For official English; against illegal immigrant citizenship
Supports the following principles concerning immigration:
Establish English as the official and recognized language of the United States.
Children of illegal immigrants, born in the United States, should not automatically receive US citizenship.
Source: Vote-smart.org, 1996 NPAT
Jan 1, 1996
Voted YES on continuing federal funds for declared "sanctuary cities".
CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: To create a reserve fund to ensure that Federal assistance does not go to sanctuary cities that ignore the immigration laws of the United States and create safe havens for illegal aliens and potential terrorists. This vote is a motion to table the amendment; voting YES would kill the amendment.
SUPPORTER'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING NO ON TABLING MOTION:Sen. VITTER: There are so-called sanctuary cities which establish as an official policy of their jurisdiction: We are not going to cooperate with Federal immigration enforcement officials. That is wrong. What is more, it is completely contrary to Federal immigration law. My amendment says: We are going to put some consequence to that defiance of Federal law. We are not going to give them COPS funds. We are going to send those funds, instead, to all of those other jurisdictions which abide by Federal law.OPPONENT'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING YES ON TABLING MOTION:Sen. DURBIN:
There are sanctuary cities in about 23 different States across America. What the Vitter amendment will do is to take away the COPS funding from those cities. Police departments will tell you they need the cooperation of everyone to solve crimes and stop crime. If you create fear in the minds of those who are here in an undocumented status that any cooperation with the police will result in their arrest, they will not cooperate and criminals will go free. Let's not use the COPS Program as some sort of threat. If you want to deal with immigration, deal with it responsibly in a comprehensive way. SUPPORTER'S RESPONSE:Sen. VITTER: If folks feel that way, they should come to Congress and change Federal law, not simply defy Federal law. This is another amnesty vote. Are we going to give folks in sanctuary cities amnesty for defying Federal law and refusing to cooperate with Federal immigration officials? LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Motion to Table Agreed to, 58-40
Voted YES on building a fence along the Mexican border.
Within 18 months, achieves operational control over U.S. land and maritime borders, including:
systematic border surveillance through more effective use of personnel and technology; and
physical infrastructure enhancements to prevent unlawful border entry
Defines "operational control" as the prevention of all unlawful U.S. entries, including entries by terrorists, other unlawful aliens, narcotics, and other contraband.
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
Within 18 months, achieves operational control over U.S. land and maritime borders, including:
systematic border surveillance through more effective use of personnel and technology; and
physical infrastructure enhancements to prevent unlawful border entry
Defines "operational control" as the prevention of all unlawful U.S. entries, including entries by terrorists, other unlawful aliens, narcotics, and other contraband.
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
Reference: Secure Fence Act;
Bill H R 6061
; vote number 2006-262
on Sep 29, 2006
Voted YES on establishing a Guest Worker program.
Voting YES establishes a guest worker program with a path to citizenship for illegal aliens who have worked in the US for 5 years. The bill:
Increases border security and enforcement
Makes it unlawful to knowingly hire, recruit, or refer for a fee an unauthorized alien.
Establishes a temporary guest worker program (H-2C visa) with a three-year admission and one additional three-year extension; and issuance of H-4 nonimmigrant visas for accompanying or following spouse and children;
Provides permanent resident status adjustment for a qualifying illegal alien, and family, for aliens who have been in the US and employed for five years.
Proponents of the bill say:
Our immigration system is broken and needs to be repaired. This bill is a strong step in the right direction. We need to protect our borders and look out for
American workers, and we also need a responsible way to meet the need for temporary workers, particularly in the agricultural area, where they represent about 70 percent of the U.S. agricultural workforce, with a path to earned citizenship for hard-working, law abiding temporary workers. This bill, the product of bipartisan compromise, takes a commonsense approach to all of these issues.
Opponents of the bill say:
Our country has been built by immigrants. But the reason we have had quotas for immigration is the world has progressed in different parts of this globe at a very different rate. In some countries, the economies have lagged far behind.
There are jobs available in this country with rates of pay that are far in excess of those of Third World countries. We have on our southern border people who aspire to come to this country. In order to protect our way of life and our standard of living and to protect jobs, we have quotas.
Voted YES on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security.
Voting YEA would table (kill) the proposed amendment to prohibit illegal immigrants from receiving Social Security benefits. Voting NAY supports that prohibition, while voting YEA supports immigrants participating in Social Security. Text of amendment:
To reduce document fraud, prevent identity theft, and preserve the integrity of the Social Security system, by ensuring that persons who receive an adjustment of status under this bill are not able to receive Social Security benefits as a result of unlawful activity.
