Immigration: Cornyn Amendment Fails; Kennedy Alternative Passes

Two amendments to the "bi-partisan" comprehensive immigration bill took center stage today.

Senator John Cornyn (R-Tex) offered SA-1184 to the bill which expands the list of crimes making illegal aliens ineligible for legalisation. To summarise quickly, it would bar admission into the United States and denies immigration benefits for the following:

(1) absconders (i.e., aliens already ordered deported);
(2) aliens deemed inadmissible or deportable as security risks (e.g., terrorists);
(3) aliens who fail to register as sex offenders;
(4) aliens convicted of certain firearms offenses;
(5) aliens convicted of domestic violence, stalking, crimes against children, or violation of protection orders;
(6) alien gang members; and
(7) aliens convicted of at least three DUIs.

The amendment would not apply to an individual who entered or re-entered the country illegally. It would only affect those that have been arrested, charged, convicted, and sentenced by a court of law to one year or more in jail. So if you are a felon under the current law, you are not eligible.

In opposition, Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Mass) offered SA-1333, a "side-by-side" amendment as an alternative to Cornyn's. Now the amendment was said to expand the list of crimes making illegal aliens ineligible for legalisation, but no details have been released. Some believe it is more likely that the amendment will be less effective than Cornyn's.

Kennedy counters that Cornyn's would cost more than $250 billion dollars to round up the illegal aliens that have been tried and convicted under his amendment. He said it would not be practical. He feels that individuals that ignore deportation orders should still be eligible. He also states that those that attempt to use fake ID's should still be eligible. He promised that his amendment would still ban gang members, drunk drivers, sexual offenders, perjurers, and frauds. He also feels that Cornyn's amendment would hurt "legitimate refugees" that were forced to provide material support for terrorists and oppressor groups.

The result: Cornyn's Amendment failed 46-51. Kennedy's Amendment adopted 66-32.

I would think that if Cornyn dropped the fake ID rule then I think it would have been adopted. The act of entering and re-entering the country illegally makes sense. If you managed to get through the first time, why should they keep on exploiting it a second, third, or fourth time?

NumbersUSA keeps a running blog on the immigration bill.

As noted by michellemalkin.com, Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Al) puts it succinctly:

"No one has a right to come to America. We get to decide...we allow on our terms and conditions... our immigration system is set up to serve the national interest...No one has a constitutional legal right to demand entry into America. It amazes me the lack of comprehension shown...We set the standards. Se have the most generous set of laws in the world. Se're not going to end immigration or act irrationally. To set reasonable standards, as Cornyn is attempting to do, only makes common sense."

Interesting to note that Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) criticises Cornyn for making an illegal alien's third drunk driving conviction a crime of violence. Also, a NY Times op-ed deplored Cornyn's expansion on the definition of an "aggravated felony." Come on here, don't we want respectable and responsible people entering this country? We got enough drunk drivers in this country already, now you want me accept the fact that the next drunk driver could be an illegal?

That's pretty much the highlight for today. This whole immigration thing is quite complex and there still more amendments to be debated and voted on. There are definitely pluses and minuses on the comprehensive legislation. Of course, no one is completely happy. But I think what Sen. Sessions said was clearly right. The United States' standards are somewhat generous as compared with other countries. It seems people want us to open our borders 100 percent, but I think 80-90 percent is quite enough.

Trackbacks

Trackback URL for this entry is: http://blog.case.edu/james.chang/mt-tb.cgi/14136

Comments

Senators had been busy adding tons of amendment to the 2007 CIR in order to kill it, which really isn't necessary. The bill somehow managed to have something for everyone to hate, left, right, legal, illegal, you name it. It would have been a disaster had it passed.

The whole idea of comprehensive immigration reform is ill guided in the first place. Is there any reason, one reason, to combine the backlog problems faced by legal immigrants with the scorching issue of undocumented workers? Wouldn't it be much easier to tackle them piece by piece?

Post a comment





If you have entered an email address in the box, clicking this checkbox will subscribe your email address to this entry so that you are notified if any updates or additional comments occur on the entry.