Posted by Randy | June 24, 2014
Our message to gang members illegally in our country needs to be crystal clear: we want you out.
The Washington Times
Saturday, June 14, 2014
Border Patrol officials are swamped by the number of minors crossing illegally into the United States and frustrated that they can't turn away known Mexican gang members.
Chris Cabrera, vice president of the National Border Patrol Council Local 3307 in the Rio Grande Valley, said that confirmed gang members in Mexico — including those from Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) — are coming into the country to be reunited with their families, National Review reported Friday.
“If he’s a confirmed gang member in his own country, why are we letting him in here? ... I've heard people come in and say, 'You're going to let me go, just like you let my mother go, just like you let my sister go. You're going to let me go as well, and the government's going to take care of us,'" Mr. Cabrera told the magazine.
He said that the only way to solve the problem was to implement harsher restrictions on who can be allowed to cross.
"Until we start mandatory detentions, mandatory removals, I don't think anything is going to change. As a matter of fact, I think it's going to get worse," he said, National Review reported.
Other Border Patrol officials said that officers must treat minors with gang-affiliated tattoos the same as anybody else wishing to cross the border.
"It's upsetting that a lot of them are 16 or 17 years old and a lot of them are not going to face deportation," said Art Del Cueto, president of the National Border Patrol Council Local 2544 in Tucson, Ariz, National Review reported.
Mr. Cabrera told the news agency that the Rio Grande Valley location has nine stations. The largest facility is in McAllen, Texas, with a capacity of 275 people. Its agents see between 700 and 1,500 people daily.
Read the article here: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/14/border-agents-lament-mexican-gang-members-entering/
Posted by | June 16, 2014
My questions for the Administration:
The first action step in this situation is to hold the primary actor - the Administration - accountable. These are the questions you have been asking. You have a right to know. I am demanding answers, and I will be posting a copy of the Administration's response on my website so that every American might have the opportunity to read and comment.
Question of the week: Do you support the actions taken by the Administration regarding the surge of youth crossing the border?Posted by Randy | June 14, 2014
According to widely circulated news reports, 60,000 youth will cross our nation’s southern border this year, up tenfold from 2011. According to Reuters, the number of illegal immigrants under the age of 18 entering our country is likely to double in 2015 to nearly 130,000, costing American taxpayers $2 billion. So far, unaccompanied youth have been housed in shelters in Arizona and military bases in Texas, California, and Oklahoma.
This month, the Department of Justice announced a new program to enroll approximately 100 lawyers and paralegals to provide legal services at taxpayer expense to youth crossing our border unaccompanied by their parents.
Additionally, the Department of Homeland Security announced a renewal of the Administration’s policy to grant relief from deportation to youth brought into the United States illegally by their parents, if they meet certain criteria. According to the Department, as of April, over 560,000 individuals have already received such relief.
Opponents, including Congressman Forbes, have criticized the Administration for prioritizing amnesty over the security of our borders and enforcing the law. Read more about Congressman Forbes’ work opposing amnesty and securing the border here.
Question of the week: Do you support the actions taken by the Administration regarding the surge of youth crossing the border?
( ) Yes.
( ) No.
( ) I don’t know.
( ) Other.
Take the Poll here.
Find the results of last week’s InstaPoll here.
Posted by Randy | June 13, 2014
For me, no amnesty means no amnesty. Broad amnesty. Narrow amnesty. Amnesty for minors. Military service as a path to amnesty. It doesn't matter. Entry into this country is a privilege, not a right.
1. End the conversation on amnesty.
Weigh in below -- I want you a part of this conversation.
You and I both know one truth: Securing our borders involves not just the ability to enforce our laws but the will to enforce our laws. This Administration lacks that will. It is up to us to hold their feet to the fire and to be unrelenting in our demand that they enforce the laws of this nation as the Constitution requires them to do.
Posted by | June 12, 2014
Quick update: as reports continue to pour in about the influxes of thousands of undocumented children and families crossing our southern border, there are some questions that need to be answered: How long has the Administration known about this? What steps are they taking to address it?
Posted by | June 04, 2014
$2 billion. That is the anticipated cost to American taxpayers for unaccompanied minors illegally crossing our borders in 2015, reports Reuters. The article says that an estimated 60,000 such children will pour into the United States this year, according to the Administration, up from about 6,000 in 2011. Once they are detained, funding will be required for the food, housing, and transportation of these illegal immigrants who are under the age of 18.
