Thread: Is Senator Vitter With Us Against Amnesty?

Just got this by email. Can some of you tune in and confirm if we should mark him as being against a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants?

You may want to put "Opposes Amnesty" next to Senator Vitter's name. He came out against it the other day and will be on Laura Ingraham's show today.

Originally Posted by ALIPAC

Just got this by email. Can some of you tune in and confirm if we should mark him as being against a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants?

Sen. Vitter has always been against amnesty for illegals. I have seen nothing that would indicate a change of heart.

Originally Posted by MW

Sen. Vitter has always been against amnesty for illegals. I have seen nothing that would indicate a change of heart.

We have to reconfirm that status on this legislation after we have learned their plan to pass this depends on GOP turncoats that surprise people like us like what just happened with Ted Poe joining the amnesty side. We need something new from Vitter's office or to document him on a show coming out against this new push.

W

nola.com
Vitter signals bipartisan immigration reform proposal faces a big fight

January 28, 2013

WASHINGTON - Republican Sens. David Vitter of Louisiana and Jeff Sessions of Alabama signaled Monday that the latest immigration reform plan proposed by a bipartisan group of eight senators isn't going to move through Congress without a big fight. Vitter said the history of immigration reform doesn't give him much confidence in the new new plan announced Monday by four Democratic and four Republican senators...

"Will the proposal outlined by some of my colleagues today fix the problem or will it perpetuate the problem or, God forbid, even grow the problem dramatically? said Vitter, like Sessions a long-time opponent of "amnesty" for illegal immigrants.
"The most notable case of this was in 1986 under President (Ronald) Reagan," Vitter said. "There was a so-called immigration reform proposal that passed into law, and the model was, very simple. We're going to get serious about enforcement. We really, really are. We're going to have a one-time leniency. Or amnesty and it will fix the problem once and for all. ..Well, as we know from bitter experience, since then, it didn't quite turn out that way. The promised enforcement never fully materialized."

Vitter, who echoed many of the concerns expressed by Sen. Sessions, said that America is proud to be a nation of immigrants who came to the United States for opportunities only it could provide.

But he said that illegal immigration is drain on the U.S. economy and that he fears the latest Senate proposal won't do enough to effectively curb it in the future.

Full story here:

Vitter signals bipartisan immigration reform proposal faces a big fight | NOLA.com

Landrieu, Vitter differ on reforms

Advocate Washington bureau

January 29, 2013

WASHINGTON — U.S. Sen. David Vitter, R-La., was among the first to take to the Senate floor Monday to express “real concern” about the immigration reform proposal.

Vitter cited past history in arguing that immigration reform under former President Ronald Reagan in 1986 led to amnesty for illegal immigrants without most of the “promised” increases on enforcement against illegal immigrants crossing borders and living in the U.S.

“History suggests this brand of so-called comprehensive immigration reform — this promise of enforcement as long as we have an amnesty — all of those things put together is a recipe for failure,” Vitter said.
Referring to the 1986 changes, Vitter added, “It not only perpetuated the problem, it grew the problem … enormously.”

Vitter also argued that President Barack Obama has “no will” to “focus on real enforcement.”

U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., on the other hand, called the immigration framework a “good start.”

“A bipartisan group of my Senate colleagues unveiled a framework for immigration reform that seeks to address border security, employer checks on immigration status and a path forward for the 11 million undocumented immigrants currently living in the U.S.,” Landrieu said in an email response. “It also seeks to retain highly-skilled entrepreneurs from around the world to help spur economic growth in our nation. This is a good start and I look forward to the debate ahead to strengthen it.

“In addition, I will continue my focus on developing America’s current workforce, so that all workers in America have the skills they need to succeed.”

Landrieu, Vitter*differ on reforms | Home | The Advocate — Baton Rouge, LA

From the Congressional Record (Senators Sessions and Vitter):

IMMIGRATION REFORM -- (Senate - January 28, 2013)
[Page: S307]---
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I know there is a group of Senators who announced today that they have ideas, a plan, an outline, and a framework for a new comprehensive immigration bill. Indeed, the fact that our current immigration system is not working effectively and is failing on a daily basis cannot be denied. It certainly needs to be fixed. It is a challenge for us to do so and it will not be easy. I want to warn my colleagues that a framework is not a bill.

