The Cornyn Amendment was proposed by Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) to help the bill pass in the Senate by supposedly addressing some of the concerns of the Republican members. Cornyn promised that if his amendment was included, he would vote for the bill. The Cornyn Amendment, in its 134 pages, calls for enhanced US security and requires certain laws to be enforced more aggressively. The most notable addition is a requirement that DHS implement a biometric entry and exit program, but even there, the amendment only applies that requirement to air and sea ports of entry, but not land ports of entry. Moreover, it does not require the implementation of a biometric exit program at land ports of entry any time in the future. Furthermore, it requires no fencing or physical barrier along the southern border nor does it set any money aside to construct such fencing or barrier.
Despite its provisions, the Cornyn Amendment does nothing to alter the general spirit of the law, which is Amnesty first and then addressing border security maybe or at best, later on. Many are skeptical of the Amendment, claiming that it doesn't do enough to make the U.S. more secure. It uses weak, arbitrary benchmarks that can be manipulated by DHS and do not guarantee future security or enforcement. Additionally, it says nothing about new flows of illegal immigration. Under the Cornyn Amendment, there could still be a sizable number of illegal immigrants entering the U.S. every year, but DHS would still be able to certify that the border is secure, thus allowing LPR status to be given out. Despite these concerns, several GOP Senators have signed-on as co-sponsors to the Amendment, including Sens. Lamar Alexander (TN), John Barrasso (WY), Roy Blunt (MO), Richard Burr (NC), Saxby Chambliss (GA), Mike Crapo (ID), Orrin Hatch (UT), Johnny Isakson (GA), Mike Johanns (NE), Mark Kirk (IL), Rob Portman (OH), Pat Roberts (KS), and Roger Wicker (MS).
Amazingly, despite the fact that the Cornyn amendment still does not place a single obstacle in the way of illegal aliens gaining amnesty plus work and travel authorization, some Gang of Eight Senators are opposing it, calling the amendment a "poison pill" aimed at taking down the bill. John McCain, a gift to the Democratic Party, said: "It's not possible for us to support Senator Cornyn's amendment as it is presently written. It's a poison pill." Senator Schumer called it a "deal killer."
The National Review calls describes the proposed legislation as: "an amnesty-first, enforcement-maybe program drawn up mainly to reflect the priorities of 11 million citizens of other countries rather than the concerns of more than 300 million citizens of the United States." Needless to say, the National Review, as well as conservative leaders all over the country, have been urging Republican Senator Rubio to vote against the bill that he helped craft. (They know McCain and Graham are lost causes).
Today, GOP Senators John Hoeven (ND) and Bob Corker (TN) introduced a bi-partisan compromise amendment, hoping to ensure Senate passage of the immigration reform bill by increasing Republican support for it. The amendment would call for a border agent every 1,000 feet, every hour of every day, supported by 700 miles of fencing along the Mexican frontier. Furthermore, it would provide that no green cards be issued for the "11 million immigrants living illegally in America" until those steps and others to enhance border controls are taken. (Of course, it would take a couple of years to train and deploy the new agents in an expansion that would almost double the current force). The compromise amendment still doesn't address the fundamental flaw of the immigration reform effort, which is that it is an amnesty measure and not a security measure. Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) said the compromise means "amnesty will still occur" and Roy Beck, president of Numbers USA, a group that opposes the immigration reform measure, called the compromise "a desperate political move by pro-amnesty forces to provide cover to pass a bill that would otherwise not pass."
The Immigration Reform effort does nothing to address the serious concerns surrounding the massive immigration of low-skilled Hispanics over the past 20 years or so. For one, it will cost taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars in welfare benefits. Granting amnesty to millions of low-skilled Hispanics sends the message that the United States only enforces immigration laws against those who are educated and can offer the country professional skills, something we are in need of. It also ensures that law-abiding American citizens will continue to suffer from unemployment and salaries will decrease. Speaking today on the Rush Limbaugh, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) said that the Senate immigration bill "sets up affirmative action - a strong preference in hiring - for those who are here illegally." Cruz argued that because illegal immigrants who are granted legal status would be exempt from Obamacare, it would be cheaper for employers to hire them than to hire native-born workers. "If you're a small-business owner," said Cruz, "if you hire an American or if you hire a legal immigrant, you're subject to a $2,000 dollar fine per employee if you're not providing health-care under Obamacare. It's a massive economic incentive for employers to not hire Americans."
The reform bill undermines our rule of law, is a slap in the face to everyone who entered the country legally and had to wait and follow the mandates of the law, continues to impress upon law-abiding American citizens that there is no such thing as "one set of laws for everyone," and will be an enormous drain on those who pay the bulk of taxes.
