Illegal Residency

Sen. Ted Cruz: Immigration Slush Fund Elimination Act

Sen. Cruz Introduces the Immigration Slush Fund Elimination Act

Online Press Release here
Complete pdf Text of the Bill here

cruz-seal

UNITED STATES SENATE

Sen. Ted Cruz Press Office


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Cruz Press Office: 202-228-7561

Phil Novack:
phil_novack@cruz.senate.gov

June 17, 2015

 

Sen. Cruz Introduces the Immigration Slush Fund Elimination Act

Bill would end the ability of DHS to use legal immigration service fees to fund amnesty

 

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) today introduced the Immigration Slush Fund Elimination Act to prohibit the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from using the fees it collects for the provision of legal immigration services to fund amnesty. The bill would also restore congressional authority over the appropriations process and refocus the department on its national security mission.

“America has always been a land of refuge and opportunity for those seeking freedom, and we should champion legal immigration,” said Sen. Cruz. “Ronald Reagan referred to legal immigrants, immigrants like my father, as Americans by choice. The federal government should not be in the business of looting the wallets of those who followed the law and came here legally to fund the President’s illegal and unconstitutional amnesty. This bill will cut off DHS’s credit card and put Congress back in charge of funding the agencies responsible for immigration.”

 Specifically the Immigration Slush Fund Elimination Act proposes the following:

End DHS’s ability to fund lawlessness.
The Obama Administration’s DHS, via U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), has admitted it uses so-called offsetting accounts (which function like agency checking accounts) to take the fees it charges legal immigrants and use them to fund amnesty and other activities that Congress has not authorized. In recent congressional testimony, USCIS Chief Financial Officer Joseph Moore confirmed that USCIS can access more than $1 billion in fee-based funding, and that it used those funds to pay for an unauthorized amnesty processing center in Arlington, Va. Eliminating the ability of USCIS to use the money it collects to support amnesty and other unauthorized activities is a first step toward reining in the executive branch’s lawless approach to immigration.

Restore congressional authority over DHS and immigration issues.
By eliminating the offsetting accounts under USCIS’s control, Congress would end USCIS’s ability to self-fund. This would reduce USCIS’s ability to ignore the people’s representatives and restore respect for the Constitution’s separation of powers and the legislative power of the purse.

Eliminate DHS’s profit incentive, which distracts from the agency’s core national security mission. Right now, USCIS has an incentive to process as many immigration benefits as possible, without regard to consequences. While legal immigration should be celebrated and supported, the agency’s desire to collect more fee-based revenue – along with its unrestricted ability to keep and use those fees – arguably interferes with USCIS’s objective review of application processing. Removing the focus on fees and revenue will once again focus USCIS on its core responsibilities, including protecting our national security and preventing immigration benefit fraud.

Complete bill text can be found here.

###

 

 

Fighting the TX Solution: Seal the Border / No Amnesty

Fighting the TX Amnesty Solution

Fight_TX_AMNESTY

One way to win the immigration debate

by Kyle Scott

Here is an article on winning the immigration argument by Kyle Scott, published in the Desert News.

What gets lost in the immigration debate is the importance of tradition and custom. Conservatives can clearly articulate pragmatic reasons why we need stronger controls on immigration, but we often neglect the more nuanced, and perhaps more important, reasons for protecting our borders.

A core value for conservatives is a belief in an enduring moral order that is revealed to us through custom, convention and continuity. Without an adherence to tradition and custom, societies must rely exclusively on laws, which means, they must look to the government rather than institutions such as family and church for guidance. Immigration threatens to undermine tradition and custom in the U.S. Unless immigrants are asked to assimilate, we will lose what binds us as a people and relegates the government to the background. Without a common understanding and history, the government is pushed to the foreground, unhinged from anything of meaning or lasting value.

If we continue to be a nation that welcomes immigrants but does not ask them to take our norms, customs and history as their own, then we are left with no choice but to have a government define for us who we are as a people. Furthermore, in a government that is increasingly being pushed toward radical democracy, there is a risk that the laws promulgated will be without ethical merit.

Liberty under God and law, as Tocqueville formulated it, is distinct from the liberty argued for by those who favor radical democracy. As we move closer toward a radically democratic regime, we also move toward a system in which the will of the individual is glorified and fewer restraints are placed around human desires. Liberty is sacrificed when pure democracy is pursued because pure democracy does not recognize an enduring moral order or convention; it only recognizes the will of the majority. Without natural limits, democratic government is nothing more than a relativistic anarchy cloaked in the misappropriated rhetoric of liberty and equality.

Progressives encourage a “radical emancipation from natural limits and moral restraints and from a transcendent order above the will of men.” However, if man dislodges himself from what he needs, from what is natural, he will fail to achieve fulfillment, happiness and dignity.

I agree with Tocqueville’s assessment that collectivism originates in radical individualism. Because men need limits, and radical individualism rejects all natural limits and thereby destroys human connections, the end result of radical individualism — and thus radical democracy — is a dependence upon an impersonal “schoolmaster.” Radical individualism will destroy traditional values and in turn force people to turn toward the government for fulfillment, safety and guidance. The process from radical individualism to collectivism will enervate the human soul and destroy the capacity for individual initiative and moral and civic judgment. Obedience to an enduring moral order, adherence to custom, convention, and continuity, and belief in things established through immemorial usage is required for liberty and self government.

Our political climate rarely leaves time or space for sincere reflection. Grandstanding has been substituted for statesmanship, and talking points have taken the place of principle. If we are to create a politics which can rise above the gutter, we must take the first step of identifying core principles and why we adhere to them. Conservatism recognizes man has limits and must reconcile himself to those natural limits. From this fundamental truth springs conservatism and the policies which are consistent with conservative ideals. If we do not take this as the fundamental reason for securing our borders, we will lose the moral high ground and eventually lose the political battle.


