Broader Options for Americans Act -- Continued
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I wish to speak today about the so-called Schumer amendment. Now, that is not the name that some people give it, but I will give it that name. Abraham Lincoln said: If you call a dog's tail a leg, how many legs has a dog? Five? No, it has four, because calling something doesn't make it that.
In the same way, you can call a bill bipartisan because there are some Republicans on that bill, but if the Republicans have simply acquiesced to the Democrats' position, it is a Democratic bill. Calling it bipartisan doesn't make it so.
Let's just walk through a few of the weaknesses of this bill.
No. 1 is the enforcement holiday for illegal immigration. You might call it the ``olly olly oxen free'' position. That is because it declares to anyone, worldwide, if you get to the United States in the next four months, or before June 30, 2018, olly olly oxen free, the Department of Homeland Security will not enforce our laws against you.
Don't take my word for it. Look at it right here. In fact, it was done in handwriting last night. I suspect some of my Republican colleagues on this bill didn't even know that this change was made. It used to be January 1, 2018, and you had to be present for at least 5\1/ 2\ years. That is not great, but it is better than a prospective enforcement holiday that says that if you get to this country illegally in the next 4 months, we will not make you an enforcement priority. So come on in, everyone. If you get here by June 30, under this amendment, the Department of Homeland Security will not make it a priority to enforce our laws against you.
No. 2, let's look at the amnesty that it provides. The President has been extraordinarily generous in his offer to our Democratic colleagues. He didn't say a legal status for 690,000 people who are enrolled in the Obama-era DACA Program. He said citizenship. He said a full opportunity for citizenship for 1.8 million people--1.8 million people--who were not just enrolled in the program but would have been eligible for the program had they enrolled.
This amendment would expand that to almost 3 million to 4 million people by lifting the age limits and by lifting the age caps--a vast amnesty, just among those younger people, of a quarter of the people who are here in this country illegally.
It gets even worse than that.
No. 3, the entire rationale of the DACA Program is that children ought not pay for the sins of their parents. How about the parents pay for the sins of the parents? This bill would allow the effective legalization of the very parents who created this problem in the first place. The sponsors of this amendment will say: No, no, we prohibit the parents from getting legal status. Let's look at how they do that. They say that no person can receive legal status if the Department of Homeland Security can show they knowingly assisted the entry of a minor into this country. Tell me how the Department of Homeland Security is supposed to make that showing. How are they supposed to go back 10, 15, 20, 25 years and show that this illegal immigrant knowingly brought that person into this country? It is preposterous. It is the exact reason why so many immigration bills have failed for so many years in this body--the Democrats write bills they claim do one thing; in reality, they do the exact opposite.
No. 4, they say that it reforms chain migration or at least makes a downpayment on it. Here is what it actually does. It briefly delays a tiny, tiny class of persons from being sponsored by newly legalized immigrants--only about 25,000 per year of the adult children of green card holders. It takes those and applies them to the other adult children, and when those immigrants become citizens--guess what--they get to sponsor their adult children again. So it does not make a single change to the practice of extended family chain migration, which is responsible for so much of the unskilled and low-skilled immigration we have had in this country over the last 40 years.
It makes no changes whatsoever to the diversity lottery, not a single one, even though every other provision under serious consideration has at least eliminated that lottery and reallocated those green cards toward other purposes, such as clearing out the family-based backlog and clearing out the high-skilled backlog.
Some people say that it appropriates $25 billion--$2.5 billion a year for 10 years--for the border wall. It does no such thing. Again, it says one thing and does another. It gives $2.5 billion for the first year. It can't be spent on physical barriers. Then, every year after that, it makes that money contingent on a report and a certification by the Department of Homeland Security that is purposefully onerous, difficult to achieve, and therefore means the money likely will not be available in future years. And, of course, if a Democratic President comes into office during the 10 years of this bill, we know that his Department of Homeland Security will never submit that report certification, and that money will never be spent.
Finally, No. 5, this amendment has no chance of becoming law--zero chance. It shouldn't pass this Chamber to begin with, but even if that were to happen, President Trump issued a veto threat just minutes ago. The House of Representatives is not going to pass this bill. They probably will not even take it up, as they didn't take it up the last time the Senate passed a terrible immigration bill.
My friends, this Democratic bill deserves to be roundly defeated.
There is one bill that has a chance to pass the House of Representatives and get the President's signature; that is, the President's framework proposal, which, in a very generous and humane fashion, gives citizenship--not just legal status but citizenship--to 1.8 million young people who were brought here or came here before the age of accountability.
On the other hand, it mitigates the negative consequences of that decision, which we all know will happen.
First, to control the increased incentives for illegal immigration, it provides the money and closes the loopholes necessary to secure our southern border.
Second, to prevent that newly legalized class of citizens from sponsoring the very parents who created this problem in the first place and their siblings and ultimately their grandparents, their aunts and uncles, cousins, and their nieces and nephews, it ends the practice of extended family chain migration and says that American citizens can always sponsor their spouses and their minor kids, but anyone else, any other adult, should stand on their own two feet if they want to immigrate to this country.
That is what the President said he will sign. That is, therefore, what the House of Representatives can pass. That is the bill that should pass today--the bill that is sponsored by Chairman Grassley of the Judiciary Committee.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I know there is some dispute about the name of this amendment, so let's just call it the ``olly olly oxen free'' amendment because it says to the entire world: If you can get to our country in the next 4 months, olly olly oxen free--you can stay forever.
That is right. This bill directs the Department of Homeland Security not to prioritize enforcement action not only against illegal immigrants here today but anyone who gets here over the next 4 months.
Second, it is an amnesty that is far broader than the DACA Program-- not 700,000, not 1.8 million, but over 3 million people.
Third, it is even worse than that because it includes their parents as well. The bill purports to prohibit parents from being legalized, but it requires the Federal Government to show that the parents did not knowingly assist the entry of a minor into this country. How can the government show that 15, 20, 25 years later? And to say nothing of the fact that it puts onerous conditions on the spending of any money for security. It does virtually nothing for chain migration and nothing at all to the diversity lottery. That is why President Trump has issued a veto threat, and that is why every one of my colleagues should vote no.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source