In 2006 and 2007, with the full support of the Republican President of the United States, a bipartisan group announced with great confidence that they had a plan that was going to fix our immigration system and we were all going to just line up and vote for it. The masters of the universe had decided, met in secret, had all the special interest groups gathered and worked out a plan that was going to change our immigration system for the better, and we should all be most grateful.
It came up in 2006, and it did not pass. It came back again in 2007 with even more emphasis, and it failed colossally. It failed because it did not do what they said it would do. It did not end the illegality, it did not set forth a proper principle of immigration for America, and it did not sufficiently alter the nature of our immigration system to advance the national interest of the United States. It did not, and that is why it didn't pass. They had all the powerful forces, including the TV and newspaper guys, the Wall Street guys, the agriculture guys, the civil rights group, La Raza, and the politicians. But the American people said no. It was a challenge, and there was a long debate, but it didn't pass. I thought the lesson learned from that was there needs to be a demonstration that the law is being enforced, end the illegality, and then we can wrestle with how to compassionately treat people who have been in America a long time. I thought that was kind of what we had decided.

Now my colleagues say: Don't worry, this is going to be a better piece of legislation that can work for us. I hope that is true. We do need to fix the immigration system. There are things we can do on a bipartisan, nonpartisan basis which would make our country's immigration policy better and more effective, and I hope that is what will result from this.
But no one should expect that Members of the Senate are just going to rubberstamp what a group of Members have decided. We are not going to just rubberstamp what the President of the United States has just decided because we need to analyze it. Each one of us, every Member of this Senate has a responsibility, a firm duty to evaluate this proposal to ensure that it enhances our ability as a nation to do the right thing.

We are a nation of immigrants, and we are going to continue to be a nation of immigrants. We admit over 1 million people into our country every single year legally. But now we are told that after 1986, when they had that immigration bill, that amnesty bill, that we have allowed 11 million more people, give or take a few million, into the country illegally. They have entered the country illegally. In 1986 Congress promised the American people that if they would give amnesty to the people who were here and who entered illegally, they would stop illegal immigration in the future and we wouldn't face this challenge again. In fact, our colleagues basically said that in their piece they put out promoting the bill: We are never going to have to worry about immigration again if Members pass our legislation. That was the promise made in 1986 when the bill did pass, but it did not fulfill its promise.

So once again I think we are in a situation where the promise will be made that people will be given immediate regularized status and they won't be given full rights of citizenship until certain laws are enforced, and don't worry about it--it is all going to work out sometime off in the distant future. But questions do need to be asked, and we will ask those questions, and it will be important for us to do the right thing.
I know there are people who like low wages. I know there are people who believe that it is hard to get Americans to do certain jobs and that we can use immigrants and they will do those jobs at less pay and ask fewer questions and demand fewer benefits. I know that is out there. We have talked about that in the past. I am hoping this legislation is not designed for the special interests but designed to advance American interests.

What are some of the principles I think need to be in this system? I like Canada's system of immigration. It seems to work very well. They ask a number of questions. They give points when one applies to come into Canada, and a person gets more points for meeting the goals they have. One of the goals they have is that the potential immigrant speak the language. In Canada, they have two--French and English. If a person speaks French or English, they get more points or maybe they don't even get in if they don't have some grasp of the language before they come in on a permanent basis. Then they give more points, more preference to people with education, skills they need in Canada.
This proposal suggests it does that. It should do that. It should be a major part of any immigration reform that focuses on trying to get people who will be most successful in America, the ones we know are going to be able to do better here.

The plan should not admit a person who is likely to be a public charge. However, that is already the current law. A person is not supposed to be admitted to America if they are likely to be a public charge; that is, they will need government aid to take care of themselves. Some people will be turned down because of this. We should take the ones who are not going to be a public charge.
We discovered in looking at the numbers recently that less than one-tenth of 1 percent of applicants that come to the United States are turned down on the basis that they might be a public charge. So, in effect, that is not being enforced. Basically, it is just not being enforced.
So how can we be sure of that? My friend Stephen Moore was on the TV today. He is at the Wall Street Journal. He said: You don't have to worry about people coming in and being a public charge. There is a law against that.

