Broader Options for Americans Act -- Continued

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, in the late 1980s, Congress debated and adopted amnesty legislation for 3 million people who were here illegally. It did so promising the American people that in exchange for amnesty, the Federal Government would finally, finally, finally secure the border. We all know what happened. That amnesty occurred, and the border never got secured. At the time, there were 3 million people living here illegally. Today, estimates are that there are in excess of 12 million people living here illegally.

Five years ago, in 2013, this body again debated amnesty. The so- called Gang of 8 again failed to secure the border but once again made the same promise of amnesty for millions here illegally in exchange for an ephemeral, never-to-come promise to secure the border. The Senate ultimately passed the Gang of 8 bill. As it was being voted on, Senate Democrats bragged on television that they believed they had north of 70 votes--that now was the time, again, to pass amnesty.

Yet the American people rose up and said: Amnesty is not what we want. It is inconsistent with the rule of law. We saw Senators at the last minute jumping ship. At the end of the day, it passed this body by 68 votes and then went nowhere in the House of Representatives.

So again, today, we are here having the same debate. I feel like Bill Murray in ``Groundhog Day,'' waking up and reliving the same day over and over and over, and the result is the same.

Listen, I don't know how these votes will occur this afternoon. It may be that nothing gets 60 votes. That is possible. But it may also be that the Senate embraces one of the various amnesty plans that is put on the table. If that is the case, it will be every bit as big a mistake as the Gang of 8 was a mistake and as the amnesty in the 1980s was a mistake. I must say that I find myself flabbergasted at where my own party is in this debate, because every proposal that has Republican support that has been submitted begins from a place markedly to the left of that of President Obama.

President Obama, as we all know, issued DACA, which was otherwise known as Executive amnesty. Executive amnesty was illegal and unconstitutional. The President has no authority to refuse to enforce the law. Yet President Obama decreed that he would not enforce Federal immigration laws, and that is exactly what he did.

At the time, virtually every Republican denounced Executive amnesty as unconstitutional, as lawless, as wrong. Yet today, far too many Senate Republicans are staking out a place well to the left of President Obama on DACA on numerous axes. No. 1, DACA itself covered 690,000 people. Yet what is the proposal being considered by this body? Under the mildest of the proposals, we are considering a path to citizenship for 1.8 million people. Why on Earth would we more than double--nearly triple--the DACA population? If there are 690,000 people who received illegal and unconstitutional Executive amnesty, then, it seems to me that, at the very most, the population we should consider is those 690,000.

The argument is made that they have relied on this promise, even though the promise was illegal and even though it was unconstitutional. The people who relied on this promise are the 690,000, not the 1.1 million who never even applied.

So I would ask why Republicans--and, indeed, why Democrats--are nearly tripling what President Obama did in DACA. But that is not the only regard. DACA never included citizenship. Nothing in President Obama's DACA allowed citizenship. Nothing in it allowed a path to citizenship. DACA was a work permit, nothing more than a work permit-- an illegal work permit, mind you--but it did not allow citizenship. Yet today far too many Republicans are eager to embrace the Democrats' demands that 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10 million people here illegally should be granted a path to citizenship. That is wrong. That is plain and simple wrong. It is unfair to the millions of working men and women. It is unfair to the steelworkers, the truckdrivers, and the mechanics. It is unfair to millions of American citizens, working men and women, who faced stagnant wages under President Obama. It is unfair to millions of legal immigrants whose wages are driven down by those here illegally. It is inconsistent with the promises made by virtually every Republican in this body.

Every Republican who went out and campaigned against Executive amnesty said: We will not have amnesty. Well, now is the time to choose. If this body chooses to grant citizenship to 2, 3, 4 million people here illegally, those promises will have been directly broken. That is a mistake. It is wrong. Not only that, but the legislation this body is preparing to consider not only would grant citizenship, but it would make those here illegally eligible for Federal welfare--Federal welfare benefits. Not only do people come here illegally, but it drives up the cost.

