Congressman Mark Sanford on Immigration: Thank you for contacting me regarding immigration reform in the United States. I agree with you. We dont need amnesty and we need border security before we look any further into immigration reform. While the Senate bill throws a lot of money at things, it does not accomplish this from my perspective and that of so many who have contacted me on this issue. It strikes me that there are two fairly simple principles at play in this larger debate. First, that we can learn from history. In 1986, our nation offered amnesty to three million illegal workers with the promise that enforcement would follow. It never did. As a consequence, we find ourselves with eleven million undocumented workers, and most people I talk to tell me that if amnesty with only the promise of enforcement didn’t work then, what’s to make it work now? The second is that most people I talk to believe that this is not only a debate about the degree to which we look past or honor laws currently on the books, but that it’s ultimately a spending issue. It’s no surprise to anyone that we can’t afford the entitlements now promised Americans, and one would have to scratch one’s head in figuring how we could afford to add eleven million people to the list of people that we already can’t afford. There are obviously a number of other principles at play here, but I will call it quits in simply saying that I agree with your larger points. Let me add one warning, though. This issue will likely return to the House and I believe the key problem in the debate going forward lies in the fact that the targeted bills the House is now contemplating - while acceptable to most conservatives, could simply wind up being vehicles for the Senate bill. The way it would work is as follows. A great micro-bill on immigration leaves the House and goes to conference with the Senate. Presume the Senate bill prevails. That conference bill comes back to the House carrying the Senate language and ultimately passes because of Democratic votes who would like to see the Senate bill. The current action by the Senate has created an environment where amnesty opponents in the House are left with very little recourse but to oppose sending legislation to conference with the Senate. As expressed from the time of the campaign forward, I do not believe that Congress should move forward on any aspect of immigration reform until we secure America’s borders. My view is based on conversations with people across the district over the five months of the campaign, and in them I got a loud and clear consensus that they want secure borders and that they don’t believe in amnesty. Amnesty, as contemplated in the Senate bill, was indeed tried back in 1986 with the promise that enforcement and a secure border would come later, but it never came. I don’t want to repeat myself, but given that we have an example of what does not work, I think it’s important we learn from that decision and take “paths” away from enforcement and toward amnesty of any kind off the discussion table until we get our borders secure. Again, thank you for writing. Sincerely, https://lmiq001.us.house.gov/IQ2/extranet/SC01MS/exported/Sanford_Signature_Black.png Mark Sanford Member of Congress
Posted on: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 19:20:44 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015