Martha McSally on Immigration
MCSALLY: I share the president's frustration that the Democrats are obstructing on this issue. I represent a Southern border district. And on the border right now we're dealing with a cartel activity, continuing to traffic opioids and other drugs and human trafficking into our communities. This is a public safety and a national security issue. A number of people are being trafficked by the cartels, taking advantage of the loopholes in our laws, so that they know they're going to be released right into the interior of the US, never to show up for their court date. This isn't working. And my bill that I worked really closely with the White House on closed these loopholes. Only Congress can do it This is a unifying issue across Arizona.
MCSALLY: I have been consistently leading on this issue as the Border Security Subcommittee chair. This is a difficult issue. But when the president kicked DACA to Congress, appropriately, we worked together, to lead, to identify a solution that secures the border, closes these legal loopholes, moves us more towards a merit- based system, and does something on DACA. This is what we worked on to bring to the floor. Unfortunately, we couldn't get it passed. But we're going to keep working on it, because the border still needs to be secured. These loopholes still need to be closed. And I'm going to continue to lead on this when I'm in the Senate. Even though Washington, D.C., moves on the other topics, we still have to address this issue.
Martha McSally (R): Formerly supported citizenship options. Now supports extending DACA protections but no path to citizenship.
Kyrsten Sinema (D): Yes. "Congress must act to secure our borders & provide an earned path to citizenship for Dreamers."
Trump has tried to blame Democrats for his own administration's policy, tweeting that they "can fix their forced family breakup at the Border by working with Republicans on new legislation, for a change!"
Facing a national uproar, House GOP leaders included a provision in the immigration proposal that would require families to be kept together for as long as they are in the custody of DHS.
The proposed fix won approval from moderate House Republicans locked in difficult re-election battles, but not from Republican Senate candidates running competitive races in GOP-leaning states. None spoke in support of the bill.
"We're studying the proposal," said Arizona Rep. Martha McSally. "I try not get swayed by what the emotions are or the pressure. I really try to look at the policy issues."
McSally instead is backing a bill that calls for allowing undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children to apply for "contingent non-immigrant status," rather than giving them a shot at becoming legal permanent residents and eventually full US citizens.
McSally asked the House of Representatives for unanimous consent to formally drop her co-sponsorship of a bill called the Recognizing America's Children Act. McSally now wants another bill, called the Securing America's Future Act. That bill, which would do away with the diversity visa program and impose tougher border enforcement provisions. It would grant "contingent nonimmigrant status" to those brought to the U.S. as children if they meet certain conditions rather than citizenship.
The recent influx of tens of thousands of unaccompanied children who easily crossed the border is the latest evidence that shows how unsecure our border really is.
The barriers and fences already in place are delaying the illegal activity, but they are not enough and they are not everywhere. We should be using intelligence-driven operations to identify corridors of activity, and then strategically utilize sensors, airborne assets, radar, and manpower to detect, monitor, and intercept illegal activity at the border.
As a Member of Congress, I will fight to secure our border.
Faith2Action.org is "the nation's largest network of pro-family groups." They provide election resources for each state, including Voter Guides and Congressional Scorecards excerpted here. The F2A survey summarizes candidate stances on the following topic: 'Immigration: Do you support requiring illegal immigrants to return to their country of origin before they are eligible for citizenship?'
Project VoteSmart infers summary responses from campaign statements and news reports The PVS survey summarizes candidate stances on the following topic: 'Immigration: Do you support requiring illegal immigrants to return to their country of origin before they are eligible for citizenship?'
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)
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
Legislative Summary:This bill increases the per-country cap on family-based immigrant visas from 7% of the total number of such visas available that year to 15%, and eliminates the 7% cap for employment-based immigrant visas. It also removes an offset that reduced the number of visas for individuals from China. The bill also establishes transition rules for employment-based visas from FY2020-FY2022, by reserving a percentage of EB-2 (workers with advanced degrees or exceptional ability), EB-3 (skilled and other workers), and EB-5 (investors) visas for individuals not from the two countries with the largest number of recipients of such visas. Of the unreserved visas, not more than 85% shall be allotted to immigrants from any single country.
