- would expand this to also grant asylum for victims of gang violence and domestic abuse.

This would open the border wide up. Instead of only granting asylum to people who are being persecuted for their faiths or political beliefs, the Democrat plan would give amnesty to any migrant who claims their spouse beats them. No proof or evidence required.

If this bill passes, every single illegal alien and migrant would have a path to be able to stay in the US!I have tremendous sympathy for real victims of domestic violence. But that doesn't qualify someone for entry into the United States and this plan is so broad, there is no telling how many illegal aliens would try to abuse it.

Already, migrants are showing up to the US border with scripts telling them how to game the system. If this new Democrat plan, all someone would have to do is tell Border Patrol that their husband/wife hit them, and they'd be welcomed in.

Want to know what is even more pathetic? A Republican committee just approved this resolution! That's right, unless we rise up and stop it, this Democrat amendment will be included in the next spending bill.

The House Appropriations Homeland Security Subcommittee held the vote. Rep. Kevin Yoder (R-KS) -- shown above -- chairs the subcommittee and allowed the Democrat amendment to receive a vote. But instead of actually counting the yeas and nays, Yoder held a voice vote.This is important. Under a voice vote, the committee members basically shout out their votes. It is then up to the chair to decide which side has more support, based upon nothing but listening to Congressmen yelling "yea" and "nay." In a voice vote, there are no recorded vote tallies. Republicans often use this tactic to pass liberal bills out of committee without forcing GOPers to have to go on the record. It's nothing but cowardice.

We have no idea which Republicans in the subcommittee voted for this monstrosity, but Yoder felt that the votes were there, so he passed it through.This plan would open up the floodgates to make it even easier for illegal aliens and migrants to enter the US, and the GOP didn't even record the vote.

They think they can get away with this. They think they can vote to open up the illegal immigration flood gates without consequence.

Luckily, this is still in the subcommittee level. The next step will be a hearing in the full House Appropriations Committee, and then onto the House floor for a full vote. We are already hearing that Democrats are going to be pushing a similar amendment in the Senate.

If this passes, the country will be lost. There would be no need for illegal immigration. Migrants would just be able to show up at the border and claim spousal abuse or that there was a gang in their neighborhood. That's all they would need to say to be allowed into the US.I warned you that the GOP was working on a behind the scenes amnesty surrender. This is it.It is not to late to stop this, but we need to act right now!It's time to fight,

Joe Otto
Conservative Daily

Originally Posted by stoptheinvaders

R's are responsible ---they are the majority and did not vote it down.

Not only did they not vote it down, if this report is correct -----But no members could be heard saying “nay” when the amendment was put to a voice vote.
not a single R voted "nay".

You're right. The Republicans control everything that comes out of the committee, which makes them ultimately responsible for anything that passes. It was a Republican that was also responsible for the voice vote that allowed individual Republicans cover for their supporting vote.

Originally Posted by MW

If this passes, the country will be lost.
I warned you that the GOP was working on a behind the scenes amnesty surrender.

Sad day! We not only have to fight the insane D's, we have to fight the back stabbing R's also.

Where is the President?

Originally Posted by stoptheinvaders

Doesn't matter who had the amendment.

As you can see there are more R's than D's on the Committee and it passed, with only 1 R actually speaking out against.

Republicans Rodney P. Frelinghuysen, New Jersey, Chairman Harold Rogers, Kentucky Robert B. Aderholt, Alabama Kay Granger, Texas Michael K. Simpson, Idaho John Abney Culberson, Texas John R. Carter, Texas Ken Calvert, California Tom Cole, Oklahoma Mario Diaz-Balart, Florida Tom Graves, Georgia Kevin Yoder, Kansas Steve Womack, Arkansas Jeff Fortenberry, Nebraska Thomas J. Rooney, Florida Charles J. Fleischmann, Tennessee Jaime Herrera Beutler, Washington David P. Joyce, Ohio David G. Valadao, California Andy Harris, MD, Maryland Martha Roby, Alabama Mark E. Amodei, Nevada Chris Stewart, Utah David Young, Iowa Evan H. Jenkins, West Virginia Steven Palazzo, Mississippi Dan Newhouse, Washington John R. Moolenaar, Michigan Scott Taylor, Virginia John Rutherford, Florida Democrats Nita M. Lowey, New York Marcy Kaptur, Ohio Peter J. Visclosky, Indiana José E. Serrano, New York Rosa L. DeLauro, Connecticut David E. Price, North Carolina Lucille Roybal-Allard, California Sanford D. Bishop, Jr., Georgia Barbara Lee, California Betty McCollum, Minnesota Tim Ryan, Ohio C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger, Maryland Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Florida Henry Cuellar, Texas Chellie Pingree, Maine Mike Quigley, Illinois Derek Kilmer, Washington Matt Cartwright, Pennsylvania Grace Meng, New York Mark Pocan, Wisconsin Katherine M. Clark, Massachusetts Pete Aguilar, California

