Jeff Flake on Immigration
Republican Representative (AZ-6); Senate challenger
FLAKE: That's a House bill [that allows longer detention with family separation]. I think the Flores decision will stand [disallowing holding children in custory]. And so I think another solution has to come.
Q: Aren't you working with Senator Tillis on legislation that will allow families to be held beyond 20 days?
FLAKE: Oh, yes, I'm sorry; [there's also] House legislation. With the Tillis legislation, we envision some other form like monitored release, with ankle bracelets. Case management is still difficult, but it's far better than indefinite detention of families because some of these cases can go for a long time.
Q: And are you fairly certain that the courts will strike down the president's executive order [allowing family separation]?
FLAKE: Yes, yes.
Q: So what happens next?
FLAKE: I mean, Congress has to fix this
"I'll be the first to admit this 'three-for-three' approach is far from a perfect solution, but it would provide a temporary fix by beginning the process of improving border security and ensuring DACA recipients will not face potential deportation," said Flake. "The Senate may not have been able to deliver a permanent solution to these problems, but we cannot abdicate the responsibility of Congress to solve them. There are many people whose lives and well-being depend on our ability to deliver meaningful results."
FLAKE: Well, in this compromise, we do get rid of the visa lottery program. But we allocate those visas to a couple of different programs, like TPS or temporary protected status. But there is broad agreement to get rid of the visa lottery. There's also agreement between us, the Republicans and the Democrats, that we do get rid of chain migration as it relates to the covered population. Those who benefit from this DACA bill will not be able to use chain migration to become citizens. We just don't do it for everybody, like the president wants to do. If we want a comprehensive bill, I'm all in.
Carmona said comprehensive immigration reform should include visas, day-worker programs "that don't impede commerce but actually enhance commerce." They both agreed that border security needs to be stepped up..
A: On the border, we have now--and have had for a couple of years--operational security in the Yuma Sector. If we can just get the Tucson Sector to look like the Yuma Sector, then we have some political space where people will say, alright, let's solve the other attendant issue--employer-enforcement issues, some mechanism to deal with those who are here illegally now, some robust temporary-worker plan that can account for the labor needs we have, particularly in the ag sector, and then some way to deal with those issues like kids who were brought here when they were 2 years old and can't finish school. Those are all issues we're going to have to deal with. But I can tell you, it's a dead end until we can get better border security. Until then, we're just not going to get there.
Q: What does "there" look like?
A: It looks like the Yuma Sector. If somebody crosses illegally, we have a reasonable expectation of catching them.
A: We have to have comprehensive reform. But those of us who have pursued it have realized that that is a dead-end. We have beat our heads against the wall for a long time. And until we have a more secure border, nobody's going to trust the federal government to move on with the other elements of comprehensive reform.
Q: What about opposition among many Latinos to S.B. 1070?
A: Well, one thing I can tell you is Arizonans are incensed when the president tries to sue the state for trying to do the job that the federal government just won't do. But it's not just rounding up those who are illegal that's the issue; that hasn't been the problem. It's what do you do when you've got them. What do you do to have a humane but effective policy to adjudicate the cases that are already here. And that's the bigger issue.
A: Well, I was at the federal level when it was passed here. And I made comments when it was initially passed--the first version that they put out had some language that could be construed as unconstitutional, certainly. And I said at that time that that was imprudent. And then, the legislature went back in and removed that offending provision. But I've just never been able to get excited about SB 1070, because I've known that that hasn't been the issue. We're able to find those who are here illegally easily enough. It's, what do you do when you've got them?
Q: What action should the Supreme Court take on S.B. 1070?
A: I hope they let it stand. I think all Arizonans are incensed when the federal government tries to sue the state for doing what they simply failed to do. So, I hope they let it stand, but when they do, they'll quickly realize that that was not the issue. The bigger issue is what do you do with a population that's already here?
Proponents support voting YES because:
It is obvious there is no more defining issue in our Nation today than stopping illegal immigration. The most basic obligation of any government is to secure the Nation's borders. One issue in which there appears to be a consensus between the Senate and the House is on the issue of building a secure fence. So rather than wait until comprehensive legislation is enacted, we should move forward on targeted legislation which is effective and meaningful. The legislation today provides over 700 miles of two-layered reinforced fencing, and for the rest of the border provides a virtual fence, via integrated surveillance technology.
Opponents support voting NO because:
Just to build the fence is going to cost us at least $7 billion. Where is the money coming from to pay for it? How much is it going to cost to maintain this 700-mile fence? Who is going to do it? This bill contains no funding.
This bill also ignores real enforcement measures, like hiring more Border Patrol personnel, and instead builds a Berlin Wall on our southern border. So long as employers need workers in this country, and while our immigration systems impede rather than facilitate timely access of willing workers to those opportunities, undocumented immigration will never be controlled.
Walls, barriers, and military patrols will only force those immigrants to utilize ever more dangerous routes and increase the number of people who die in search of an opportunity to feed and clothe their families.
None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to provide a foreign government information relating to the activities of an organized volunteer civilian action group, operating in the State of California, Texas, New Mexico, or Arizona, unless required by international treaty.
