Roger Wicker on Immigration

Republican Jr Senator; previously Republican Representative (MS-1)

No comprehensive legislation; no amnesty

Q: Would you vote for comprehensive immigration legislation that would secure the border, dramatically increase H-1B visas and provide a path to citizenship for those already in the United States illegally?

A: No, I am against providing amnesty.

Source: BIPAC 2008 Senate Candidate Questionnaire , Nov 1, 2008

Voted NO on continuing federal funds for declared "sanctuary cities".

CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: To create a reserve fund to ensure that Federal assistance does not go to sanctuary cities that ignore the immigration laws of the United States and create safe havens for illegal aliens and potential terrorists. This vote is a motion to table the amendment; voting YES would kill the amendment.

SUPPORTER'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING NO ON TABLING MOTION:Sen. VITTER: There are so-called sanctuary cities which establish as an official policy of their jurisdiction: We are not going to cooperate with Federal immigration enforcement officials. That is wrong. What is more, it is completely contrary to Federal immigration law. My amendment says: We are going to put some consequence to that defiance of Federal law. We are not going to give them COPS funds. We are going to send those funds, instead, to all of those other jurisdictions which abide by Federal law.OPPONENT'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING YES ON TABLING MOTION:Sen. DURBIN: There are sanctuary cities in about 23 different States across America. What the Vitter amendment will do is to take away the COPS funding from those cities. Police departments will tell you they need the cooperation of everyone to solve crimes and stop crime. If you create fear in the minds of those who are here in an undocumented status that any cooperation with the police will result in their arrest, they will not cooperate and criminals will go free. Let's not use the COPS Program as some sort of threat. If you want to deal with immigration, deal with it responsibly in a comprehensive way. SUPPORTER'S RESPONSE:Sen. VITTER: If folks feel that way, they should come to Congress and change Federal law, not simply defy Federal law. This is another amnesty vote. Are we going to give folks in sanctuary cities amnesty for defying Federal law and refusing to cooperate with Federal immigration officials? LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Motion to Table Agreed to, 58-40

Reference: Bill Table S.Amdt.4309 to S.Con.Res ; vote number 08-S069 on Mar 13, 2008

Voted YES on building a fence along the Mexican border.

Within 18 months, achieves operational control over U.S. land and maritime borders, including:

systematic border surveillance through more effective use of personnel and technology; and
physical infrastructure enhancements to prevent unlawful border entry

Defines "operational control" as the prevention of all unlawful U.S. entries, including entries by terrorists, other unlawful aliens, narcotics, and other contraband.

Proponents support voting YES because:

It is obvious there is no more defining issue in our Nation today than stopping illegal immigration. The most basic obligation of any government is to secure the Nation's borders. One issue in which there appears to be a consensus between the Senate and the House is on the issue of building a secure fence. So rather than wait until comprehensive legislation is enacted, we should move forward on targeted legislation which is effective and meaningful. The legislation today provides over 700 miles of two-layered reinforced fencing, and for the rest of the border provides a virtual fence, via integrated surveillance technology.

Opponents support voting NO because:

Just to build the fence is going to cost us at least $7 billion. Where is the money coming from to pay for it? How much is it going to cost to maintain this 700-mile fence? Who is going to do it? This bill contains no funding.

This bill also ignores real enforcement measures, like hiring more Border Patrol personnel, and instead builds a Berlin Wall on our southern border. So long as employers need workers in this country, and while our immigration systems impede rather than facilitate timely access of willing workers to those opportunities, undocumented immigration will never be controlled.

Walls, barriers, and military patrols will only force those immigrants to utilize ever more dangerous routes and increase the number of people who die in search of an opportunity to feed and clothe their families.

Reference: Secure Fence Act; Bill H R 6061 ; vote number 2006-446 on Sep 14, 2006

Voted YES on preventing tipping off Mexicans about Minuteman Project.

Voting YES on this amendment supports the Minuteman Project, a group of volunteers who have taken on surveillance of the Mexican border for illegal immigrants. The amendment states that US funds will not be used to tell the Mexican government about the whereabouts of the Minuteman Project volunteers. Proponents of the Minuteman Project say that they are volunteer citizens doing what the federal government SHOULD be doing, but has failed to do. Opponents of the Minuteman Project say that they are vigilantes at best and anti-Mexican racists at worst. The amendment states:

None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to provide a foreign government information relating to the activities of an organized volunteer civilian action group, operating in the State of California, Texas, New Mexico, or Arizona, unless required by international treaty.

What this amendment does is it clarifies Congress' position on a Border Patrol practice or a practice of the US Government that tips off illegal immigrants as to where citizen patrols may be located.
As a response to the lawlessness along the Mexican border, a group has sprung up called the Minutemen Project, and the Minutemen Project is definitely not politically correct in Washington DC. However, they filled a void which the government was unable to fill.
There are over 7,000 volunteers in the Minutemen organization, and their help has been productive and good.
What my amendment does is simply says that the U.S. Government cannot tip off the Mexican officials as to where these folks are located. Plain and simple, nothing fancy about it. I am sure the Border Patrol will say, oh, no, we are not doing that, and yet one of the Web pages of the Secretary of Mexico had the information very explicit, and we just do not believe that is a good practice.

