Thread: Jason Chaffetz, Utah, is for CIR

Jason Chaffetz from Utah, the one who ran on a no amnesty and won last year just said on Lou Dobbs that he is all for comprehensive Immigration reform.

.....another POS sell out.

But did he define "comprehensive immigration reform" and/or did Dobbs question him on specifics?

On Chaffetz's campaign website he defines his "comprehensive immigration policy" (his words) this way:

http://www.jasonforcongress.com/page/page/5678465.htm

which includes:

REJECT AMNESTY

Restitution is something most of us learned by third grade. If you take a candy bar that is not yours, you need to give it back. Take money that is not yours, you need to return it. Cut in line, you go to the back of the line. I still believe what I learned in third grade.

I will not support or vote for amnesty in any way, shape or form. If you are here illegally, there is no pathway to citizenship except to apply from your country of origin.

no it was Kitty tonight and she didnt ask as he was in the "face off" with Rep Honda out of California who has introduced a bill called for the re-unifying of familes and stuff

Populist that is why i was surprised when i heard him say it because of what he said in the campaign, an email i got from him and whats on his website

"I will not support or vote for amnesty in any way, shape or form. If you are here illegally, there is no pathway to citizenship except to apply from your country of origin."

Jason Chaffetz

Maybe his idea of what comprehensive Immigration reform is differs from ours. If he's changed his mind, that is a major flip-flop.

Thanks James. I'll reserve judgment until we have more info on the specifics.

In addition to his points about enforcement/no amnesty on his campaign site, Jason also says this about a "pathway to deportation":

What should we do with those currently here illegally?

For those here illegally, the ONLY pathway to U.S. citizenship is to go home to their country of origin and apply from there. Period.

We must have the political will, including funding, to enforce the law. No amnesty.

In addition to the natural attrition that will occur as we implement the previously mentioned policies, we need a pathway to deportation. To facilitate this pathway to deportation, we should allow current illegal aliens to come forward and apply for a short term work visa if done in conjunction with a sponsoring legal business. The visa will be for a specified time. At the conclusion of the visa, the illegal alien must return to their country of origin, or face serious criminal consequences.

This should be a limited time offer and any adult person identified without this application in process should be detained and deported. This will allow us to identify illegal aliens and uniformly return illegal aliens to their country of origin while allowing a legal workforce, with proper documentation and background checks, to enter the country in a uniform fashion.

PILGRIM: New immigration reform legislation in Congress tonight, it is called the "Reuniting Families Act." This bill will raise the number of visas this country issues.

Joining me now is the sponsor of the bill, Congressman Michael Honda, a Democrat from California. And Republican Congressman Jason Chaffetz of Utah; he says the bill is badly timed. That it will make it tougher for Americans to find work.

Gentlemen thanks very much for being with us.

Congressman Honda, let's start with you. Why do you think that this is necessary at this time? I think the timing is one of the things that is being criticized most.

REP. MICHAEL HONDA (D), CALIFORNIA: Well, this is a bill that addresses the request of citizens and those who are legal permanent residence requesting through the visa process reunification of the spouse or other family members; doing that now will give us a good head of steam so that this can move right into the entire debate on the comprehensive immigration reform. I think that it's an important time to start with a good head of steam. And to get behind it organizations that are well respected and well liked.

PILGRIM: Congressman Chaffetz, your reply to that?

LOOK HERE >>>>>>>>REP. JASON CHAFFETZ (R), UTAH: Well, my concern is that while the current immigration process is highly immoral, we need reform. What this bill does is by the hundreds of thousands of people, it brings more people into the United States at the very time good hard- working Americans are having a hard time finding jobs.
And so it's just not the right time to open up the floodgates, create new classes of people that would be recognized under immigration law and bring them into the country. I'm all for immigration reform. I just don't like this bill. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

PILGRIM: You know I'd like to bring up a point. Representative Honda, your bill allows gay and lesbians to sponsor their partners for green cards and then bring them into the country. But federal law does not recognize same-sex relationships. So this has definitely added a new point to this debate.

The U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops has been a big supporter of expanding immigration rights. But it withdrew its support of the bill because of the same-sex provisions. What do you have to say about that?

HONDA: Well, they termed this as same-sex marriage. This is not same-sex marriage this is recognizing states that already have laws that allow same-sex partners and those are lawful in certain states and countries that recognize that also. So this allows those who are committed to each other and they fit categories and the word of -- the letter of the law to be part of the entire folks who want to apply for the reunification of families.

So we say this is a reunifying families is for all families and all means everyone who are here legally and who will be following the law. So it's not about the undocumented or it doesn't add anything to the population because all we're doing is bringing in members of the families who are here already.

And that does not impact our economy negatively because we know and the Fortune 500 companies also know that people who are happy, who are united and who are healthy, they become very productive economic persons in this country. It's good for our country.

PILGRIM: Congressman Chaffetz?

CHAFFETZ: My concern is it does redefine marriage because it adds what is called in the bill...

HONDA: It doesn't redefine marriage. I'm sorry. You didn't read the law.

CHAFFETZ: Let me answer, please. I did. I read the entire bill. It says permanent...

HONDA: You should know...

PILGRIM: Congressman Honda, let him at least make his point.

CHAFFETZ: It says "permanent partners." So everywhere in the bill that it previously had said "marriage" or "spouse" it added "permanent partners" which is another way of saying it was going to allow homosexual or lesbian couples to enter the country. The fact remains that by opening this up to a new class that is prohibited by federal law.

Remember, the United States Constitution requires the Congress to develop a uniform of uniform rule of naturalization. And by redefining marriage, I just don't think you're going to get this bill passed. I think that's unpalatable (ph); the majority of states in this country have constitutional provisions not recognizing these types of so-called unions or permanent partnerships. And the federal law does not recognize marriage as a union.

PILGRIM: Congressman Honda, you have about 20 seconds to make final point, sir.

HONDA: When we say "spouses" comma and permanent partners, it's put in the same category as legal. So if they're not legal, they're not recognized. In states that they're legal and countries that are legal, it applies. Don't put a reality that's not there.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/ ... dt.01.html

The U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops has been a big supporter of expanding immigration rights. But it withdrew its support of the bill because of the same-sex provisions. What do you have to say about that?

Why am I not surprised? Oh, because the church wouldn't profit!