The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) is a national, non-profit, public interest membership organization of concerned citizens united by their belief in the need for immigration reform. Founded in 1979, FAIR believes that the U.S. can and must have an immigration policy that is non-discriminatory and designed to serve the environmental, economic, and social needs of our country.
FAIR seeks to improve border security, to stop illegal immigration, and to promote immigration levels consistent with the national interest�more traditional rates of about 300,000 a year.
With more than 70,000 members nationwide, FAIR is a non-partisan group whose membership runs the gamut from liberal to conservative.
The ratings are based on the votes the organization considered most important; the numbers reflect the percentage of time the representative voted the organization's preferred position.
SPONSOR'S INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Sen. McCAIN: This bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform legislation is designed to fix our Nation's broken immigration system. While in previous years we worked independently on immigration reform legislation, we are coming together today to introduce what we believe is groundbreaking, comprehensive legislation. Over a year ago, the President laid out a framework for what comprehensive immigration reform should look like. We have used the President's framework to craft this package.
The simple fact is that America's immigration system is broken. Recent vigilante activities along the southwestern border have shown that the current situation is not sustainable. Americans are frustrated with our lack of border security and our inability to control illegal immigration.
Make no mistake, this is not an amnesty bill. We are not here to reward law-breakers, and any accusations to the contrary are patently untrue. This bill recognizes the problems inherent in the current system and provides a logical and effective means to address these problems. It would be impossible to identify and round up all 10 to 11 million of the current undocumented, and if we did, it would ground our Nation's economy to a halt. These millions of people are working. Aliens will not come forward to simply "report and deport." We have a national interest in identifying these individuals, incentivizing them to come forward out of the shadows, go through security background checks, pay back taxes, pay penalties for breaking the law, learn to speak English, and regularize their status. Anyone who thinks this goal can be achieved without providing an eventual path to a permanent legal status is not serious about solving this problem.
LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Referred to Senate Committee on the Judiciary; never came to a vote. [The famous McCain-Kennedy legislation which DID come to a vote was the 2007 version of this bill].
OnTheIssues.org interprets the 2005-2006 USBC scores as follows:
U.S. Border Control, founded in 1988, is a non-profit, tax-exempt, citizen's lobby. USBC is dedicated to ending illegal immigration by securing our nation's borders and reforming our immigration policies. USBC [works with] Congressmen to stop amnesty; seal our borders against terrorism and illegal immigration; and, preserve our nation's language, culture and American way of life for future generations.
Our organization accepts no financial support from any branch of government. All our support comes from concerned citizens who appreciate the work we are doing to seal our borders against drugs, disease, illegal migration and terrorism and wish to preserve our nation's language, culture and heritage for the next generations.
|Other candidates on Immigration:||Jeff Flake on other issues:|
Senate races 2017-8:
AZ: Flake(R) vs. Ward(R) vs.Sinema(D) vs.Abboud(D) vs.McSally(R) vs.Arpaio(R) vs.Marks(L)
CA: Feinstein(D) vs. Eisen(I) vs. Sanchez?(D) vs.de_Leon(D)
CT: Murphy(D) vs.Adams(D) vs.Corey(R)
DE: Carper(D) vs.Arlett(R) vs.Truono(R) vs.
FL: Nelson(D) vs.
HI: Hirono(D) vs.Curtis(R) vs.
IN: Donnelly(D) vs.
MA: Warren(D) vs. Ayyadurai(I) vs.
MD: Cardin(D) vs.Campbell(R) vs.Vohra(L) vs.
ME: King(I) vs.Brakey(R) vs.Ringelstein(D) vs.Lyons(L)
MI: Stabenow(D) vs.
MN-6: Klobuchar(D) vs.Newberger(R) vs.Overby(G)
MO: McCaskill(D) vs.Petersen(R) vs.Petersen(R) vs.Monetti(R) vs.Hawley(R)
MS-2: vs.Hyde-Smith(R) vs. McDaniel(R) vs.Espy(D) vs.
MS-6: Wicker(R) vs.Baria(D) vs.
MT: Tester(D) vs.Olszewski(R) vs.Rosendale(R)
ND: Heitkamp(D) vs.Peyer(D) vs.Cramer(R) vs.
NE: Fischer(R) vs.Raybould(D)
NJ: Menendez(D) vs.
NM: Heinrich(D) vs.Rich(R) vs.Johnson(L)
NV: Heller(R) vs.
NY: Gillibrand(D) vs.
OH: Brown(D) vs.
PA: Casey(D) vs.
RI: Whitehouse(D) vs.
TN: Corker(R) vs.Bredesen(D) vs.
TX: Cruz(R) vs.
UT: Hatch(R) vs.
VA: Kaine(D) vs.
VT: Sanders(I) vs.Milne(D) vs.MacGovern(D) vs.Paige(R) vs.Zupan(R)
WA: Cantwell(D) vs.Hutchison(R) vs.Ferguson(D) vs.Luke(L) vs.Strider(L)
WI: Baldwin(D) vs.Vukmir(R)
WV: Manchin(D) vs.
WY: Barrasso(R) vs.Trauner(D)
Senate Votes (analysis)
Cannon HOB 240, Washington, DC 20515