To see my Congress member's name was most disappointing. I did call several of his offices yesterday to let them know of my extreme disappointment, as well to inform them of the many news outlets covering this and using words like backstabbers, betrayal, anti-American. Those Congress members who went along with this to support relaxing asylum claims, to allow drug and Gang individuals easier access to the United States, to increase visa numbers are not lawmakers we want or need.

Republicans are increasingly siding with democrats in the destruction of the United States. We need more "America First" thinkers.

Originally Posted by GeorgiaPeach

To see my Congress member's name was most disappointing. I did call several of his offices yesterday to let them know of my extreme disappointment, as well to inform them of the many news outlets covering this and using words like backstabbers, betrayal, anti-American. Those Congress members who went along with this to support relaxing asylum claims, to allow drug and Gang individuals easier access to the United States, to increase visa numbers are not lawmakers we want or need.

Republicans are increasingly siding with democrats in the destruction of the United States. We need more "America First" thinkers.

You're right, we must turn up the heat every time one of these betrayals happen!

Lowey statement at subcommittee markup of FY 2019 Homeland Security appropriations bill

July 19, 2018

Press Release

Thank you, Chairman Yoder, Ranking Member Roybal-Allard, and Chairman Frelinghuysen for holding this markup today. Mr. Yoder, welcome to your first markup as Chairman of the subcommittee.

It is outrageous that House Republicans have prioritized unnecessary funds for President Trump’s border wall and cruel immigration policies rather than fighting terrorism through substantial new investments in first responder grants or growing the economy and creating jobs through job training, making college more affordable, or research and development initiatives.

Meanwhile the Senate has marked up 12 bipartisan bills, avoiding poison pill riders instead of wasting time on partisan bills with no chance of enactment.

Democrats are united in opposition to large increases in ICE detention beds and hiring hundreds of new personnel to carry out the Administration’s overly aggressive interior enforcement policies.

While other allocations are flat, this bill would waste $4.9 billion – more than the bill’s entire increase – on a border wall. That is three times the President’s already absurd $1.6 billion request. We have a duty to spend taxpayer dollars wisely, not waste them on radical campaign promises the public opposes and would do nothing to make us more secure. It was the President’s obsession with immigration that led to the family separation travesty; we should not be enabling any more of his divisive policies.

To make matters worse, the bill fails to provide any of the requested $750 million for a new Coast Guard heavy icebreaker. This is an area where Russia is vastly outperforming us: we have two icebreakers, one of which is so old that the crew has to find replacement parts on e-bay, while our adversary has dozens. It’s a disgrace.

We all know any hope for enactment of appropriations will require bipartisan bills that make sound investments. Yet again, a House Republican bill is moving us backwards.

As the process moves forward, I hope this bill can be significantly improved so that we invest in real security programs.

Subcommittees:
Homeland Security (115th Congress)

115th Congress

https://democrats-appropriations.hou...eland-security

I would like to read Yoder's statement, or see a video of the entire fisaco.