Kyle Scott is a professor of political science at University of Houston and a trustee of the Lone Star College System. Dr. Scott, the Conservative Professor has a blog at kyleascott.

VIDEO: Sen. Ted Cruz with Jonathon Karl on “This Week.”

I’m excited about Sen. Cruz coming to KWTP on Aug. 19, are you? In the meantime, here’s Sen. Cruz with Jonathon Karl on “This Week.”

Sen. Ted Cruz with Jonathan Karl on 'This Week'

Watch this video on YouTube.

Thomas Sowell: Immigration Common Sense

20130702-082855.jpg

Thomas Sowell, Immigration Gambles

We are importing many foreigners who stay foreign, if not hostile. Blithely turning them into citizens by fiat, rather than because they have committed to the American way of life, is an irreversible decision that can easily turn out to be a dangerous gamble with the future of the whole society.

What happened in Boston shows just one of those dangers.

Thomas Sowell, Immigration Gambles:Part II

Waiting until the border has already been secured before an immigration policy is decided upon would also allow time to discuss the pros and cons of various ways of enforcing whatever that policy might turn out to be. But many politicians much prefer to rush complex legislation through Congress before the public knows what is in it or what is at stake. “We the people” are to be by-passed.

Time to deliberate would also be time to raise questions as to why local government officials in “sanctuary” cities who openly thwart or defy federal immigration laws should be allowed to get away with such illegal acts, while private employers are forced to become enforcers of such laws, under heavy penalties for not investigating the legal status of those they hire.

Government officials at all levels take an oath to uphold the laws, but somebody who owns a restaurant or hardware store has not applied for the job of border enforcement — and the 13th Amendment forbids involuntary servitude. Or are we already too far along on the road to serfdom for that to matter any more?

MUST READ: Why Liberals Should Oppose the Immigration Bill

20130629-104845.jpg

FTA: Why Liberals Should Oppose the Immigration Bill: It’s about low-wage American workers, by T.A. Frank, New Republic

Most of America’s college-educated elites are little affected by illegal immigration. In fact, it’s often a benefit to us in terms of childcare, household help, dinners out, and other staples of upper-middle-class life. Many therefore view the problem as akin, in severity, to marijuana use—common but benign, helpful to the immigrants and minimal in its effects on Americans or anyone else. I know, because it used to be my own view.

Immigration Supporters: What They Said Before

Illegaslly crossing border with weaponH/T: Red State Blog, “The Stories They Told.”

Here are the Republican and Red State Democrat Senators who ran for election against amnesty and are about to vote for the ruinous Gang of Eight bill. Liars and cowards, trembling before the liberal press, listening to out of touch “republican” advisors, and betraying those that voted them into office.

THEY HAVEN’T READ THE BILL, and don’t care about the damage it will do. They are this generation’s “Useful Idiots” being played by the anti-American left.

Rubio: “I would vote against anything that grants amnesty because I think it destroys your ability to enforce the existing law and I think it’s unfair to the people who are standing in line and waiting to come in legally. I would vote against anything that has amnesty in it.”

Ayotte: “For the people who are here illegally, I don’t support amnesty; it’s wrong. It’s wrong to the people who are waiting in line here, who have waited for so long. And we need to stop that because I think that’s where the Administration is heading next.”

Read the entire post here.

Ted Cruz Speaks for Me: I Don’t Trust the Republicans!

Ted Cruz Speaks for Me!

I don’t trust the Republicans, either!

Cruz: 'I Don't Trust the Republicans' on the Debt Ceiling

Watch this video on YouTube.

MUST WATCH – worth the time to see Rubio, Lee, And Cruz take on Kaine, Durbin, and McCain. Just found this posted by Sen. Ted Cruz. 33 minute video putting the Debt Ceiling Debate in the Senate in context. John McCain is old, out of touch, and no longer thinking clearly. He is working with the democrats. Should he be reelected, it should be as democrat.

Sen. Ted Cruz Joins in Objecting to the Senate Using Procedural Tricks to Raise Debt Ceiling

Watch this video on YouTube.

MUST READ: Where Ted Cruz is currently on the Immigration Debate in Washington

Ted Cruz is at odds with Marco Rubio over immigration legislation.

The two have much in common as first-term senators elected with the help of the tea party from states with large Latino populations. Both have Cuban roots and are considered rising GOP stars and prospective presidential rivals. But the pair is divided on immigration legislation — a key difference that could have significant ramifications for their party and political ambitions.

The Texas freshman is sharply critical of the pathway to citizenship for the nation’s 11 million undocumented immigrants, a central part of the bipartisan bill that Rubio helped write. Cruz is weighing whether to aggressively oppose the immigration overhaul, a decision that could neutralize Rubio’s outreach to conservative activists in order to minimize their opposition.

Comparison of Ted Cruz & Marco Rubio on Immigration Article

 

Illegals Taunt, “Obama Will Let Me Go!”

Obama Will Let Me Go!”
” Posted Friday, April 12th 2013 by Jim Forsyth

The debate in Washington on immigration reform has had no political impact, but the debate is having a major impact on south Texas, 1200 WOAI news reports.

Officials say the number of people entering the U.S. illegally is way up and, tragically, the number of undocumented immigrants who have been found dead in the unforgiving Texas Brush Country is way up, and is on path this year to beat last year’s record for the number of people found dead in the ranch country.

Read entire article here.