Angus King on Immigration Independent Former ME Governor

No automated entry-exit control system; allow free flow.

• WHEREAS, Resolutions 23-8 and 24-1 were adopted by the Conference of New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers in 1998 and 1999 respectively, calling for the full repeal of Section 110 of the U.S. Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996; and
• WHEREAS, the implementation of Section 110, which was set to take effect March 30, 2001, would have required the installation of an automated entry-exit control system at U.S. ports of entry which would have disrupted the flow of goods, services, and people that occurs every day between New England and Eastern Canada; and
• WHEREAS, the New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers pledged to work vigorously and cooperatively to encourage their respective federal legislatures and governments to remove any requirement to implement entry-exit control beyond airports; and
• WHEREAS, the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives have overwhelmingly adopted legislation, the Immigration and Naturalization Service Data Management Act of 2000, amending Section 110, requiring the Attorney General of the United States to implement an integrated entry and exit data system using information already collected at U.S. ports of entry, and not requiring the collection of new types of documents or data from aliens;
• NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Conference of New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers commend the U.S. Congress for passing, and President Clinton for signing this legislation into law, thus ensuring that the United States and Canada can continue to maintain the close economic and trade links we currently enjoy.

Share costs of legal immigration between states & federal.

The Governors urge Congress to consider the following principles regarding immigration policies.
• The decision to admit immigrants is a federal one that carries with it a firm federal commitment to shape immigration policy within the parameters of available resources we as a nation are determined to provide.
• The fiscal impact of immigration decisions must be addressed by the federal government. The states, charged with implementing federal policy, have shared and are sharing in the costs; however, there should be no further shift of costs to the states.
• A basic responsibility of the federal government is to collect and disseminate timely and reliable statistical information on immigration and its consequences for the United States.
• Federal immigration policies should ensure that new immigrants do not become a public charge to federal, state, or local governments.
• The federal government must provide adequate information to and consult with states on issues concerning immigration decisions that affect the states.
• States should not have to incur significant costs in implementing federal laws regarding immigration status as a condition of benefits.

The Governors urge the following regarding Legalization and Naturalization:
• States require maximum flexibility in determining and allocating resources to meet the needs of newly legalized aliens.
• The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) must be diligent in its efforts to ensure that felons are not naturalized and being given the benefits of citizenship rather than being deported.
• The naturalization process should be streamlined to be more efficient and accessible to eligible applicants wishing to become citizens, with all the rights and responsibilities thereof.
• The INS must take aggressive action to eliminate the backlog of naturalization applications, which is now approximately 800,000 nationwide.

Federal government should deal with criminal repatriation.

[Regarding illegal immigration], the Governors continue to call on the federal government to negotiate and renegotiate prisoner transfer treaties to expedite the transfer of criminal aliens in the United States who are subject to deportation or removal. The negotiations for such agreements should focus on:
• ensuring that the transferred prisoners serve the balance of their state-imposed prison sentence;
• removing any requirement that the prisoners consent to be transferred to their countries of origin;
• structuring the process to require that the prisoners serve the remainder of their original prison sentence if they return to the United States; and
• considering economic incentives to encourage countries of origin to take back their criminal citizens.

Additionally, the Governors believe the federal government should:
• increase the use of interior repatriation with countries contiguous to the United States;
• place INS officials in state and local facilities for early identification of potentially deportable aliens - nearer the point of their illegal entry - to ensure formal deportation prior to release; and
• upon the request of a state Governor, place INS officers in state courts to assist in the identification of criminal aliens pending criminal prosecution.

Opposes more border security, according to CC survey.

The Christian Coalition Voter Guide inferred whether candidates agree or disagree with the statement, 'Increase Border Security Including Additional Infrastructures ' Christian Coalition's self-description: "Christian Voter Guide is a clearing-house for traditional, pro-family voter guides. We do not create voter guides, nor do we interview or endorse candidates."

Terminate national emergency at the Southern border.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives: That the national emergency declared by the finding of the President on February 15, 2019, in Proclamation 9844 is hereby terminated.

Proclamation 9844 issued by the president on Feb. 15, 2019: Declares a state of national emergency at the southern border to address the issues of illegal immigration and criminal trafficking into the US: `The current situation at the southern border presents a border security and humanitarian crisis that threatens core national security interests and constitutes a national emergency. The southern border is a major entry point for criminals, gang members, and illicit narcotics. The problem of large-scale unlawful migration through the southern border is long-standing, and despite the executive branch`s exercise of existing statutory authorities, the situation has worsened in certain respects in recent years. Because of the gravity of the current emergency situation, it is necessary for the Armed Forces to provide additional support to address the crisis.`

Opposing the Proclamation (supporting the Resolution), ACLU press release, 2/15/2019 The ACLU issued the following statement upon filing a lawsuit: `By the president`s very own admission in the Rose Garden, there is no national emergency. He just grew impatient and frustrated with Congress, and decided to move along his promise for a border wall `faster.` This is a patently illegal power grab that hurts American communities and flouts the checks and balances that are hallmarks of our democracy.`

Legislative outcome Passed House 245-182-5 roll #94 on Feb. 26; pass Senate 59-41 roll #49 on March 14; Vetoed by Pres. Trump; veto override failed, 248-181-3 (2/3 required), roll #127 on March 26

Sponsored bill to disallow religion-based immigration ban.

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.