Proponents of the amendment say to vote NAY because:
The Immigration Reform bill would allow people to qualify for social security based on work they did while they were illegally present in the US and illegally working in the US. People who broke the law to come here and broke the law to work here can benefit from their conduct to collect social security.
In some cases, illegal immigrants may have stolen an American citizen's identity.
They may have stolen an American's social security number to fraudulently work. This amendment corrects this problem.
Opponents of the amendment say to vote YEA because:
Americans understand that for years there are undocumented workers who have tried to follow our laws and be good neighbors and good citizens, and have paid into the Social Security Trust Fund.
Once that person regularizes his or her status, and as they proceed down the path to earned citizenship, they should have the benefit after having followed the law and made those contributions. That is fairness.
We should not steal their funds or empty their Social Security accounts. That is not fair. It does not reward their hard work or their financial contributions.
The amendment proposes to change existing law to prohibit an individual from gaining the benefit of any contributions made while the individual was in an undocumented status. I oppose this amendment and believe it is wrong.
Voted YES on giving Guest Workers a path to citizenship.
This amendment to the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act would prohibit H-2C nonimmigrants ("Guest Workers") from adjusting to lawful permanent resident status. Voting YEA on the motion to table (which would kill the amendment) indicates supporting a path to citizenship for guest workers. Voting NAY on the motion indicates opposing any path to citizenship. The amendment says:
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, an alien having nonimmigrant status is ineligible for and may not apply for adjustment of status.''
Proponents of the amendment say to vote NAY because:
The Immigration Reform Act purports to create two different paths to citizenship for those, first of all, who are in the country living outside of the law in an undocumented status, and secondly, for those who are not yet present in the country but who want to come here at some future date to work.
We have given the somewhat misleading name of ''guest worker'' to the
so-called future flow. A guest is not ordinarily defined as someone who moves in with you and never leaves.
These so-called guest workers could work here up to 6 years, after which they then apply for a green card. They then get on the path to American citizenship 5 years later.
It is important for us to debate this issue honestly. The amendment simply makes the point that a guest worker ought to be temporary.
Opponents of the amendment say to vote YEA because:
If this amendment should pass, that whole compromise is destroyed because a fundamental part of that compromise was that those who have been here for 2 to 5 years would be eligible for green card status and citizenship. This amendment would destroy that compromise.
We have examples today in Europe of having people living in your country with no hope to ever be a part of that society. No hope, no opportunity, no future, but we will let you work.
Voted NO on allowing more foreign workers into the US for farm work.
Vote to create a national registry containing names of U.S. workers who want to perform temporary or seasonal agricultural work, and to require the Attorney General to allow more foreign workers into the U.S. for farm work under H-2A visas.
Reference:
Bill S.2260
; vote number 1998-233
on Jul 23, 1998
Voted YES on visas for skilled workers.
This bill expanded the Visa program for skilled workers.
Status: Bill Passed Y)78; N)20; NV)2
Reference: The American Competitiveness Act;
Bill S. 1723
; vote number 1998-141
on May 18, 1998
Voted NO on limit welfare for immigrants.
This amendment would have restored food stamp benefits to the children of legal immigrants
Status: Motion to Table Agreed to Y)59; N)41
Reference: Motion to table Kennedy Amdt #429;
Bill S.947
; vote number 1997-111
on Jun 24, 1997
Voted YES on limiting immigrant benefits & controlling borders more tightly.
Vote to adopt the conference report of a bill to change immigration policy, including hiring more Border Patrol Agents, increasing penalties for document fraud and alien smuggling, and limiting public assistance for immigrants, among other provisions.
Reference:
Bill HR 2202
; vote number 1996-432HR
on Sep 25, 1996
Voted YES on prohibiting illegal immigrants from receiving FEMA benefits.
Prohibit illegal immigrants from receiving benefits under the FEMA's Food and Shelter program unless the president declares a national disaster.
Reference:
Bill HR 3838
; vote number 1994-348HR
on Jul 22, 1994
Rated 25% by USBC, indicating an open-border stance.
Johnson scores 25% by USBC on immigration issues
OnTheIssues.org interprets the 2005-2006 USBC scores as follows:
0%-30%: open-border stance (approx. 197 members)
30%-70%: mixed record on open borders (approx. 70 members)
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.
