Open Borders Lobby Decries Faux Border Security Plan

Google+ Pinterest LinkedIn Tumblr +

Although the Senate recently passed S. 744, the Gang of Eight’s 1,200-page bill that would immediately grant amnesty to illegal aliens in the U.S. before any enforcement efforts are made, several open borders groups are now opposing the bill based on border security provisions they say are too extreme.

“[W]e cannot support a bill that is [] guaranteed to increase death and destruction in immigrant life through increased militarization of the border,” the pro-amnesty group presente.org said in a June 24 statement. The Border Network for Human Rights made a similar statement last week, saying S. 744 no longer represents their interests. “If this bill becomes the law, it will swallow our traditional values of freedom and liberty for all and gravely endanger our rights and dignity. For the more than six million people who live in border American communities between San Diego, California and Brownsville, Texas, S.744 is a promise of abuse, violation and death.”

The outpouring of dissent from open borders groups comes in response to the inclusion of the Corker-Hoeven amendment to the bill. In the days leading up to its final passage, Sens. Bob Corker (R-TN) and John Hoeven (R-ND) brokered a backroom deal with Sens. Harry Reid (D-NV) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY) over a “border security” amendment to gain Republican votes to pull the bill over the finish line. Among other things, the amendment’s authors say it will secure the U.S. border with Mexico by adding 19,200 Border Patrol agents to the Southern border, require that 700 miles of fencing be built along the Southern border, and require DHS to implement billions of dollars in specific technology and resources for each Southern border sector.

However, despite these claims by the bill’s authors, its provisions are so watered down with exceptions and administrative waivers they are effectively non-existent. (See The Corker-Hoeven Amendment is a Mirage) For example, the Corker-Hoeven amendment left intact existing language in the bill that provides the Secretary of Homeland Security is not obligated to build a single mile of fencing if he or she does not feel it is necessary to secure the border. Moreover, while the amendment specifically enumerates certain technology be placed along the border, the amendment also provides that the Secretary may reallocate any of the resources required by the bill or substitute the technologies listed with any other technologies the Secretary deems fit, again rendering the provision useless. Nonetheless, open borders groups who feel the Obama Administration is already too tough on immigration have decried these provisions as too strict, demonstrating these groups will not stop until there is zero immigration enforcement.

In addition, several pro-amnesty Members of Congress are expressing similar concerns. In fact, Rep. Filemon Vela (R-TX) resigned from the Congressional Hispanic Caucus to protest the Caucus’ strong support for the Senate bill. “Erecting more border fence drives a wedge between border communities which are culturally united… The current border fence has come to symbolize divisiveness and serves as a daily reminder of a flawed immigration system,” said Vela. (CBS News, July 3, 2013) Fellow Texas Democrat Rep. Beto O’Rourke agreed with Vela and argued against what he calls any “further militarization” of our nation’s borders. “Rather than further militarize our border by spending $50 billion to double the number of Border Patrol agents and build more than 700 miles of border wall for a threat that does not exist, we should focus scarce resources on economic opportunities and on real threats like terrorism, drug trafficking, and smuggling,” said O’Rourke. (O’Rourke Press Release, June 27, 2013)

Such opposition to increased enforcement is hardly new to the open borders movement. Several groups criticized the 1986 amnesty for not being broad enough, including the National Council of La Raza where current White House Director of Domestic Policy, Cecilia Munoz, was then a senior vice president. (See FAIR Legislative Update, Mar. 4, 2013)

 

Share.

About Author

avatar

Content written by former Federation for American Immigration Reform staff.

8 Comments

  1. avatar

    LaRaza should not be funded by decent, patriotic & taxpaying American citizens.
    They (LaRaza) are on the wrong side. They should be funded by the crooks they represent.
    LaRaza is the furthest thing from anything American. Same goes for 0bama & his administration.
    President 0bama, Eric Holder, & the whole 0bama administration – AND anyone who had ANYTHING to do with 0bama being president or getting him into the White House – should be tried for treason.
    PERIOD.

