On the recordJune 24, 2013
As my friend from New York knows well, the amendments are interspersed through a very complicated bill. Analyzing where waivers have been given and what the intersection is of new provisions with old provisions is not a simple endeavor. Indeed, in this particular body, it is not unbeknownst to this body to slide something in text. My point is very simple: What is the rush? Why are we proceeding gangbusters? The only explanation that makes sense is that it seems there are many Senators in this body--perhaps on both sides of this aisle--who very much want a fig leaf. They want something they can claim they are supporting border security when, in fact, this bill does not do that. I suggest that if we contrast this amendment to the amendment I introduced, we can see the difference between a bill that actually would protect border security versus something that is merely meant to tell gullible constituents that we have done something. The first and most important difference is that this amendment provides legalization first and then border security maybe at some time in the future. We have seen this before. In 1986 it was the same promise Congress made. We got the legalization, we got the amnesty, and we never, ever got border security. In contrast, the amendment I introduced reflects the will of the American people to have border security first and only then the possibility of legalization. Secondly, this amendment does not require operational control of the border.…





