Mo Brooks introduces legislation to reform TPS immigration program
Congressman Mo Brooks this week introduced a bill that would tighten-up an oft “abused” immigration program that lends itself to de facto amnesty. Established in 1990 as a temporary immigration status — granted to eligible nationals of a country as a result of a natural disaster, civil violence, or other extraordinary conditions making the country “unable, temporarily, to adequately handle the return of its nationals” — the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) program is essentially a nascent green-card program of sorts providing recipients a work permit, Social Security number, driver’s license, and access to certain welfare benefits. While it’s not an immediate path to citizenship, under current law “Temporary” Protected Status is de facto permanent and is often renewed time and again, permanently extending the TPS status. Meaning hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens from countries across the globe, who would otherwise be deported, spend years, even decades, enjoying the protections and benefits of the program, even well-past the time the extraordinary conditions which qualified them for it had dissipated due to this never-ending “temporary” measure. Which is why Brooks introduced H.R. 2604: the Temporary Protected Status Reform Act of 2017. The TPS Reform Act would shift authority from the Executive and empower Congress to designate a nation’s participation in the TPS program. Further, it would set strict, clear time limitations for TPS duration, aiming to make the law, which was designed to be inherently temporary, temporary once more. “The United States provides Temporary Protected Status (TPS) to more than 300,000 foreign residents. As the name implies, the TPS statute purports to provide temporary relief to foreign residents for a period of 6 to 18 months. However, the Executive repeatedly renews protected status, effectively providing a free and permanent pass into America – including all the benefits that come with it,” said Brooks. “My bill, the TPS Reform Act would ensure that ‘temporary’ means temporary by establishing clear time limitations and creating statutory tests that must be met to grant the TPS designation. This legislation provides the needed reform for what has become a long-running amnesty program.” Among the supporters of the bill is the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), a non-profit that advocates for immigration reform based out of Washington, DC, who claim TPS is “misnamed.” “By now, we should have learned from experience that TPS is misnamed—what we offer as ‘temporary’ protection is rarely, if ever, temporary,” Federation for American Immigration Reform Executive Director, Dan Stein noted. “Most often, unfortunately, it’s used by aliens residing in the United States as a foot in the door to permanent residence. They are certainly happy to receive TPS because it apparently never expires. The true test of TPS as a policy tool is if it ever is, truly temporary. Our laws should not reward illegal immigrants to the United States regardless of the political or natural upheavals in their homelands. Otherwise, experience shows that we will encourage further illegal immigration.” The Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies, Mark Krikorian, agreed. “It’s long past time to fix the TPS statute so that ‘temporary’ no longer means permanent,” said Krikorian. “Past administrations have been abusing this temporary, humanitarian program for 27 years, using it as a de facto amnesty program,” Rosemary Jenks, Director of Government Relations at NumbersUSA added. “This bill would restore critical oversight by Congress.” Original cosponsors of the TPS Reform Act include: Texas-Republicans Louie Gohmert and Michael McCaul, and Iowa-Republican Steve King. NumbersUSA and FAIR both endorsed the bill.
Barack Obama’s executive actions challenged by multi-state coalition
On Monday, Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange announced that the state has joined 26 others in filing a merits brief with the U.S. Supreme Court opposing executive actions by President Barack Obama. The statement claims Obama’s actions will grant amnesty to four million illegal immigrants. The other states involved in the lawsuit include Texas, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia and Wisconsin. The brief contends that the administration’s Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) is “unconstitutional and defies states’ rights.” The law allows illegal immigrants, who have lived in the country since 2010 and have children who are American citizens or lawful permanent residents, to apply for a renewable, three year work permit and avoid deportation. Texas has not only noted the unconstitutionality of the law, but has added that the added burden and expense of issuing driver’s license to undocumented immigrants. Further, a Texas court ruled that the new law violates the tenets of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. According to a 2015 study by the Migration Policy Institute, about 3.6 million undocumented immigrants would be eligible for DAPA. The report further notes that “more than 10 million people live in households with at least one potentially DAPA-eligible adult, including some 4.3 million children under age 18 – an estimated 85 percent of whom are U.S. citizens.” “The president’s immigration order is an outright attempt to sidestep the power of Congress which had earlier refused to pass blanket amnesty for millions of illegal aliens,” Strange said in the statement. “This president has demonstrated over and over the will to circumvent Congress and the limits on his own constitutional authority in order to achieve a political goal.” The Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments over the law, which has been delayed until all legal proceedings are completed, on April 18.
Bradley Byrne: National security should always be our top priority
When considering whether to vote in favor of legislation, I often ask myself a simple question: Is this in the best interest of the American people? I believe that should be a guiding principle for all our elected officials when they are faced with a major decision. Recently, President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry announced a plan to increase the number of refugees allowed into the United States. Under their plan, the Obama Administration plans to accept at least 10,000 refugees from Syria. As soon as I heard this news, I had major concerns about the impact this decision would have on the American people and the national security of our country. Let me explain why. Currently, Syria is home to a major conflict between the regime of President Bashar al-Assad, fighters with the Islamic State, and many different factions of rebels who wish to overrun the government. This brutal fighting has resulted in a mass exodus of Syrian people looking to escape their war torn country. That’s where President Obama’s decision comes into play. As defined by the Immigration and Nationality Act, a refugee is someone who is unable or unwilling to return to his or her home country because of a “well-founded fear of persecution.” The federal government has a process for screening and accepting these individuals before allowing their admission into the US, and the Syrian people can certainly make a strong case to be admitted. However, I have serious concerns about the threat of terrorists infiltrating the refugee system and entering the United States. Groups like the Islamic State have made clear that they would attempt to disguise terrorist operatives as refugees. I am not the only one who has these concerns. In fact, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper recently called the migrant issue a “huge concern” and said that “we don’t put it past the likes of [the Islamic State] to infiltrate operatives among these refugees.” At a recent House Homeland Security Committee hearing, officials from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) implied that bringing in a large number of Syrian refugees would represent a threat to our national security. DHS officials have even admitted that Syria does not have a computer database to check the criminal and terrorist records of these refugees. The issue is especially of interest to those of us in Southwest Alabama because Mobile is home to one of the 190 State Department refugee affiliates. This means Syrian refugees could be placed in our local community. That is why I sent a letter to the Department of State asking for information about the screening process the refugees would be required to go through. In response to my letter, I was invited to attend a classified briefing to learn more about the screening process. Unfortunately, I left the briefing with many of the same concerns. So after listening to the concerns of my constituents and getting more information from the State Department, I decided to support H.R. 3573, the Refugee Resettlement Oversight and Security Act. This bill would require approval from both the House and the Senate before refugees could be admitted to the United States. The bill would also give Congress the authority to block any inadequate refugee resettlement plan. There is simply no way to know for sure that terrorist groups, like the Islamic State, are not going to infiltrate the refugee process, and the Refugee Resettlement Oversight and Security Act will ensure that Congress, and in turn the American people, have the final say when it comes to increasing the number of refugees. On this issue, like many others, I can’t help but ask myself: Is this in the best interest of the American people? At this point, it seems clear the answer is no. Bradley Byrne is a member of the U.S. Congress representing Alabama’s 1st Congressional District.
