Trump Considering Pro-Amnesty Senator as VP

American flag close up with star confetti (P)According to several media outlets, Donald Trump is considering Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) as his running mate now that the business mogul has essentially clinched the Republican nomination. If Corker’s name sounds familiar, that’s because he was instrumental in getting the Gang of Eight amnesty bill passed in the Senate. For those with short memory, back in the summer of 2013 with the mass guest worker amnesty bill’s support waning (not to mention extremely unpopular with the American people), Corker teamed up with Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) on a faux border security amendment that sold out the American people and essentially ensured enough votes to pass. As FAIR pointed out at the time, the Corker-Hoeven amendment was a mirage that kept the amnesty first, enforcement later (if ever) approach that then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) called a “wonderful product.”

Trump’s consideration of pro-amnesty Sen. Corker as a potential vice president is confusing given that Trump’s campaign has centered on immigration enforcement. Indeed, Trump was the first candidate to release an immigration plan; one that rejected amnesty and insisted that the interests of Americans come first. Bob Corker sent a clear message in 2013 that he prioritizes amnesty for law breaking illegal aliens rather than enforcing our laws and protecting U.S. citizens.

Senate Amnesty Bill Officially Dead

8080742303_a2e7f4722b_hAs the clock struck 12:00 p.m. in Washington, D.C., today, the 114th Congress officially began. This means that all bills that did not become law essentially vanish and the legislative process is reset. Importantly, this means that S. 744, the mass guest worker amnesty bill rammed through the Senate in June 2013 is officially dead!

In case you forgot, S. 744 was referred to as the “Gang of Eight” bill after the Senators who drafted it behind closed doors with the amnesty and business lobbies: Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), John McCain (R-Ariz.), Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.), and Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.). The bill would have given amnesty to 12 million illegal aliens, significantly increased legal immigration, and jeopardized national security.

Throughout the Senate debate, the Gang of Eight was deceptive about the contents of the massive bill. For example, they broke their promises on requiring payment of back taxes, barring criminals from receiving amnesty, barring gang members from receiving amnesty, and requiring amnestied illegal aliens to learn English, just to name a few.

With the bill’s passage in doubt, Sens. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) and John Hoeven (R-N.D.) took it upon themselves to garner more support by selling out the American people. Through an amendment sold as a “border surge”—that ballooned the bill from 844 pages at introduction to more than 1,200 pages—they proclaimed their language as a silver bullet improvement to the bill. In reality, the Corker-Hoeven amendment was a mirage that kept the amnesty-first core and still did not actually secure the border. In truth, the additional pages added to S. 744 contained kickbacks, carve-outs, and buy-offs that benefited specific Senators. In the end, that was enough for the bill to pass 68 to 32 despite at least 16 Senators disregarding their constituents’ clear opposition to S. 744, and voted for amnesty.

The death of S. 744 is a victory to true immigration reformers everywhere who voiced their opposition to this monstrosity in 2013 and used the power of the ballot box in 2014 to fire many of the Senators who voted for the mass guest worker amnesty bill.

FAIR Releases 113th Congress Voting Report

2014 FAIR Voting ReportThis week FAIR released our Voting Report to give our members insight into how their lawmakers have tackled the complex and thorny issue of immigration during the 113th Congress. FAIR’s Government Relations team assembled this report by sifting through the immigration votes held in 2013 to 2014 and determining which ones were most important with respect to promoting good immigration policy.

Although the 113th Congress saw fewer bills passed than any other Congress in recent history, the Senate did consider a mass guest worker amnesty bill as well as the nomination of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Director Alejandro Mayorkas to be the Deputy Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) during its first session. For 2013, the Senate report contains votes on key amendments that reached the Senate floor on the Schumer-Rubio amnesty bill (S. 744), as well as those on critical procedural moves leading up to the final passage. The report also contains the nomination of Mayorkas, who was under investigation by the DHS Inspector General’s office regarding alleged impropriety in administering the EB-5 program and faced accusations of rubberstamping immigration benefits while at USCIS. By contrast, during the second session in 2014, the Senate avoided immigration almost entirely so the Senate report only contains the vote on emergency funding to address the surge of unaccompanied alien minors crossing the border unlawfully.

In the lower chamber, the House of Representatives took little action on immigration on the House floor in 2013. Therefore, we chose only three immigration-related votes on appropriations to present a picture of each Representative’s position.  On the other hand, in 2014 the House brought several immigration bills to the House floor. For 2014, the House report contains votes on ending President Obama’s administrative amnesty programs, closing loopholes in the tax code exploited by illegal aliens, and emergency funding to address the surge of unaccompanied alien minors crossing the border unlawfully.

We encourage all of our members to review the Voting Report and learn more about how their lawmakers are representing them. You can access the Report here.