Well, Mr. Moore, there may be a law against it, but it is not being enforced. We need to know it is going to be enforced in the future.

Younger people in Canada get a priority. Pretty soon, people will be on Social Security and Medicare when they reach those ages. Shouldn't we as a rational nation look to give priority to younger people who will work a little longer and pay more into the system before they draw these benefits?
They give preferences to investors, those who create jobs and bring factories and manufacturing to their country. Those are the kinds of things I think we ought to be talking about.
This proposal makes reference to guest workers. It is a very delicate issue. Let me tell my colleagues what was in the bill in 2007 and the reason. In my mind, it was one of the greater errors in the legislation. People would come into the country for 3 years. They could bring their families. If they were still working at the place at which they came in to work, they could extend for another 3 years and then another 3 years and then another 3 years. So I would ask, somebody who had been in the country 8, 9, 10 years, could we just easily ask them to leave? Not likely. What if they have had two children and the children are automatic citizens?
This is a very impractical system. So we need to examine how a guest worker

[Page: S308]plan will actually be carried out. In my view, a guest worker should come without family for less than a year at a time to do seasonal--to do particular work and then return to their country. Otherwise, we create an entirely new system, and it will be very difficult to enforce. We need to know pretty much what the Nation can rightly absorb in terms of the number of people who come each year, and as a result of that, we need to make sure any legislation has a limit that would make common sense in the world in which we live.
Finally, I would say that we face a particular hurdle this time. We faced this hurdle last time, but I believe it is even more serious this time. That is, if the chief law enforcement officer of the country--then President Bush, now President Obama--President Obama has particularly acted to undermine the ability of the law enforcement community to actually enforce existing laws----
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 2 minutes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SESSIONS. The Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers have voted unanimously ``no confidence'' in Mr. John Morton, the Director of ICE, because of his failure to lead and his, in fact, undermining of their ability to do their jobs, and they sued him for interfering with their ability to do their jobs in enforcing the laws of this country. Actually, a federal court just recently upheld the lawsuit and allowed it to proceed. What a terrible thing it is that law enforcement officers have to sue their leadership to be able to do their jobs.
So we need to be sure we have in the President someone who is committed to enforcing the law if it is passed. If that had been so, we would be in a lot better position today.
I see my colleague from Louisiana, and I believe he is to be recognized next. He has been such a good student of this issue. He is a fabulous lawyer, editor of the Tulane Law Review, and he understands this, and I am really glad he could be here today.
There is one more thing I would note. In addition to the fact that we have a President less willing to enforce the law, the labor participation rate in 2007 when the last comprehensive reform bill that included amnesty was defeated was 66 percent. Today, labor participation has dropped to 63.6 percent. Unemployment in 2007, when the last proposal failed, was 4.5 percent. It is now 7.9 percent.
So I think we need to ask serious questions about any proposal, and maybe we can move forward with some legislation that would serve the national interests. Maybe we can do it on a bipartisan basis, but it is going to take real attention to details. The details are what make the difference, and that is what I am concerned about.
I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 8 minutes, and I ask the Chair to alert me when 6 minutes has elapsed.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will not object, but I ask unanimous consent to follow the Senator from Louisiana to speak.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. VITTER. Thank you, Mr. President. Through the Chair, I wish to thank Senator Durbin for his courtesy in light of another engagement I have.

I rise to join my colleague from Alabama and to join many others to express real concern on this topic of illegal immigration and the desperate need to fix this problem, to solve this problem.

I believe we all want to cherish and hold up and continue the proud tradition of this country which is founded on immigration. One of the many things that make America unique is that we are a nation of--all of us--immigrants. None of us somehow has some blood oath or blood tie to this land that goes back from time immemorial. We all came here relatively recently in the grand scheme of things from other lands, all of our families. We are a nation of immigrants and immigration, and we cherish and celebrate that.
But, of course, historically, that has been a system of legal immigration. It is so worrisome to me and so many others that over the last 30 years in particular, it has really evolved into a wide open, relatively little enforcement system of illegal immigration that flourishes and abounds and grows as our traditional legal immigration system gets less and less workable for the folks trying to follow the rules. That is my concern as

I look at many of these immigration reform proposals, particularly proposals for so-called comprehensive reform such as the one outlined today.