Explanation from the Countable.US: Under the current immigration system, immigrants from any one country can claim no more than 7% of the 140,000 employment-based green cards issued annually to foreign nationals working in the U.S. This significantly disadvantages immigrants from larger countries that more immigrants come from.
For example, China (population 1.3 billion) and India have large backlogs of workers wishing to immigrate to and work in the U.S., but they have the name visa caps as countries such as Iceland or Estonia (population 1.3 million), which have both much smaller populations and far fewer citizens seeking to immigrate to the U.S.
The net effect of this is that immigrants from India and China can face decades-long waits, averaging 2-3 times the wait times for immigrants from other countries, for green cards, and many have to return home because they can't get permanent residency; meanwhile, countries such as Iceland and Estonia never come close to reaching their visa limit caps.
Legislative outcome Roll call 437 in House on 7/10/2019 passed 365-65-2; referred to Committee in Senate 7/9/2019; no action as of 1/1/2020.
|Other candidates on Immigration:||Martha McSally on other issues:|
Senate races 2019-20:
AK: Sullivan(R,incumbent) vs.Gross(I) vs.
AL: Jones(D,incumbent) vs.Tuberville(R) vs.
AR: Cotton(R,incumbent) vs.Harrington(L) vs.
AZ: McSally(R,incumbent) vs.Kelly(D)
CO: Gardner(R,incumbent) vs.Hickenlooper(D) vs.
DE: Coons(D,incumbent) vs.
GA-2: Isakson(R,resigned) Loeffler(R,appointed) vs.Collins(R) vs.Tarver(D) vs.Warnock(D) vs.
GA-6: Perdue(R,incumbent) vs.Ossoff(D) vs.Tomlinson(D) vs.Terry(D)
IA: Ernst(R,incumbent) vs.Greenfield(D) vs.
ID: Risch(R,incumbent) vs.Jordan(D) vs.
IL: Durbin(D,incumbent) vs.Curran(R) vs.
KS: Roberts(R,retiring) vs.Marshall(R) vs.Bollier(D) vs.
KY: McConnell(R,incumbent) vs.McGrath(D) vs.
LA: Cassidy(R,incumbent) vs.Perkins(D) vs.
MA: Markey(D,incumbent) vs.O`Connor(R) vs.Ayyadurai(R) vs.
ME: Collins(R,incumbent) vs.Gideon(D) vs.
MI: Peters(D,incumbent) vs.James(R) vs.Squier(G)
MN: Smith(D,incumbent) vs.Lewis(R) vs.Overby(G) vs.
MS: Hyde-Smith(R,incumbent) vs.Espy(D) vs.
MT: Daines(R,incumbent) vs.Bullock(D) vs.
NC: Tillis(R,incumbent) vs.Cunningham(D) vs.
NE: Sasse(R,incumbent) vs.Janicek(R)
NH: Shaheen(D,incumbent) vs.Messner(R) vs.
NJ: Booker(D,incumbent) vs.Mehta(R) vs.
NM: Udall(D,retiring) vs.Lujan(D) vs.Ronchetti(R) vs.Walsh(L) vs.
OK: Inhofe(R,incumbent) vs.Broyles(D) vs.
OR: Merkley(D,incumbent) vs.Perkins(R) vs.
RI: Reed(D,incumbent) vs.Waters(R)
SC: Graham(R,incumbent) vs.Harrison(D) vs.
SD: Rounds(R,incumbent) vs.Ahlers(D) vs.
TN: Alexander(R,retiring) vs.Hagerty(R) vs.Bradshaw(D) vs.
TX: Cornyn(R,incumbent) vs.Hegar(D) vs.
VA: Warner(D,incumbent) vs.
WV: Capito(R,incumbent) vs.Swearengin(D) vs.
WY: Enzi(R,retiring) vs.Lummis(R) vs.Ben-David(D) vs.
Senate Votes (analysis)