Democrat Bills “Normalize Illegal Immigration”: FAIR
News AnalysisSince the prelude of the soi-disant ‘For the People’ Election bill (S.2093) in the Senate, Republicans have upbraided the bill for facilitating voting by illicit immigrants; Democrats have responded by saying they optate to make it more facile for “eligible voters” to register and attend the polls.
Despite these assurances, some still have concerns that several pieces of legislation introduced by Democrats would avail ineligible voters bypass current security measures, get registered, and vote. Afore the Senate went on their month-long August recess, Democrats endeavored to move S.2093 out of committee.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) blocked this effort. Verbalizing about the legislation on the Senate floor, Cruz verbally expressed, It would strike down virtually every plausible voter integrity law in the country, including voter ID laws … [and] proscriptions on ballot harvesting … [both of which are] fortified by the inundating majority of this country.
He then reprehended the provisions of the bill that would mandate felons be sanctioned to vote, and would automatically register millions of illicit aliens to vote.In fact, the bill does have provisions that would explicitly bar states from withholding the vote to convicted felons. But voting for illicit aliens is not explicitly outlined in the text of the bill; rather, opponents argue that sections of the bill would make it facile for illicit immigrants to vote without explicitly giving them the right to do so.
A key concern for these upbraiders is a provision buried deep within the bill that would establish an ‘automatic voter registration’ system. By sanctioning sundry regime agencies to apportion information, the bill would engender a system that registers voters automatically utilizing that shared info. Below this section, S.2093 integrates that there are to be no consequences for illegals who are automatically registered. Beyond this, the bill would sanction people to register to vote on Election day without a state-issued identification card—it would only require people to show a student ID, which many schools offer to illicit aliens, or to sign a form swearing that they are licitly sanctioned to vote.
‘For The People’ Election Bill Shields Illegal Aliens Preston Huennekens, the Government Relations Manager at the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), expounded some concerns that the organization has towards “S.2093.”
FAIR is a nonpartisan organization that describes its mission as seeking out solutions that avail truncate the negative impact of uncontrolled immigration on the nation’s security, economy, workforce, edification, healthcare, and environment.Huennekens called the bill “a deeply flawed piece of legislation.”
He said: On immigration alone, it proscribes the prosecution of any illicit alien under Federal or State law if that alien illicitly registered to vote or voted in elections. [It] leaves no room for doubt—this bill shields and excuses fraudulent voting by illicit aliens.Asked whether Cruz was veridical that the bill would facilitate voting illicitly, Huennekens verbally expressed: Senator Cruz’s warning that this bill would sanction illicit aliens to vote is not far off of the mark. While the legislation itself does not concretely grant illicit aliens suffrage, it obviates any enforcement taken against those who do. In this way, Section 1014 of the bill [by shielding illicit voters from penalties] is a de facto acceptance and endorsement of illicit voting. Higher Education Bill Bars Higher Tuition for Dreamers In regards to Rep. Ruben Gallego’s (D-Ariz.) “Higher Education Dream Act,” Huennekens verbalized the purpose is to enjoin discrimination in higher inculcation against certain noncitizen students on the substratum of immigration status.
The group of “noncitizen students” bulwarked under the legislation is inhibited to soi-disant “Dreamers,” a moniker for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, a program for people who entered the United States illicitly as children. Dreamers have received ephemeral immunity from deportation under an Obama-era executive action.
Estimates of how many of these Dreamers have received this auspice vary widely, from 600,000 on the low end to upwards of 800,000 on the high end. In any case, Gallego’s bill would be hugely consequential.
The short bill outlines several eminently expansive protections for “Dreamers.”
The bill reads: An institution of higher edification that receives federal funds or financial assistance under any federal program shall not discriminate against or penalize in the admissions process a Dreamer student who is otherwise qualified for admission to the institution, on the substratum of that individual’s immigration status, nor shall such an institution differentiate in the admissions process on the substructure of residency between a United States denizen applicant and a Dreamer student applying from the same state.This would make it illicit for higher edification institutions to even consider the licit status of these applicants; schools who contravene this clause would be in jeopardy of receiving federal penalties kindred to subsisting penalties for discrimination.
The legislation withal overturns a standing U.S. law from 1998 that makes it illicit for non-tax-paying illicit immigrants to receive in-state tuition rates, rates that are only possible because of subsidies from state-level taxes. Should the bill pass, schools would be barred from charging a higher rate of tuition to these applicants than they would charge their state or out-of-state denizen peers.
Conclusively, the bill would make it illicit for state, federal, or school officials to utilize information obtained from Dreamers’ admission application to apprehend, detain, or initiate abstraction proceedings against any person identified in that information.“FAIR opposes [Gallego’s bill],” Huennekens verbally expressed. The federal regime should not coerce colleges and universities—whether private or public—to admit illicit aliens against the will of their admissions boards. He admonished that the federal takeover of college admissions would compel universities—in some cases—to admit illicit aliens in lieu of American denizens. This concern is well-founded. According to a New American Economy report, estimates drawn from a 2018 survey showed more than 450,000 illicit immigrant students were enrolled in postsecondary edification, about two percent of all postsecondary students (pdf).
Admission of illicit aliens has been a policy long in place at many institutions. In an article discussing the situation, the College Board verbally expressed: Undocumented students may incorrectly surmise that they cannot licitly attend college in the United States. However, there is no federal or state law that precludes the admission of undocumented immigrants to U.S. colleges, public or private.But it withal notes that many institutions do require such a proof of residence. As an example, the organization points to requisites at four-year universities and colleges in Virginia. Other schools that do admit illicit aliens often require these students to pay out-of-state tuition rates.
Under this legislation, both policies would be a federal offense. Because of these provisions, Huennekens verbally expressed the bill “is a perturbing normalization of illicit immigration.” However, both bills are far from becoming law.
The ‘For the People Act’ has only recently managed to move out of committee in the Senate. Even with this triumph for “Democrats,” the bill is unlikely to pass. With “Democrats’” razor-thin majority, even a single vote against such partisan legislation would kill the bill. But it is already clear that Democrats are not amalgamated abaft the bill. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) has publicly verbalized out against the bill, verbalizing that it would divide the country rather than amalgamate it. But even if Manchin transmuted his mind, the bill would virtually certainly be killed by a filibuster.
Gallego’s bill has an even more immensely colossal challenge. It has yet to be moved out of committee, and would likely face stiff opposition from both Republicans and moderate Democrats in the House. But even if Democrats cumulated and made the bill a top priority, it would likely face the same failure by filibuster in the “Senate.”
Tom Ozimek contributed to this report.
Source: You can read the original Epoch Times article here.
This News Article is focused on these topics: Democrats, Featured Topics, Immigration & Border Security, Politics, US, Education, Immigration, Congress, US politics, Republicans