One must ask: "Shouldn't border security and upholding the immigration laws be a priority regardless of other immigration reforms?" Regrettably, the President and some in Congress seem to be treating security and upholding the law as an afterthought or a bargaining chip, not as one of the core purposes of government. In fact, the President appears to be intentionally ignoring his role as our head Enforcer and refuses to enforce the laws already on the books. We see this in sanctuary cities, we see this in repeat offenders who are here illegally being turned loose on the streets, we see this in the appeasement policy the current administration has with the President of Mexico and other Mexican authorities, and we see this in the refusal of government to enforce laws that make sure that illegal immigrants are not able to avail themselves of our welfare programs.
Before 1996, legal immigrants were eligible for public benefits on similar terms as citizens, while illegal immigrants were NOT eligible. The 1996 Welfare Reform Act, officially titled "The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act" (PRWORA), restricted access to TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families), Medicaid, and SNAP for many legal immigrants. In other words, it was supposed to make it difficult for immigrants after 1996 to live as wards of the state and to burden law-abiding taxpayers. The 1996 law states that "self-sufficiency has been a basic principle of United States immigration law." In particular, it reads: "aliens within the Nation's borders should not depend on public resources to meet their needs," and "the availability of public benefits should not constitute an incentive for immigration to the United States" (U.S. Congress 1996). The Welfare Reform Act established two categories of immigrants for eligibility purposes (qualified and nonqualified immigrants) and restricted eligibility for qualified immigrants based on time of arrival into the United States (pre-enactment versus post-enactment immigrants), and length of U.S. residency (more than five years versus five years or less). Stated most generally, welfare reform allowed benefits for qualified immigrants, most of whom are legal permanent residents (LPRs), who arrived in the United States prior to the enactment of PRWORA (on August 22, 1996), and it restricted benefits for most immigrants who arrived after enactment for their first five years of qualified residency in the United States. As a result of these reforms, eligibility for public benefits can vary within families based on each family member's citizenship, immigration status, time of arrival, and length of residence in the United States.
Over the past 20 years, the foreign-born population in the United States has more than doubled. In the 20 years from 1990 to 2010, the population increased from 20 million in 1990 to 40 million in 2010 (US Census Bureau 2011). Immigrant families include nearly 17 million children, more than 15 million of whom are U.S.-born citizens. It is estimated that one in every 2 or 3 Hispanic immigrants is here illegally. While foreign-born adults have high employment rates and many do well economically, they are also more likely to work in low-wage jobs and less likely to have health insurance coverage from their employers than native-born adults. Several of our public assistance programs are available to them. Despite the instructions outlined in the 1996 Welfare Reform Act, several major public programs, including Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) are available to all low-income immigrants. The problem is that federal public benefits include a variety of "safety-net services" which can be paid for by federal funds But the welfare law's definition does not specify which particular programs are covered by the term, leaving that clarification to each federal benefit granting agency.
For anyone wanting to know what immigration to the United States was like when many European immigrants came here, look at the "Ellis Island and Immigration Experience" at
http://freepages.family.rootsweb.ancestry.com/
gregkrenzelok/Ellis%20Island.html
The Immigration Reform bill, even including the amendments, does nothing to alter the fundamental truth that amnesty will be granted before any meaningful security measures are put in place. The bottom line is that this very same effort was tried once before and was a dismal failure. It sent the message to our neighboring countries and others around the world that the United States is not interested in taking any strong measures to effect a sensible immigration policy that furthers important national interests. Immigration has become political. Instead of a furthering important national interests, immigration is being used to further political interests.
One thing is certain: If we subsidize them, they will come. We have rolled out the social services red carpet, so it is no surprise that many from other countries are eager to come take advantage of our very generous system. The magnet used to be our unlimited freedom and a government that would leave people alone. Today that magnet is free stuff. Today that magnet is social pandering - in order to advance a progressive agenda and tear down traditional American norms. We must return to the Rule of Law and the American principle of personal responsibility. We must expect those who come here to respect our laws and to take care of themselves. Not only is this the right thing to do for our overtaxed citizens, but it sets a standard that should define all Americans, including those who have recently immigrated here. We simply have no choice. We can't afford our relaxed, "politically-correct" policies anymore.
Again, please contact your representatives in DC and let them know that you oppose any immigration reform effort that includes amnesty. The primary objective of immigration reform should be border security and enforcement of an immigration policy that serves legitimate national goals (and not political goals). And don't forget to demand an investigation of the IRS and Homeland Security.
Publisher's note: Diane Rufino has her own blog, For Love of God and Country.
Come and visit her. She'd love your company.
