AG Jeff Sessions Rips DACA Proposal, Says We Should Be More Like Canada On Immigration

Let’s face it, Democrats do not want to negotiate in good faith: what they want is either a clean DACA bill, which gives citizenship and voting rights to the Dreamers and all their relatives for free, or, to continue bloviating about it, attempting to make this a campaign issue. AG Jeff Sessions wants no part of this

(The Hill) Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Tuesday called for stricter immigration laws and increased vetting of individuals entering the U.S. amid a heated debate between Congress and the White House over immigration reform.

“What the American people want, have a right to, and what’s good for America is a lawful system of immigration. And when we admit people to our country, we should be like Canada,” Sessions said on Fox News’ “Tucker Carlson Tonight.”

“We should evaluate them and make sure they are going to be lawful, they are not threats to us, they have the education and skills level to prosper in America. That’s good for them and good for America,” Sessions added.

I’m not sure why that is so controversial. Virtually every other country has these same requirements, just like they have laws against illegals, and deport them quickly. Why would we want people who would essentially become wards of the state, and do not even speak the language?

A group of six bipartisan senators are expected to release an immigration and border security bill on Wednesday, though the Trump administration has already expressed disapproval for the measure.

The bill is expected to include a solution for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, $2.7 billion for border security — including a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border — and changes to the diversity lottery program.

Sessions on Tuesday ripped the proposal, saying it does not have “any prospect of success.” Instead, he called for Congress to support a more aggressive immigration bill presented by Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.).

In essence, that Gang Of 6 bill gives amnesty now for a “promise” of security later. Just like the previous Gang of 8 one, which helped kill the presidential prospects of Marco Rubio. This is the same kind of thing that happened under President Reagan. Sessions also said

Sessions said, “Any time a proposal like a wall or to fix this idea that you can claim you are afraid to go home and you get to stay in the United States, or you have problems where we provide subsidies to people who come illegally. The more you subsidize it, the more you get of something. These kind of failed policies are just never going to work, and the American people don’t believe in it. And we’ve been trying to reform it and every time you come up with a reform that works, gets blocked. And so President Trump has said we need–we have immigration, we want immigration, but we want to vet these people.” 

I’ve said before and I’ll say again, if you want to decrease illegal immigration, and get those who are here to leave, you put massive civil and criminal penalties on those who hire them, employ them, shelter them. You make it illegal to rent to them. You make it illegal to give them any type of state ID or driver’s license. No social services for them. No schooling. We should be taking care of American citizens first. If the illegals love this country, then they should apply for citizenship lawfully and go through the process.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

14 Responses to “AG Jeff Sessions Rips DACA Proposal, Says We Should Be More Like Canada On Immigration”

  1. Jeffery says:

    More pure mind-reading BS (and outright lying) by TEACH, who typed:

    Democrats do not want to negotiate in good faith: what they want is either a clean DACA bill, which gives citizenship and voting rights to the Dreamers and all their relatives for free, or, to continue bloviating about it, attempting to make this a campaign issue.

    Have you reviewed the DREAM Act proposals? Here’s one sponsored by Senator Graham that every Dem would vote for today.

    https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/1615

    Here’s the opening:

    Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to cancel removal and grant lawful permanent resident status on a conditional basis to an alien who is inadmissible or deportable or is in temporary protected status who: (1) has been continuously physically present in the United States for four years preceding this bill’s enactment; (2) was younger than 18 years of age on the initial date of U.S. entry; (3) is not inadmissible on criminal, security, terrorism, or other grounds; (4) has not participated in persecution; (5) has not been convicted of specified federal or state offenses; and (6) has fulfilled specified educational requirements.

    A lawful permanent resident is a non-citizen who has been granted authorization to live and work in the United States on a permanent basis.

    N.B. – Nothing about citizenship or voting. Permanent residents are not citizens and cannot vote. Your lies do no favors for your hapless audience.