I think the test is pretty simple: How do we uphold our tradition of immigration and fix the problem, solve the problem, and not allow it to continue or, worse yet, grow and mushroom? To me, that is the bottom line. Will any proposal we make be debated--will the proposal outlined by some of my colleagues today fix the problem or will it perpetuate the problem or, God forbid, even grow the problem dramatically?
What heightens my concern is that we have history as a guide, and history suggests that brand of so-called comprehensive immigration reform--this promise of enforcement as long as we have an amnesty--all of those things put together are a recipe for failure. Of course, the most notable case of this was in 1986 under President Reagan. There was a so-called comprehensive immigration reform proposal passed into law. The promise, the model was very simple: We are going to get serious about enforcement--we really, really are--and we are going to have a one-time leniency or amnesty. It will fix the problem once and for all. We will never have to look back, and that will be done.

As we know from bitter experience since then, it didn't quite turn out that way. The promised enforcement never fully materialized. In fact, in my opinion, it never materialized to any significant extent. However, the leniency, the amnesty happened immediately. It happened the second that bill was signed into law.

So did it fix the problem estimated at about 3 million illegal aliens then? No. It not only perpetuated the problem, it grew the problem to 12 million-plus--some people think as high as 15 million to 20 million illegal aliens now. So it grew the problem enormously because we had promised enforcement which never adequately materialized but an amnesty which happened immediately. That is the fundamental concern. That is the deadly scenario I am concerned about with regard to virtually all of these so-called ``comprehensive'' solutions.
There is one thing--at least one thing--that has changed since 1986. It is this: Compared to 1986, we have a President and an administration in power which has proved time and time again that they have no will, no focus on real enforcement. Why do I say that?

Well, this is the administration that sued States attempting to enforce immigration laws and get control of the border. It did mot support those States, did not try to find a Federal fix. It did one thing: sued States such as Arizona trying to deal with a flow across the border and all of the violence and crime that is an aspect of that.

This is the administration that ended the 32 287(g) local law enforcement programs that were fairly effective, at least in focused limited ways, with regard to enforcement. They scuttled that program, completely threw it out the window. This is the administration, of course, that propagated the Fast and Furious gun-walking scandal and still has not answered questions about that adequately, in my opinion.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has consumed 6 minutes.
Mr. VITTER. Thank you, Mr. President.

This is the administration that unconstitutionally put into effect the DREAM Act by administrative fiat. Congress would not pass that. A Democratic House and a Democratic Senate failed to pass it. President Obama at the time said he did not have adequate powers to put it into law administratively, and yet when it came time to

[Page: S309]run for election, he did it by administrative fiat, in my opinion--in many people's opinion--well beyond his legal authority. So that is the main thing that is different from 1986. We have a President and an administration that has proved to be completely opposed to aggressive and real enforcement. So I hope, as we continue this debate with my distinguished colleague from Illinois and many others, we focus on that central question: Will this solve the problem?

In my opinion, we have seen this movie before. We have tried this so-called comprehensive approach before--this marriage of promises of enforcement with leniency or amnesty. History suggests that does not work. The enforcement never adequately shows up. The amnesty immediately does. In this proposal, although it might not be immediate citizenship, it is immediate legal protection and many benefits that flow from that.

Mr. President, I look forward to continuing this discussion.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r113:./temp/~r1130BsMi9

Here is another article. Senator Vitter was on the Laura Ingraham show.

http://www.alipac.us/f12/david-vitte...4/#post1325764

http://www.lauraingraham.com

I was so inspired by his floor speech that I called his office, again, just to thank him.

You can hear Senator Vitter's interview with Laura Ingram at this link. He called Rubio "nuts"

Setting his status on our list as opposing amnesty...


Sen. Vitter on Rubio immigration plan: 'Amazingly naïve...' - Shut Up & Blog


W