Reference: Department of Homeland Security appropriations; Bill HR 5441 Amendment 968 ; vote number 2006-224 on Jun 6, 2006

Voted YES on reporting illegal aliens who receive hospital treatment.

Vote to pass the bill that would require hospitals to gather and report information on possible illegal aliens before hospitals can be reimbursed for treating them. The bill would also make employers liable for the reimbursements if an undocumented employee seeks medical attention, unless the employer meets particular conditions for exemption. The bill would specify that hospitals aren't required to provide care to undocumented aliens if they can be transported to their home country without a significant chance of worsening their condition. Reference: Undocumented Alien Emergency Medical Assistance Amendments; Bill HR 3722 ; vote number 2004-182 on May 20, 2004

Voted YES on extending Immigrant Residency rules.

Vote on motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill that would extend by four months a law allowing some immigrants to remain in the country while pursuing legal residency. Reference: Motion sponsoerd by Gekas, R-PA; Bill HR1885 ; vote number 2001-127 on May 21, 2001

Voted YES on more immigrant visas for skilled workers.

Vote to pass a bill to increase the number of temporary visas granted to highly skilled workers from 65,000 to 115,000 by the year 2000. Reference: Bill introduced by Smith, R-TX.; Bill HR 3736 ; vote number 1998-460 on Sep 24, 1998

Rated 100% by FAIR, indicating a voting record restricting immigration.

Wicker scores 100% by FAIR on immigration issues

The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) is a national, non-profit, public interest membership organization of concerned citizens united by their belief in the need for immigration reform. Founded in 1979, FAIR believes that the U.S. can and must have an immigration policy that is non-discriminatory and designed to serve the environmental, economic, and social needs of our country.

FAIR seeks to improve border security, to stop illegal immigration, and to promote immigration levels consistent with the national interest—more traditional rates of about 300,000 a year.

With more than 70,000 members nationwide, FAIR is a non-partisan group whose membership runs the gamut from liberal to conservative.

The ratings are based on the votes the organization considered most important; the numbers reflect the percentage of time the representative voted the organization's preferred position.

Source: FAIR website 03n-FAIR on Dec 31, 2003

Rated 100% by USBC, indicating a sealed-border stance.

Wicker scores 100% by USBC on immigration issues

OnTheIssues.org interprets the 2005-2006 USBC scores as follows:

0%-30%: open-border stance (approx. 197 members)
30%-70%: mixed record on open borders (approx. 70 members)
70%-100%: sealed-border stance (approx. 202 members)

About USBC (from their website, www.usbc.org):

U.S. Border Control, founded in 1988, is a non-profit, tax-exempt, citizen's lobby. USBC is dedicated to ending illegal immigration by securing our nation's borders and reforming our immigration policies. USBC [works with] Congressmen to stop amnesty; seal our borders against terrorism and illegal immigration; and, preserve our nation's language, culture and American way of life for future generations.

Our organization accepts no financial support from any branch of government. All our support comes from concerned citizens who appreciate the work we are doing to seal our borders against drugs, disease, illegal migration and terrorism and wish to preserve our nation's language, culture and heritage for the next generations.

Source: USBC website 06n-USBC on Dec 31, 2006

Government services in English only.

Wicker co-sponsored bill requiring government services in English only

A bill to provide that Executive Order 13166 shall have no force or effect, and to prohibit the use of funds for certain purposes.

Be it enacted that Executive Order 13166, 'Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency' (August 16, 2000), is null and void and shall have no force or effect.

On August 11, 2000, the President signed Executive Order 13166. The Executive Order requires Federal agencies to examine the services they provide, identify any need for services to those with limited English proficiency (LEP), and develop and implement a system to provide those services so LEP persons can have meaningful access to them.

Source: S.2719/H.R.768 08-S2719 on Mar 5, 2008

Declare English as the official language of the US.

Wicker co-sponsored declaring English as the official language of the US

This bill declares English as the official language of the United States, establishes a uniform English language rule for naturalization.

The United States is comprised of individuals from diverse ethnic, cultural, and linguistic backgrounds, and continues to benefit from this rich diversity.
Throughout the history of the United States, the common thread binding individuals of differing backgrounds has been the English language.
Federal Representatives of shall have an obligation to enhance the role of English as the official language of the Federal Government.
The official functions of the Government of the United States shall be conducted in English.
All citizens should be able to read and understand generally the English language text of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the laws of the US.
All naturalization ceremonies shall be conducted in English.

Source: English Language Unity Act (H.R.997) 2007-HR997 on Feb 12, 2007

Declared English the official language of the US.

Wicker co-sponsored declaring English the official language of the US

OFFICIAL CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY:

Representatives of the Federal Government have an affirmative obligation to preserve and enhance the role of English as the official language of the Federal Government.
Requires such representatives to conduct official business in English.
Prohibits anyone from being denied Government services because he or she communicates in English.
Requires that all officials conduct all naturalization ceremonies entirely in English.
Declares that nothing in this Act shall be construed to limit the preservation or use of Native Alaskan or Native American languages.