  2. avatar

    This is the new Obamanation, erh…ah…I mean abomination…I guess our all seeing and all knowing fearless leader knows whats best…open borders why not, I mean we do have a president who is not American (Kenyan). A Federal Reserve that’s not American, Chinese who own our economy, have bought every T-Bill that America has pimped off to them, and now it will be world courts and the UN legislating and enforcing Amercan laws. Thanks Obama for leading from behind. Now every true American gets to take it in the ***, while you admire your Nobel Peace Prize…what a country.

  3. avatar

    @donald.absolutely end birthright citizenship. I am standing w/ Rep. Steve King on this issue. We are either the only alleged civilized country to offer this and enough is enough.

    @bob, I read ‘English Only’ is a violation of 14th Amendment? civil rights groups jump all over this one. I think it was added with argument this approach excludes non-English from government access, but does it really? Haven’t these people heard of translators? and will this not be a great opportunity to create jobs?

    I support ‘English as an Official Language’—If India can enact English as theirs, why can’t we do same? One Nation-One Common Language. It would behoove anyone on U.S soil ., legal or otherwise, to learn language. Imagine an immigrant w/ a child and health issues, in event of emergency. How will they communicate w/ emergency personnel and articulate what transpired? Life is precious and can be lost in those seconds. It is a question of personal safety and this ought to override any alleged claim at civil rights violation. Whats happening now is these immigrants are not integrating or learning the language-it becomes problematic, and, a definite liability down the immediate road. I believe.

    • avatar

      My petition does not proscribe the use of languages other than English, except for government officials/representatives performing their duties. I’m not a lawyer, but I don’t see anything in the 14th Amendment to exclude this from the realm of possibilities. And if there is, it can certainly be changed. It just takes enough people demanding it be done. I agree also that the misinterpretation of the 14th amendment that allows birth right citizenship and now “birth tourism,” is wrong and needs to be addressed.

  4. avatar

    I started a petition at whitehouse.gov to require U.S. officials to use the English language exclusively when conducting business. A few days later, I received this e-mail from Cecilia:

    Hi, all —
    Here’s one of the best things about immigration reform: It’s going to make our economy a lot stronger.
    Sometimes important facts like this get lost in the hubbub of the debate. So, to make sure folks understand just why immigration reform will make our economy stronger, we put together this really wonderful video showing exactly how it works — how fixing our broken system will create jobs, boost wages, and foster innovation. I know, a video explaining public policy doesn’t exactly scream cool (well…it kind of does to me) but this one is different. It’s something you’ve nNot enough people are talking about the economic benefits of immigration reform, but it’s exactly the conversation that will help us win the national debate on this issue.

    We need people to know that the legislation the Senate just passed represents the best chance that we’ve had in years to strengthen our economy by securing our borders and creating a way for 11 million people to come out of the shadows and earn citizenship.

    But it’s going to take all of us working together to make sure that everyone gets the facts.

    So will you take a minute to watch this video, then pass it along?

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/share/immigration-and-economy

    Thanks!

    Cecilia

    Cecilia Muñoz
    Director, Domestic Policy Council
    The White Houseever seen from us before, and it’s definitely worth your time.

    A link to my petition, but apparently you have to sign up for a whitehouse.gov account in order to sign it.
    https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/require-use-english-language/d2H0q1T4

  5. avatar

    That’s all these la raza types do is whine and complain.. I have no use for these people who care nothing about this country or its laws. They only care about loading down the country with more illegals and their anchor babies, which are used as the keys to American benefits and sponsorship for Chain migration.. They all say that the American People want the illegals made legal. I now NO one that says that at all. They want the laws enforced and the illegals deported, not rewarded.. NO Amnesty!! Stop Birthright Citizenship!!

  6. avatar

    These groups think American sovereignty is something to be dismissed because it interferes with the philosophy of open borders. Like La Raza and many other organizations, these groups always give lip service to the right of this country to enforce it’s borders, but there is not a single item of enforcement that they don’t object to.