The DHS funding bill shows the skewed priorities of GOP appropriators

Republicans Vote to Gut Enforcement, Increase Foreign Workers

By MARK KRIKORIAN

• 
  

July 27, 2018 2:52 PM

• 
  

Subcommittee Chairman Congressman Rodney Frelinghuysen, February 25, 2016. (Gary Cameron/Reuters)

The DHS funding bill shows the skewed priorities of GOP appropriatorsThe House Appropriations Committee this week approved the Department of Homeland Security funding bill for fiscal year 2019 (starting October 1, 201, after considering a raft of amendments. This is not necessarily the final product; the bill will likely be amended further if and when considered by the full House of Representatives, and again when the House and Senate confer on reconciling their respective versions of the legislation.

Nevertheless, at this stage the DHS appropriations bill, passed Wednesday on a party-line vote of 29–22, is a snapshot of priorities of this most important committee. And it contains several harmful provisions that would increase illegal immigration and the importation of foreign workers on “temporary” visas — provisions passed with the support of the Republican chairmen of the full committee and its Homeland Security subcommittee.

The following is not necessarily an exhaustive listing of its immigration-related provisions, but it highlights the most important ones.

Funding levels. The provision most remarked on is the $5 billion for “Border Security Assets and Infrastructure,” i.e., construction of an estimated 200 miles of border barriers, without the restrictions that are in the current-year funding bill that prevent use of funds for anything like a wall.

The bill also funds more than 400 additional Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents and increases the number of detention beds by more than 3,000 over the current level, to 44,000. That said, the funds approved are very different from what the administration requested. The mostly non-immigration part of ICE, Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), is given about 17 percent more funding than the administration requested, while Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO), which handles deportations, is given 19 percent less than requested.

Asylum standards. The worst mischief comes in the amendments. Among those added in Wednesday’s markup, perhaps the most damaging is one introduced by Representative David Price (D., N.C.), supported by Representative Kevin Yoder (R., Kan.), chairman of the panel’s Homeland Security subcommittee, and approved by voice vote. The measure prevents U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) from implementing the attorney general’s ruling regarding eligibility for asylum.

Last month, Attorney General Jeff Sessions reversed the creeping expansion of asylum by formally determining that domestic abuse and gang violence are not grounds for asylum from persecution due to “membership in a particular social group,” as specified in the 1980 Refugee Act. This expansion of the grounds for asylum took place under the prior administration without congressional action and has contributed to the surge of Central American minors and families at the border.

The amendment to the funding bill would have its immediate impact on the first step in the asylum process, called the “credible fear” interview. When an alien at a port of entry or in the custody of the Border Patrol expresses a fear of return to his home country, he is interviewed by a USCIS officer to determine whether the fear is credible and could lead to a successful asylum claim. If the alien’s fear of return is deemed credible, he may then pursue an asylum claim, though many who are released into the U.S. to do so don’t follow through, but simply disappear into the illegal population. Aliens have thus been coached by smugglers to claim asylum as a way of gaining access to the U.S.

The attorney general’s ruling, and the subsequent guidance from USCIS to its officers, has had an immediate effect at the border. For if fear of gangs or of an abusive partner — i.e., private violence rather than state or state-sanctioned violence — is no longer a grounds for asylum, then aliens asserting such fears no longer pass the credible-fear interview and can be turned away or deported immediately.

Were the Price-Yoder amendment to be signed into law, the attorney general’s ruling would remain unchanged, but USCIS officers could not rely on it in making credible-fear determinations. It’s not clear how that would work as a practical matter, but the clear goal is to ensure that any alien who claims “persecution” on the ineligible grounds would nonetheless be let into the United States. This would make regaining control of the border difficult, if not impossible — no matter how big the wall might be — because the Obama-era welcome mat for bogus asylum seekers would not only be restored but enshrined in statute, meaning smugglers could rely on it as a means of getting their customers past the Border Patrol and into the interior of the country.

Foreign workers. Two amendments expanding work-visa programs were also passed by the Appropriations Committee. The first determines that H-2A seasonal-farmworker visas no longer have to be seasonal. This was done to satisfy lobbyists for the dairy industry, which works year-round and wants to import cheap foreign labor through this unlimited visa program; it is stymied by the wording of the statute, which limits the visa to work “of a temporary or seasonal nature.” The appropriations bill does not change the wording of the statute creating the farmworker visa; it merely says that workers will be admitted in FY 2019 under that provision of the law “without regard to whether such labor is, or services are, of a temporary or seasonal nature.” It would result in large, ongoing increases in the number of these “temporary” foreign workers.