This is an example of the consequences of talking about amnesty and failing to prioritize border security. And it is unacceptable. I will continue to prioritize the enforcement of our current immigration laws and the strengthening of border security. Citizenship is not a right, but a privilege.
My position can be summed up in three simple words: No Amnesty. Period. Read more about where I stand, here.
Posted by Randy | May 16, 2014
The Center for Immigration Studies recently reported that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) released over 36,000 convicted criminals in deportation proceedings in Fiscal Year 2013 alone. Those released back into the public include individuals convicted of homicide, sexual assault, or drunk driving.
Last month, I joined House Judiciary Committee Chairman Goodlatte and other members of the Committee in sending a letter to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Johnson requesting the number of criminal illegal immigrants released into U.S. communities and the specific crimes they committed. The letter also asks why they were released in the first place, and the legal justification for not prioritizing these individuals for detainment and removal. To date, the Department has failed to respond to the letter.
I will continue working with my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee to hold the Administration accountable, keep our communities safe, and get the answers the American people deserve.
I have also introduced legislation to provide the Department of Homeland Security and the Attorney General with the power to deport or make inadmissible an individual who they know or have reason to believe is, or was, a member of a criminal gang and/or participated in criminal gang activities.
Posted by Randy | November 18, 2013
According to a report issued by the Treasury Inspector General for the Department of the Treasury, the IRS paid over $4 billion in child tax credits to illegal immigrants, through a refundable tax credit called the Additional Child Tax Credit (ACTC).
Claiming tax credits intended for law-abiding American taxpayers is not only wrong, but also, as the report states, serves as “an additional incentive...to enter, reside, and work in the United States without authorization.”
That’s why I support legislation to require tax filers to provide a valid Social Security number in order to claim tax credits, including the child tax credit, when filing their tax returns. Simply put, it would prevent illegal immigrants from claiming $4 billion in tax credits, at the expense of American taxpayers.
Learn more about my work to enforce our current laws and protect American families and workers,here.
Question of the week: Which proposal for enforcing the law and enhancing border security do you support?Posted by Randy | July 03, 2013
On October 4th of last year, as the debate over immigration reform was beginning, I asked you which proposals for reform you supported. In response, collectively, 26.9 percent of you said you support stricter enforcement of existing laws and enhanced border security, while 1.5 percent said you are in favor of making it easier for illegal immigrants to obtain citizenship.
Last month, the Senate passed the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act, S.744, which creates a new registered provisional immigrant status, and attempts to condition such status on enhanced border security. After the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) notifies Congress that implementation of a comprehensive strategy for securing the southern border has begun, DHS may start processing applications for registered provisional immigrant status. This status may not be adjusted, however, until further progress is made toward securing the border, including enhanced technology, fencing and additional agents on the border. I do not support this approach.
Alternatively, the House Judiciary has taken a different approach, passing the Strengthen and Fortify Enforcement (SAFE) Act, H.R. 2278, which focuses solely on interior enforcement. The bill provides states and localities with the ability to assist in the enforcement of federal immigration law. Additionally, the bill makes it more difficult for illegal immigrants who are terrorists or pose a threat to national security to enter or remain in the country, and facilitates the removal of criminal illegal immigrants, including gang members. Finally, the bill strengthens border security, and authorizes immigration enforcement agents and deportation officers to make arrests for immigration violations. I supported this bill because I believe that enforcing our laws and strengthening our borders – without conditions - must be our first priority.
Question of the week: Which proposal for enforcing the law and enhancing border security do you support?
( ) The Senate bill to tie a new path to citizenship to border security.
( ) The House Judiciary bill to focus solely on enforcement and border security.
( ) Neither.
( ) I don’t know.
( ) Other.
Take the instaPoll here.
Find the results of last week’s instaPoll here.
Posted by Randy | May 08, 2013
As Congress moves closer to considering immigration reform, an L.A. Times article discusses the different approaches the House and Senate are taking. The House is planning to move individual bills; however, the Senate is poised to take up one large reform package.
RECENT POSTS01/30/2015 - Question of the Week: Do you support a House-led lawsuit designed to curtail the use of executive amnesty?
01/29/2015 - Today's Wall Street Journal
01/28/2015 - Time to Develop A Real Strategy for National Defense
01/23/2015 - Question of the Week: Do you support the President's proposals to increase taxes?
01/22/2015 - Time to Build: Keystone in the Senate
01/20/2015 - College Campus Falters on Freedom