[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 40 (Monday, March 14, 2016)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1450-S1451]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                          Illegal Immigration

  Mr. COTTON. Madam President, last Thursday the Democratic candidates 
for President had a debate. They made several extremely irresponsible 
statements about immigration policy. I oppose their calls to reward 
mass illegal immigration with blanket amnesty, which would undermine 
the rule of law, cost Americans jobs, drive down wages for working 
Americans, and invite more illegal immigration.
  But what must President Obama think? After all, he has attempted to 
grant amnesty by fiat to over 5 million illegal immigrants, although 
the courts have blocked most of those amnesties for now. Yet the 
Senator from Vermont and Hillary Clinton both insisted that the 
President hadn't gone far enough. They would expand on his actions and 
go even further. In fact, a debate moderator called President Obama 
``the deporter in chief,'' and Hillary Clinton tacitly accepted the 
characterization, saying she wouldn't deport nearly as many illegal 
immigrants as President Obama has--which of course isn't a terribly 
high bar to clear since deportations are down 42 percent since the 
start of President Obama's second term and last year deportations hit a 
10-year low. Still, I can't imagine President Obama is too pleased with 
his would-be successor.
  I also can't imagine a more opportunist and irresponsible position 
than the one taken by Hillary Clinton. As she panders for votes, she 
limited deportation priorities to violent criminals and terrorists. 
Apparently, Secretary Clinton will welcome con artists, identity 
thieves, and other nonviolent criminal illegal immigrants with 
outstretched arms into our country.
  Even more astonishing, she stated unequivocally, ``I will not deport 
children. I would not deport children.'' As I stated, this is pure 
opportunism. For instance, I imagine this child shown in this poster 
would have liked Secretary Clinton's policy to have been in effect 
during her husband's administration. This is the famous picture of 
Elian Gonzalez, a 6-year-old Cuban boy who reached our shores despite 
his mother tragically dying at sea. Elian's U.S.-based family pleaded 
with the Clinton administration to grant him asylum, as was our common 
custom for refugees from communism, but President Clinton rejected 
those pleas, siding with the Castros. Federal agents stormed the 
private residence and apprehended Elian at gunpoint. Where was 
Secretary Clinton? I guess she didn't have a no-kids policy back then. 
But we don't have to guess. The then-First Lady was campaigning for 
Senate in New York. She opposed congressional action to protect Elian 
and advocated returning the boy to Cuba--contrary to a decades-long 
bipartisan consensus that we should grant safe harbor to refugees from 
totalitarian Communist states.
  Yet, the sad story of Elian Gonzalez isn't the most recent or harmful 
example of her opportunism. Just two summers ago, our country faced a 
migrant crisis on our southern border. Nearly 140,000 people--about 
half of them unaccompanied kids--poured across our border. Notably, 
most did not flee from the Border Patrol or try to avoid capture; on 
the contrary, they ran to U.S. border agents.
  Why would brandnew illegal immigrants, having successfully crossed 
our border, turn themselves in? The answer is simple: They have been 
led to believe they would be allowed to stay.
  From the multiple administration memos instructing agents not to 
fully enforce immigration law to President Obama's unlawful Executive 
amnesties, to the Senate's own amnesty legislation, every signal from 
Washington said our political class lacked the willpower to secure our 
borders and enforce our immigration laws in the country's interior.
  Some might say these policies and proposals wouldn't have covered the 
newly arrived immigrants; that they would have faced deportation. 
Perhaps, but what they signaled was a complete unwillingness to enforce 
our immigration laws, just as amnesty granted in 1986 invited another 
generation of illegal immigrants to migrate to our country and wait for 
the next amnesty.
  These policies certainly gave the human traffickers who transported 
and abused these kids plenty of grounds to tell desperate parents: Send 
your kid north with me, and he will get a permiso. In the end, they 
weren't wrong. Nearly 2 years later, only a very tiny minority of 
unaccompanied children have been deported. In fact, more than 111,000 
unaccompanied minors entered the United States illegally from 2011 to 
2015, but only 6 percent have been returned to their home countries. 
Yes, some may have received a deportation order from a court--usually 
after failing to appear for a hearing. Yet the Obama administration has 
made little to no effort to locate them.
  Therefore, it is fair to say the human traffickers, the so-called 
coyotes, weren't wrong, and many Central American parents took an 
understandable risk. After all, a life in America in the shadows--as 
advocates for amnesty and open borders call it--may be preferable to 
poverty and violence back home. While these factors may have been the 
push factors in the migrant crisis, there can be no doubt that the pull 
factors of amnesty, deferred action, nonenforcement, economic 
opportunity, and safety were just as strong, if not stronger.
  That is why even the Obama administration tried to address them. 
President Obama met with leaders of Honduras, Guatemala, and El 
Salvador to seek their assistance. Vice President Biden flew to 
Guatemala and publicly urged parents not to believe the coyotes' 
promises of amnesty. The Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson 
wrote an open letter to Central American parents, and, yes, Hillary 
Clinton got involved too. Secretary Clinton stated in 2014 that these 
children ``should be sent back as soon as it can be determined who 
responsible adults in their families are.'' She insisted that ``we have 
to send a clear message: Just because your child gets across the 
border, that doesn't mean the child gets to stay.''
  That was the right position then, and it is the right position now, 
even if real action didn't back up the Obama administration's words, 
but that was then, and this is now, in the middle of another flailing 
Presidential campaign. Secretary Clinton now says she would not deport 
children under any circumstances, not even those who just arrived or 
presumably those who arrive in the future.
  We have come to expect such opportunism from the ``House of 
Clinton,'' but even worse is the irresponsibility. Put yourself in the 
position of a desperate parent in Central America. You live in Third 
World conditions. Work is scarce. Food and water are a struggle. Power 
doesn't always come on with the flip of a switch. Gangs control many of 
the streets. Murder rates are some of the highest in the world. You 
have every reason to try to escape these conditions or at least get 
your kid out, but where to go?
  You just got your answer. Hillary Clinton, one of the most famous 
people in the world--one of only six people likely to be the next 
President of the United States--just broadcast new hope to the world: 
You can come to the United States.
  Of course, it is a peculiar kind of hope. She didn't say go to our 
Embassy and seek asylum. She certainly didn't say get on an airplane 
and fly safely to