The other foreign-worker amendment affects the H-2B visa, which is the non-agricultural equivalent of the H-2A, used mainly by landscapers and hotels and restaurants. The amendment was just the latest round in lobbyists’ relentless backroom push to exempt from the visa’s numerical cap all those workers who came in prior years (in this case, in the prior two years). This was accomplished in the previous two budgets via a gutless gimmick — the DHS secretary would be authorized (wink, wink) to exempt returning workers from the cap if it seemed necessary. That way, congressmen wouldn’t have their fingerprints on the increase. At least this time they chose not to hide behind the gimmick.

Country caps. Another amendment also benefits those on “temporary” visas, though it doesn’t increase overall numbers. This measure (which has been floating around for years and was reintroduced in this Congress as H.R. 392) would eliminate the per-country cap for employment-based visas and increase it for family-based visas.

H-1B and L visas are ostensibly temporary, but are widely used as stepping-stones to permanent immigration.



The per-country caps were enacted decades ago as a kind of circuit breaker, to prevent a handful of countries from monopolizing the immigration flow. Their effect today is to lengthen the wait for certain immigrants from India, China, the Philippines, and Mexico, compared with similarly situated immigrants from countries that account for less of the immigration flow. The caps result in a more diverse immigration flow.

The lobbying juice behind this change is Big Tech and the Indian “temporary” workers it has imported on H-1B and L visas. These are also ostensibly temporary visas, but are widely used as stepping-stones to permanent immigration. But so many of them are given out that the workers endure extended periods of de facto indentured servitude waiting for their numbers to come up. Eliminating the cap would speed up the issuance of their green cards, making the H-1B that much more attractive to potential low-paid tech workers and that much more useful for employers looking to replace their American workforce with foreigners. The flip side is that people from other countries, generally more highly skilled than the H-1Bs, would be crowded out as virtually all employment-based green cards went to Indians.
There’s more! Not to drag this out, but there are more bad amendments that the GOP appropriators tacked on. Representative Yoder himself co-sponsored a provision prohibiting the separation of children from parents unless “the parent has a criminal history, a communicable, disease, or is determined to be unfit or a danger to the child.” This is a formal, statutory exemption from prosecution for illegal entry for all adults who bring children with them — and will thus result in even more border-jumpers’ bringing (or renting) children.

A seemingly pointless amendment prohibits the deportation of anyone in the lawless Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. It’s pointless because DACA, by definition, prevents your deportation, and the only DACA beneficiaries who get deported are those who forfeit their status because of crimes. Since the amendment can have no actual result, the real point seems to be to codify Obama’s illegal DACA power grab by getting Congress to acknowledge it and incorporate it into law.

And needless to say, the Republican-run Appropriations Committee did nothing to defund sanctuary cities.

COMMENTS

It’s not clear to me why Representative Yoder, as Homeland Security subcommittee chairman, orchestrated this fiasco. He actually has a respectable career immigration gradefrom Numbers USA of B+; not as good as Ted Cruz’s A+ but better than John Cornyn’s C+. And, for including wall funding, Yoder was effusively endorsed by President Trump and rewarded with a ride on Air Force One — and the next day he sabotaged the president’s immigration agenda.

Hill staff assured us that the most egregious items won’t make it to the floor or will be killed in conference (if the bill even gets that far). But why take the chance? Will the Democratic appropriators stock their bills with Republican priorities if they take over next year?

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/...bad-amendment/

A seemingly pointless amendment prohibits the deportation of anyone in the lawless Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. It’s pointless because DACA, by definition, prevents your deportation, and the only DACA beneficiaries who get deported are those who forfeit their status because of crimes. Since the amendment can have no actual result, the real point seems to be to codify Obama’s illegal DACA power grab by getting Congress to acknowledge it and incorporate it into law.

Finally, someone besides me noticed. This is not "pointless", it's DACA AMNESTY. If you can't deport them, you can't enforce the law so it's a free ride forever. That amendment is the Aguilar (DEMOQUACK) amendment.