John Carter on Immigration Republican Representative (TX-31)

Continue construction of wall to stop border emergency

We are alarmed by the staggering number of migrants that have been apprehended while illegally crossing the southwest border during this first 100 days. We are extremely concerned that the President ordered a 60-day pause on the border wall construction. [That's a month overdue; hence we] insist that funds appropriated for border security be used immediately to address this crisis.

Border wall construction funds were appropriated by the Congress and should be spent as provided in law. As you can see by the unprecedented number of apprehensions reported by Customs and Border Protection, we are in a state of emergency that requires action, not delay.

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 YES on reporting illegal aliens who receive hospital treatment.

Rated 100% by FAIR, indicating a voting record restricting 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 92% 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.

End Birthright Citizenship; no more anchor babies.

Amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to consider a person born in the United States "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States for citizenship at birth purposes if the person is born in the United States of parents, one of whom is:
1. a U.S. citizen or national;
2. a lawful permanent resident alien whose residence is in the United States; or
3. an alien performing active service in the U.S. Armed Forces.

The amendment made by subsection (a)(3) shall not be construed to affect the citizenship or nationality status of any person born before the date of the enactment of this Act.

[OnTheIssues note: This bill would change the existing interpretation of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which currently defines as a US citizen any person born within US territory. This bill intends to remove the right of illegal aliens to gain US citizenship by bearing children while in the country illegally; the issue is known by bill supporters as "anchor babies"]

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.

Redefine "birthright citizenship" to exclude illegal aliens.

Congressional Summary: Acknowledging the right of birthright citizenship established by section 1 of the 14th amendment to the Constitution, amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to consider a person born in the United States "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States for citizenship at birth purposes if the person is born in the United States of parents, one of whom is:

1. a U.S. citizen or national;
2. a lawful permanent resident alien whose residence is in the United States; or
3. an alien performing active service in the U.S. Armed Forces.

Constitutional Authority Statement: Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following: Section 5 of the Amendment XIV to the Constitution and Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution.

OnTheIssues Explanation:The relevant part of this law is what is NOT in the list above: illegal aliens or undocumented workers. Those groups are this bill's target: it addresses the issue of "anchor babies," wherein non-citizen mothers cross the US border and give birth in the US and thereby establish citizenship for their newborn. If passed, this bill will likely face a Supreme Court challenge on its constitutionality, since the 14th Amendment defines citizens as "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." That clause was written after the Civil War to establish citizenship for former slaves; this bill reinterprets that clause to mean that not everyone born in the US automatically becomes a citizen. The cited authorization of the 14th Amendment is "Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

Voted YES to ban DREAMer immigrants from military service.

Congressional Summary: The House voted on an amendment by Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ) to H.R. 5293, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2017. The amendment would prohibit funds from being used to extend the expiration of, or reissue a new expiration date to, the Military Accessions Vital to National Interest (MAVNI) program.

Recommendation by Heritage Foundation to vote YES:(6/16/2016): The MAVNI program is a pilot program authorizing "military services to recruit certain legal immigrants whose skills are considered to be vital to the national interest." However, a DoD memo has made it clear that DACA/DAPA recipients are eligible under this program, essentially opening up a pathway to amnesty for illegal aliens who enlist. By ensuring that this guidance ends, DOD will no longer be able to enlist illegal immigrants through MAVNI.

Recommendation by the ACLU to vote NO: (6/28/2011): The DREAM Act promotes fundamental fairness for young people by allowing access to affordable post-secondary education and military service opportunities, regardless of immigration status, and would provide a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants who came to the U.S. as children, have lived here for at least five years and have graduated from high school. The DREAM Act could result in billions of dollars in additional tax revenue from tapping the potential of DREAM-eligible students and future service personnel. Since September 11, 2001, more than 69,000 immigrants have earned citizenship while serving, and more than 125 who entered military service after that date have made the ultimate sacrifice in war by giving their lives for this nation.

Legislative outcome: Failed House 210 to 211 (no Senate vote)

Allow immigration bans from non-cooperating countries.

The National Origin-Based Antidiscrimination for Nonimmigrants Act (NO BAN Act) imposes limitations on the President's authority to suspend or restrict aliens from entering the US. It also prohibits religious discrimination in various immigration-related decisions, such as issuing a visa. The President may temporarily restrict the entry of any class of aliens after determining that the restriction would address specific and credible facts that threaten U.S. interests such as security or public safety.

GovTrack.us analysis (4/21/21): President Donald Trump instituted a travel ban on eight countries: Chad, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen. The Supreme Court upheld the travel ban 5-4 in the 2018 decision Trump v. Hawaii. Trump's travel ban was popularly nicknamed "the Muslim ban" by its Democratic critics since most of the countries it applied to were majority Muslim, and because Trump as a 2016 candidate had indeed proposed a Muslim ban. Regardless, President Joe Biden rescinded the policy on his first day in office. Currently, federal law bans any person from being discriminated against when entering the U.S. on the basis of five characteristics: race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence. The NO BAN Act would add another category: religion.

Rep. Tom McClintock in OPPOSITION: President Trump invoked this authority against countries that were hotbeds of international terrorism and that were not cooperating with the US in providing basic information about travelers coming from these countries. The left called it a 'Muslim ban.' What nonsense. Without this authority, the president would have been powerless to take simple, prudent precautions against terrorists and criminals from entering the US.

Legislative Outcome: Passed House 218-208-3 on April 21, 2021, rollcall #127; introduced in Senate with 42 co-sponsors but no further Senate action during 2021.