[[Page S1451]]

the United States, nor will she ever take such massively unpopular 
positions. Indeed, she essentially invited you to take a life-or-death 
gamble: If you survive the trip, you can stay.
  How is this moral? How is it compassionate to create incentives for 
such reckless behavior? Hillary Clinton just created a full employment 
opportunity for human traffickers. She helped oversell illicit tickets 
on this train, The Beast, a network of freight trains aboard which 
migrants from Central America cross Mexico to the United States.
  The Beast has another name--The Death Train. It is called that 
because many who ride it don't survive or, if they do, they only escape 
with grievous injuries or after enduring physical and sexual abuse at 
the hands of criminal gangs. With her irresponsible pandering, 
Secretary Clinton's words will help contribute to untold suffering, 
pain, and death among American families.
  Her words are equally irresponsible when looked at from the American 
perspective. Secretary Clinton's promise to deport only violent 
criminals and no children under any circumstances will badly harm 
struggling Americans. Decades of mass immigration has contributed to 
joblessness, stagnant wages, and communities stressed to the breaking 
point to provide education, housing, emergency services, public safety, 
and other basic government services.
  The coming Clinton wave of illegal immigration will only make it 
harder to secure our borders, enforce our laws, and get immigration 
under control and working for Americans who are, after all, the people 
we are supposed to serve.
  The world is full of violence, oppression, corruption, and injustice. 
We cannot turn a blind eye to this. It often has a way of arriving at 
our borders and on our shores. Similar to most Americans, my heart 
breaks when I imagine the plight of those desperate parents in Central 
America as they look upon their little ones. That is why I strongly 
support efforts to assist countries such as Guatemala, Honduras, and El 
Salvador to develop stronger institutions and improve living conditions 
there. Many dedicated professionals in the State Department, FBI, DEA, 
Southern Command, and other Federal agencies are there serving us--to 
do just that.
  At the same time, we cannot solve all the world's ills and our 
foremost responsibility is to Americans, not foreigners. We can help 
reduce the push factors in foreign countries driving migrants to our 
borders, but we are not obligated to accept their citizens into our 
country. On the contrary, our obligation is to protect and serve 
Americans. To do so, we must eliminate the pull factors for these 
migrants here at home.
  Like any country, we have a right, indeed, we have a duty to control 
who comes to our country and allow them here only if it is in our 
national interests. America is a nation of immigrants, but we are also 
a nation of laws. Secretary Clinton has not only displayed contempt for 
our immigration laws but also encouraged foreigners to break those 
laws, to their own grave danger. We must say to these foreigners, 
loudly and clearly: Do not make this dangerous journey. Do not violate 
our laws. Do not come here illegally. It is the humane thing to do, and 
it is the right thing to do. Secretary Clinton should be ashamed of 
herself for doing otherwise.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.