    • drowningpuppies says:

      More pure mind-reading BS (and outright lying)

      Thought that was your forte, little guy.

    • McGehee says:

      Here’s one sponsored by Senator Graham that every Dem would vote for today.

      …knowing other members of Grahamnesty’s own party won’t, making it a safe, virtue-signaling, totally empty vote.

      • Jeffery says:

        From Leader McConnell’s perspective he will not bring any DACA bill to a vote without a clear signal from Trump about what he wants.

  2. Stosh says:

    Canada is far too liberal to copy, use Mexico’s immigration laws as a template. If the Dems won’t accept that use Japan’s

  3. Dana says:

    F(ornicate) Canada’s and Mexico’s immigration policies: we should use my immigration proposals:

    1 – No one is allowed to immigrate into the United States without adequate means to support himself. This must mean either sufficient funds to support himself for ten years, or a solid accepted job offer, at a self-sufficient salary, from a reputable company. If that person loses that job, he must obtain another within thirty days, or be deported.
    2 – No person is allowed in with any sort of criminal record.
    3 – No person may immigrate into the United States without being able to speak English, the only exceptions being children under five.
    4 – No person may be allowed to immigrate into the United States without his native country’s equivalent of a high school diploma, or having been in school immediately prior to immigration if he is younger than 18.
    5 – Any immigrant who attempts to claim any welfare benefits will be deported.
    6 – Any immigrant who commits a felony will be deported.
    7 – Permanent resident status will no longer be conferred by marrying an American citizen; immigrants who marry American citizens must be on a specified path to citizenship, and if they fail to maintain that path, they will be deported, even if married to an American citizen of having children who are American citizens.
    8 – All immigrants will be required to take a health examination, including a drug screen; failure of the physical examination means that the immigrant will be deported. No disabled person will be allowed to immigrate.

    The reason behind my proposals are simple: an immigrant must be an asset to the United States, not a liability, and if he is not an asset, we do not want him.

  4. GoMovies says:

    Why would we want people who would essentially become wards of the state, and do not even speak the language?

    • gitarcarver says:

      Why would we want people who would essentially become wards of the state,……..

      We are a nation of immigrants. In our early days there were no immigration requirements. It wasn’t until later until we made the requirement that a person 1) have a demonstrable skill, and 1a) a job waiting or 1b) a person to sponsor the immigrant.

      Part of my reservations about Dana’s list as being “absolutes” is what about mothers who come with husband and kids but does not plan on working and only raising the kids while the husband works? Do we tell families that in order to immigrate here everyone in the family (but kids) must work?

      My point is that it is not that some people will come here and need assistance from within a community, but rather the forced taking of funds by the government to support people is what needs to be examined and revised.

      …..and do not even speak the language?

      America is the “Great Melting Pot” even when it comes to languages.

      Once again, the problem is not that people come here not speaking the language. The problem is that we don’t “force” and facilitate learning English. We print government documents in 100’s of languages rather than making people learn or seek a translator.

      But assume for a moment you don’t want to allow people who don’t speak the language. Arguably the American Revolution and the Civil War would not have been won absent of whole regiments that did not speak the language.

      We would not be a country of people who mostly speak English without the help, assistance and blood of those who didn’t speak English. I have a tough time turning my back on that heritage and history.

      Cultures such as the Pennsylvania Dutch would not have been allowed here.

      We would have turned away Jewish refuges from Germany, Poland, Russia and other states prior and following WWII. Albert Einstein did not speak English until he came to the United States. Would you have turned Einstein away for his lack of English? (von Braun didn’t speak English either until he got here.)

      Would you have stopped the influx of Vietnamese who were fleeing Viet Nam in the early 1970’s because they didn’t speak English?

      We have people that are born in this country to parents whose grandparents were citizens and they can’t speak or write or read English and yet we want to make “the language” a barrier to people from other countries to “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness?”

      I am a firm believer in that America is the best country in the world. We need to be the shining light that takes in the best people in the world. Whether that person has an immediate job or can’t speak the language doesn’t matter to me.