EXCERPTS FROM BILL:

The US is comprised of individuals and groups from diverse ethnic, cultural, and linguistic backgrounds.
The US has benefited and continues to benefit from this rich diversity.
The common thread binding individuals of differing backgrounds has been a common language.
The Federal Government should maintain a language common to all people.
English has historically been the common language and the language of opportunity in the US.
The purpose of this title is to help immigrants better assimilate and take full advantage of opportunities in the US.
By learning the English language, immigrants will be empowered with the language skills and literacy necessary to become responsible citizens and productive workers in the US.
The use of a single common language in conducting official business of the Federal Government will promote efficiency and fairness.
English should be recognized in law as the language of official business of the Federal Government.
Any monetary savings derived from the enactment of this title should be used for the teaching of the English language to non-English-speaking immigrants.

Source: English Language Empowerment Act (H.R.123) 99-HR0123 on Jan 6, 1999

Click here for definitions & background information on Immigration. Click here for a profile of Roger Wicker. Click here for SenateMatch quiz answers by Roger Wicker. Click here for AmericansElect quiz answers by Roger Wicker. Click here for a summary of Roger Wicker's positions on all issues. Click here for issue positions of other MS politicians.
*Other candidates on Immigration:*		*Roger Wicker on other issues:*
*MS Gubernatorial:* Haley Barbour Phil Bryant *MS Senatorial:* Thad Cochran MS politicians *Retiring in 2014 election:* GA:Chambliss(R) IA:Harkin(D) MI:Levin(D) NE:Johanns(R) NJ:Lautenberg(D) SD:Johnson(D) WV:Rockefeller(D) *Senate Vacancies 2013:* HI:Inouye(Deceased) HI:Schatz(Appointed) MA:Kerry(Resigned) MA:Cowan(Appointed) SC:DeMint(Resigned) SC:Scott(Appointed) *Retired as of Jan. 2013:* AZ:Kyl(R) CT:Lieberman(D) HI:Akaka(D) ME:Snowe(R) ND:Conrad(D) NE:Nelson(D) NM:Bingaman(D) TX:Hutchison(R) VA:Webb(D) WI:Kohl(D)	*Senate elections Nov. 2012:* AZ:Flake(R) vs.Carmona(D) CA:Feinstein(D) vs.Emken(R) vs.Lightfoot(L) CT:McMahon(R) vs.Murphy(D) DE:Carper(D) vs.Wade(R) vs.Pires(I) FL:Nelson(D) vs.Mack(R) HI:Hirono(D) vs.Lingle(R) vs.~~Case~~(D) vs.~~Pirkowski~~(R) IN:~~Lugar~~(R) vs.Mourdock(R) vs.Donnelly(D) MA:Brown(R) vs.Warren(D) MD:Cardin(D) vs.Bongino(R) vs.Sobhani(I) ME:King(I) vs.Dill(D) vs.Summers(R) MI:Stabenow(D) vs.Hoekstra(R) vs.Boman(L) MN:Klobuchar(D) vs.Bills(R) MO:McCaskill(D) vs.Akin(R) MS:Wicker(R) vs.Gore(D) MT:Tester(D) vs.Rehberg(R)	ND:Heitkamp(D) vs.Berg(R) NE:Kerrey(D) vs.Fischer(R) NJ:Menendez(D) vs.Kyrillos(R) vs.Diakos(I) NM:Heinrich(D) vs.Wilson(R) NV:Heller(R) vs.Berkley(D) NY:Gillibrand(D) vs.Long(R) vs.Noren(I) vs.Clark(G) OH:Brown(D) vs.Mandel(R) PA:Casey(D) vs.Smith(R) RI:Whitehouse(D) vs.Hinckley(R) TN:Corker(R) vs.Clayton(D) TX:Cruz(R) vs.Sadler(D) vs.Roland(L) vs.~~Dewhurst~~(R) UT:Hatch(R) vs.Howell(D) VA:Kaine(D) vs.Allen(R) VT:Sanders(I) vs.MacGovern(R) WA:Cantwell(D) vs.Baumgartner(R) WI:Thompson(R) vs.Baldwin(D) WV:Manchin(D) vs.Raese(R) WY:Barrasso(R) vs.Chesnut(D)	Abortion Budget/Economy Civil Rights Corporations Crime Drugs Education Energy/Oil Environment Families Foreign Policy Free Trade Govt. Reform Gun Control Health Care Homeland Security Immigration Jobs Principles Social Security Tax Reform Technology War/Peace Welfare Other Senators Senate Votes (analysis) Bill Sponsorships Affiliations Policy Reports Group Ratings
Contact info: Fax Number: 202-228-0378 Mailing Address: Senate Office SD-555, Washington, DC 20510 Phone number: (202) 224-6253

Page last updated: Apr 23, 2013