Bill Young on Immigration Republican Representative (FL-10)

Voted YES on building a fence along the Mexican border.

1. systematic border surveillance through more effective use of personnel and technology; and
2. physical infrastructure enhancements to prevent unlawful border entry

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.

Voted YES on preventing tipping off Mexicans about Minuteman Project.

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 amendment's sponsor said on its behalf:
• What this amendment does is it clarifies Congress' position on a Border Patrol practice or a practice of the US Government that tips off illegal immigrants as to where citizen patrols may be located.
• As a response to the lawlessness along the Mexican border, a group has sprung up called the Minutemen Project, and the Minutemen Project is definitely not politically correct in Washington DC. However, they filled a void which the government was unable to fill.
• There are over 7,000 volunteers in the Minutemen organization, and their help has been productive and good.
• What my amendment does is simply says that the U.S. Government cannot tip off the Mexican officials as to where these folks are located. Plain and simple, nothing fancy about it. I am sure the Border Patrol will say, oh, no, we are not doing that, and yet one of the Web pages of the Secretary of Mexico had the information very explicit, and we just do not believe that is a good practice.

Voted NO on reporting illegal aliens who receive hospital treatment.

Voted YES on extending Immigrant Residency rules.

Voted YES on more immigrant visas for skilled workers.

Rated 0% by FAIR, indicating a voting record loosening immigration.

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.

Rated 75% by USBC, indicating a sealed-border stance.

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)
• 70%-100%: sealed-border stance (approx. 202 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.

Rated B+ by the ALI, indicating an acceptably anti-amnesty stance.

ALIPAC supporters have a diverse range of opinions, yet we are united in the belief that more should be done to reduce illegal immigration. ALIPAC supports those that legally immigrate, but we DO NOT support any amnesty, visa expansion, or "Guest Worker" program designed to reward illegal aliens or legalize their presence in the US. We support a peaceful, non racist, rule of law approach to resolving illegal immigration. America is a land of generous and caring people, but our hospitality and values are being strained and abused by those who are willing to break the law and take our jobs and our tax dollars. America's illegal alien population will begin to shrink instead of grow if we support candidates that will reflect the will of the vast majority of American citizens.

FOUR POINT PLATFORM: "Simply enforce our existing immigration laws!"
1. Secure Our Borders
2. Crack down on employers that intentionally hire illegals
3. Remove incentives and rewards to illegals such as licenses, welfare, and other taxpayer benefits
4. Enforce our existing laws and deport illegal aliens when convicted of crimes or detected during routine law enforcement activities.

Stop releasing low-risk illegal immigrants.

Letter from office of Rep. Matt Salmon (R-AZ-5) signed by 37 Members of Congress

Dear Secretary Napolitano,

We are deeply concerned that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is using sequestration as a vehicle to further the Administration's disregard for enforcing our immigration laws. Specifically, we are troubled by recent reports that DHS has released hundreds of illegal immigrants, rather than finding cost savings elsewhere in the agency.

Your agency's decision to release "low-risk" illegal immigrants back into the public under the guise of saving money is unprecedented and dangerous. The inability of DHS to prioritize resources for potential cuts suggests this decision was either politically motivated to further the Administration's amnesty goals or, at best, demonstrates agency incompetence.

Given the public safety and national security concerns this decision raises, we respectfully request you halt any further action to release detained illegal immigrants. Also, please respond to the following questions, regarding individuals already released, pending release, or anticipated to be released:

• The number of detainees released and the geographic location of where the releases took place;
• Any plans for future releases, and the geographic location of where those releases will take place;
• The name of the DHS official who authorized the review of detained illegal immigrants for release;
• The criteria used to determine who is eligible for release;
• The number of reviewed detainees denied release and the specific reasons for such denials;
• A list identifying cuts to the DHS budget implemented prior to the release of the detainees, the budget savings achieved, and why these savings were insufficient;
• How DHS is tracking illegal immigrants released under this plan, and whether they will be ordered back to detention centers if funding becomes available.