      If they come here, want to work, want to contribute to society, want to honor their heritage and yet be a part of the melting pot, I’m all for them being allowed to immigrate here.

      I get what you are saying. I really do. But to me, it is not that the people who come her have challenges in their lives. It is that we enable them to not learn the language. We enable them not to work or get jobs in some cases.

      It is not that people – good people that can aid this land of ours – are the problem. The problem is the “bad” people who want to come here and are not willing to assimilate and wish to do our way our life and freedoms harm.

      Sadly, there are far too many in the government at all levels that enable the bad actors.

      • Dana says:

        Mr Carver wrote:

        Part of my reservations about Dana’s list as being “absolutes” is what about mothers who come with husband and kids but does not plan on working and only raising the kids while the husband works? Do we tell families that in order to immigrate here everyone in the family (but kids) must work?

        We could, I suppose, make an exception here, as long as the husband’s lined-up job will provide an above-poverty-level wage which will support the entire family. However, given that the husband might go to his eternal reward in an untimely fashion, should we not consider that yes, the wife must also have employment lined up?

        My point is not to be nice to immigrants, but that immigration should benefit the United States, not be a burden upon it.

        Yes, some people and cultures would have been turned away in the past, but the past is the past, when immigrants were more beneficial to us. At this point, mass immigration is not proving to be a benefit, but a burden.

        With such standards as I have suggested, we would still take in immigrants, but they would be the ones with the most to contribute to our society and economy, because they would be the more educated, already with employment skills, and the ones coming here to work, not to live off our welfare system.

        In a way, this is what the DACA supporters are telling us: the DACA children grew up here, speak English, and have gone through our educational system. The DACA supporters themselves are telling us that the criteria I have suggested are meaningful and valuable. I, of course, support rounding up all of the illegal immigrants, DACA or otherwise, and shipping them back to their native countries, because I do not wish to see anyone benefit from being here illegally. They can then apply for legal immigration, like anybody else.

        • gitarcarver says:

          However, given that the husband might go to his eternal reward in an untimely fashion, should we not consider that yes, the wife must also have employment lined up?

          No. Such a plan makes the assumption that people can see into the future. In essence what you are saying is that if a husband is working hard to support his family and get his kids the education they could not have gotten in his native country, that the kids and the mother must suffer if the man is killed by a drunk driver.

          “Sorry about your loss…..now pack up and go back to where you came from.”

          I can’t buy into that.

          My point is not to be nice to immigrants, but that immigration should benefit the United States, not be a burden upon it.

          We should be nice to immigrants just as we should be nice to citizens. They are human beings after all and we should strive to be nice to people. It makes for a better society. I am not disagreeing that immigrants should benefit the US, but you make the assumption that unless immigrants fit into a box of some type, they can not benefit the US.

          For example, if there is a French doctor who wants to come to the US but does not have a job lined up, I am for letting him / her in the country. Right now. Do it. We need the physicians. Your plan would exclude the doctor because they don’t have a job with another outfit. What if that doctor wanted to come to the US and set up their own private practice?

          Yes, some people and cultures would have been turned away in the past, but the past is the past, when immigrants were more beneficial to us. At this point, mass immigration is not proving to be a benefit, but a burden.

          The US still benefits from immigrants who come here with high level degrees or other skill sets. While you say “the past is the past,” it is interesting that your guidelines, in the absolute, are identical to other rules that people sought to put into place to keep people from other countries from coming here. If the past is the past, why are we putting forth rules that are identical to those in the past? Why are we repeating the same mistakes we made in the past?

          They can then apply for legal immigration, like anybody else.

          I agree that immigration should be done legally.

          It is just that your “rules,” take as absolutes, don’t take into account people and the world in which we live. Immigrants should be viewed on a case by case basis, and not by throwing everyone from every country into the same box.

Bad Behavior has blocked 5685 access attempts in the last 7 days.