Duncan Hunter Opposes Immigration Deal

Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., a GOP candidate for president in 2008, vowed to oppose immigration legislation approved by the Senate on Thursday.

Hunter said the new immigration deal rewards lawbreakers and does little to stem the flow of illegals across U.S. borders.

"This Senate bill is bad for Americans, bad for our workers, bad for law enforcement and, most importantly, bad for national security," Hunter said.

The new legislation was drafted and supported by Democratic Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., and Republican Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.

It would provide new immigration benefits to millions of immigrants who are in America illegally.

"This package will confirm to the world that the U.S. does not really mean what it says when it comes to immigration enforcement," said Hunter. "As a result of the citizenship benefits included in this legislation, and despite the fine print, we will see a stampede across our borders as people seek to attain legal status in the U.S."

Hunter was a leader in the opposition to the 1986 Amnesty Act saying it provided benefits to those who had broken U.S. laws. He also contended that the 1986 act would draw even more immigrants to America who were seeking citizenship. Hunter said he was, "fiercely disappointed in seeing history repeat itself” with another law that lawmakers have no intention to enforce.

"Amnesty is not the answer," he said. "Border enforcement must come first and it must be comprehensive. To do otherwise is to repeat the mistakes of the past."

According to Hunter, the Democratic controlled Senate is demanding legitimate enforcement policies, but what they are offering is a vast new amnesty and expansive guest-worker program.

"I suspect the program will be filled with fraud and abuse, and will ultimately lead to millions of low-skill workers relying on our public assistance programs," Hunter said.

The Senate’s decision to blatantly ignore the 2006 Secure Fence Act is yet another failure of this legislation, said Hunter. That act was signed into law last year and requires construction of 370 miles of fence, as opposed to the 854-miles mandated by the law.

"The San Diego border has proven that fencing works," Hunter said. "The time has come to quickly implement the Secure Fence Act, not retreat from its mandates."

Hey,

Thanks tons for your article.

Here is an excerpt from my blog at:
http://gohunter08.blogspot.com/

I am unsure about this proposal, but I think that the tough border security is good. But it is unnecessary! We already have a border fence that Congress passed and is not funding. If anything, this bill should address funding and on really starting to build the mandated fence (800ish miles) provided by the passed bill Hunter wrote and not writing a new bill mandating only about 300 miles of it.

But the guaranteed citizenship for those who crossed illegally bothers me. The way I see it right now, it will send the message that if you want to be guaranteed citizenship in the US while living here; you have to: get here illegally, pay a fine in your native country, return, and wait in the United States. The idea of waiting here sounds better to the potential immigrant than the idea of waiting in the country they want to leave. I think Hunter is right that this will increase the rush to the borders. It seems to reward illegals with the opportunity, while gaining citizenship, to wait here rather than those who didn’t come here illegally that must wait in their native countries.

And that is wrong. We cannot reward people for breaking our laws. Especially laws that involve our National Security. Crossing illegally in it of itself is sending a message of disrespect the sovereignty of our laws. And we can not reward them for threatening the security of our country. They should have to wait in their country the whole time, not be able to come back here. If they are illegal, they should be treated that way until they gain citizenship.
Congressman Tom Tancredo, another presidential candidate for the GOP nomination, is right on this opinion also. He basically has said that nothing in this bill is new and that all we have to do is enforce the laws we have now. And those laws, one written by Hunter, already are passed and provide border enforcement and punishment for illegals without amnesty. There is no need for this bill.

Please read Duncan’s stance (below) on this issue. I may have gotten many of the specifics of the new immigration deal wrong, so please post in comments your corrections, thoughts, and differing opinions.

God Bless,
Dirkello165

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.