One Year Later: S.744’s Approach to Immigration Reform Failed Without Being Enacted

Amnesty with a border enforcement deal is still like lipstick on a pig. One year ago today, the Senate passed S.744, a massive bill that supporters claim would provide a comprehensive fix to our nation’s dysfunctional immigration policies. Over the course of the past 12 months, events clearly demonstrate why, far from a solution to America’s failed immigration policies, enactment of S.744 would have greatly exacerbated our nation’s immigration crisis.

S.744 grants amnesty to an estimated 12 million illegal aliens, requires massive increases in both skilled and low-skilled immigration and offers only hollow promises of enhanced border security to prevent future illegal immigration. It is a prescription for immigration reform that has failed in the past and, even without becoming law, S.744 demonstrates why it is not the formula for effective immigration reform now.

• Amnesties create more illegal immigration, not less.
In 2012, the Obama administration implemented a de facto amnesty for illegal aliens who arrived in the United States as minors. The response to the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program has been an exponential increase in the number of younger illegal aliens attempting to immigrate illegally. Even though the administration has stated that newly arriving illegal aliens cannot qualify for DACA relief, the expectation on the part of newly arriving illegal aliens is that future waves of younger illegal aliens will be similarly accommodated. The inevitable response to a general amnesty would be a massive wave of new illegal immigrants of all age groups.

S.744 would grant the president even greater discretion in immigration enforcement.
In addition to the prospect of amnesty, another driving force behind the current surge of illegal immigration is the administration’s refusal to enforce laws against broad categories of immigration lawbreakers. Rather than constraining the executive branch’s abuse of discretionary authority to ignore many immigration statutes, S.744 would have granted the president even greater discretion to not carry out immigration enforcement.

• S.744 would not have prevented the current surge of illegal immigration.
History has demonstrated that the provisions of the $46 billion border security enhancement would never have been carried out. But even additional border security would not have prevented the current crisis. The illegal aliens now streaming into this country are not seeking to elude the Border Patrol; they are actively seeking out Border Patrol agents in order to surrender so they can obtain a permanent stay of removal and work permits. Nor would the border security measures have done anything to address some 40% of current illegal aliens believed to be visa overstays who are drawn to remain here by lax implementation of employer sanctions laws, access to many public benefits and services, and little threat of apprehension and removal. Meanwhile, the bill’s entry-exit system provisions are wholly incomplete and would not be implemented for years.

“S.744 has failed, even without being implemented. In just one year, virtually every premise of the bill as ‘comprehensive immigration reform’ has been shown to be ineffectual. The leadership of the House must declare that S.744 is dead – whether as a single piece of legislation, or broken up into many smaller bills. Instead, Congress should resolve to come back in 2015 with a new approach to immigration reform: One that renounces amnesty and which truly protects the social, economic and security interests of the American people.”

-Dan Stein, President of FAIR


Murdoch Momentum Seems Behind the Times

Anyone who saw the video of illegal aliens barging into what was supposed to have been Eric Cantor’s post-primary victory celebration last week demanding amnesty will understand what happens when public relations is compromised by faulty information.  Because Cantor had been defeated, it made the law-violating agitators appear ridiculous and ill-informed.


So it is with Rupert Murdoch’s predictable op-ed appearing  in the Wall Street Journal  on June 18.  Advocates organized by professional lobbyists and political professionals go on auto-pilot pushing an agreed upon line without regard to changed circumstances or the latest information and wind up looking absurd.

The Murdoch piece reflects the overall editorial position of the Wall Street Journal (which isn’t surprising, considering he owns the paper): Reward illegal immigration, take limits off most immigration categories, otherwise companies will leave the U.S. In short, Murdoch’s views reflect those of Wall Street generally that our economy can only be saved with greater amounts of mass immigration, Americans aren’t of much use any more for much of anything….it goes on and on.

The problem is Murdoch’s piece looks like it was written in early 2013 by PR people working for him and fellow billionaire Michael Bloomberg, who co-founded the mass immigration advocacy group, Partnership for a New American Economy. The op-ed makes no specific reference to the bill and, other than a few lines mentioning Cantor’s defeat, it seems like it’s in some sort of time-warp, pretending that if Congress will just “fix the system,” all will be well.

When professional lobbyists and PR firms are retained for special interest purposes, they continue to push a line without regard to public perception or changed circumstances.  As I said on Fox News on Thursday, there are three basic problems with the Murdoch premise.  1. We have an administration that openly sabotages immigration enforcement; 2. The Senate bill won’t fix any of these problems – indeed they will become worse; and 3. Our Southern border is in crisis now in part because of all the years of amnesty talk. Watch the clip below.



I would challenge Mr. Murdoch to read the Senate bill, S. 744, and  see if he still thinks America can ever recover its loss of immigration control with the current national leadership.  He owes his adopted country at least this much.  Read the bill, Mr. Murdoch.