GROUP: Bipartisan DACA Deal is ‘Maximum Amnesty’

Center for Immigration Studies condemns proposal that President Trump immediately rejected…

 1

Jessica Vaughan/IMAGE: YouTube

(Brendan Clarey, Liberty Headlines) The Center for Immigration Studies on Friday condemned weak efforts by a group of six senators who proposed a bipartisan deal DACA amnesty, without any measures to strengthen immigration policies for the United States.

Jessica Vaughan, of the CIS, argued that the goal of the new proposal “is actually maximum amnesty, minimum border security, and no cuts to legal immigration.”

She condemned the proposal, which President Trump immediately rejected on Thursday.

The plan was proposed by Senators Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Cory Gardner (R-Colo.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) and Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), according to a Politico report.

“DACA beneficiaries would have a period of conditional permanent residency, which may be lifted upon completing at least two years of college or military service or three years of work, or may simply lead directly to eligibility for citizenship after at least 10 years (or 12 if they did not have DACA),” Vaughan explained.

She pointed out that the proposed amnesty would allow some criminal convictions to be waived, and wouldn’t change the practice that enables parents to get into the country because of their children: “Instead, they give the parents instant, indefinitely renewable legal status and work permits, thus exacerbating the labor market disruption and fiscal costs of the presence of these illegal aliens.”

The proposed plan does not reduce the number of green cards, according to Vaughan, nor does it increase funding for ICE.

** MORE AMNESTY COVERAGE at Liberty Headlines **

Meanwhile it provides funds ($1.6 billion) for President Trump’s proposed wall as well as other funds ($1.1 billion) for other border security projects, which falls far short of the $33 billion requested by the administration, $18 billion of which would be for wall construction.

All in all, Vaughan wrote, “This proposal is not a serious effort to find common ground with either the majority of congressional Republicans or the president. It pays only lip service to what is required to achieve the immigration policy improvements that Americans seek, and that they elected Donald Trump to accomplish.”