Every one of us has been asked by American citizens: Why are we spending vast sums of money providing welfare benefits? Why would we want to do that to those here illegally?

We are a nation of immigrants. My father came as an immigrant in 1957 with nothing--$100 in his underwear and not speaking English--but he came legally. We should be embracing legal immigrants rather than excusing and condoning illegal immigration.

I do not believe we should be granting citizenship to anyone here illegally, nor should we be providing Federal welfare benefits to anyone here illegally, nor should we be expanding the pool of DACA recipients beyond that in the Obama program. Yet Republicans seem eager to do so. It is possible that our Democratic friends will save us from this foolishness--that even though Republicans are proposing a profoundly foolhardy immigration proposal, the Democrats will decide they want even more. There is not enough amnesty that the Democrats could take. If they do that, that will save the day for now. But if not, if this body gets 60 votes for one of these amnesty proposals, then it is incumbent on the House to stop it, much like with the Gang of 8.

In the Gang of 8, the Senate couldn't stop it. The Senate has always, unfortunately, been very liberal on immigration. It has been very willing to make promises to the voters and promptly come down here and vote very differently from those promises. But the House of Representatives--the People's House--is designed to be responsive to the people. So it is my hope that House conservatives, facing the people and listening to the people, will recognize that we had an election in 2014 in response to the Gang of 8. The American people said: We don't want the Gang of 8. They elected the largest House majority of Republicans in 70 years. They elected 9 new Republicans in the Senate and retired Harry Reid as majority leader. Yet, somehow, Republicans in this body didn't hear the voters in 2014. We had an election in 2016 that the media was ready to call for Hillary Clinton. Yet, front and center in the 2016 election, was the American people saying: We don't want amnesty.

My call to our colleagues, both Democrats and Republicans, is listen to the people.

There are many things we can and should be doing. We should be passing Kate's Law. I authored and introduced Kate's Law in this body. Kate's Law provides that for an aggravated felon who has been repeatedly entering this country illegally and who has been deported repeatedly, that that aggravated felon have a mandatory minimum prison sentence. Kate's Law is known for Kate Steinle, that beautiful woman in California murdered on a pier by an illegal alien deported over and over with multiple felony convictions. Had Kate's Law been on the books, I believe it is very likely that Kate Steinle would still be alive. That is the sort of commonsense legislation on which we ought to be coming together and passing. Yet there is the old adage: Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

This body made a grievous mistake in passing the Gang of 8 bill. Thankfully, the House saved us from our error. We may be on the verge of making the same grievous mistake. It is almost as if elections don't penetrate. We need to be listening to the voters.

I do not know a single Republican--not one in this body, not one in the House of Representatives--who was elected on a promise: I will go to the left of Barack Obama on immigration.

If one of us campaigned promising that, knock yourself out. Vote for this. But if you didn't say that Obama's Executive amnesty didn't go far enough, that we need to double or triple the pool, that we need to grant citizenship because Obama was too much of a conservative on immigration--if you didn't say that--then the only vote consistent with what we told the voters is to vote no today. We can come together and find commonsense solutions on immigration. We can secure the border. We can triple the Border Patrol. We can end catch and release. We can implement a strong E-verify. We can use strong tools and technology. We can continue to embrace and celebrate legal immigrants, and we can do all of that while respecting the rule of law.

What I would urge my colleagues to do is very simple. Ask yourself what you told the voters before election, and let your conduct after election day match what you told the voters.

As for the Democrats, the Democrats campaigned as the party of amnesty. They are at least being true to their promises. They promised amnesty. That is their priority. They are being true. But for Republicans, we promised something different. We promised to stand with the working men and women, the union members, the steelworkers, the men and women with calluses on their hands.

I urge every one of us to listen to the working men and women, to respect the rule of law, and to vote against these misguided proposals.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source