Duncan Hunter on Immigration Republican Representative (CA-52)

Hispanic community does not agree with having open borders

A: I represent a district in San Diego that for many, many years is a majority Hispanic and two-to-one Democrat. You know what you do? You look people in the eye and you talk to them frankly. I would say this: I got more votes from the Hispanic community--known as the guy who built the border fence--than anybody running for office. That means that the Hispanic community in the United States does not agree with the idea of having open borders. They do agree with the idea of having order on the border and having a regulated system where this lady of freedom standing behind me, the Statue of Liberty, says: Come in, but follow the rules.

Folks here illegally have to leave, to protect our jobs

A: Folks that are here illegally have to leave and let me tell you why. Today, if you’re a dry wall contractor and you play by the rules & pay $27/hour, you will be constantly under-cut by contractors who use people who are here illegally. That’s not fair to Americans who play by the rules. That’s one reason you have, in certain areas, especially in the construction trades now, higher levels of unemployment.

Rescind Bush’s order allowing Mexican trucks on US roads

• HUCKABEE: Yes.
• TANCREDO: Yes.
• COX: Yes.
• BROWNBACK: Yes.
• PAUL: Yes.
• HUNTER: Yes.
• KEYES: Yes.

Complete fence, despite difficulties, because it’s the law

Here’s what we tell them: It’s the law. And you know, I built that border fence in San Diego. And it’s really two fences. It’s a double fence. It’s not that scraggly little fence that they keep showing on CNN with people hopping over it. If you get over my fence, we sign you up for the Olympics immediately. Now, that fence is a double fence with a road in between, and it reduced the smuggling of people and drugs in San Diego by 90%. And that’s the reason I wrote the law that extends it 854 miles across Arizona, New Mexico & Texas. They’ve only done 17.9 miles. As president, I will complete all 854 miles in six months. That’s my commitment. It’s the law.

FactCheck: Only 9 miles of fence in San Diego after 11 years

This administration has “the slows” on border enforcement

Keep rule barring immigrants from running for president

HUNTER: We haven’t seen his endorsement yet. That’s a no.

GILMORE: No, I want to amend this Constitution in a variety of different ways, and this would be not a good start to do it that way.

McCAIN: He and I have many similar attributes, so I have to seriously consider it.

I built the 854-mile border fence and it cut down crime

A: You know, it’s a way to win, but we need to win the right way. In my town of San Diego, we build the border fence. When we built that fence, we had a border out of control, and we built that fence. And it’s a double fence. It’s not that little scraggly fence you see on CNN with everybody getting over it. We had massive murders on the border, massive illegal immigration, massive importation of drugs. I built that border fence. We brought down the smuggling of people and narcotics by more than 90%. I wrote that law that extends the San Diego fence for 854 miles across AZ, NM, & TX. One way to bring down crime in every state is to have an enforceable border. That means let’s build that border fence. When people want to come into this country, let’s ask them to knock on the front door.

FactCheck: 854-mile fence shifted crime more than cutting it

San Diego’s 14-mile fence was supposed to cost $14 million, but the DHS estimates that by the time it’s finished it will have cost $127 million to build. Litigation by environmentalists over the feds’ proposal to pour 5.5 million cubic feet of dirt into a valley to flatten the terrain caused major construction delays.

Overall apprehensions in the San Diego sector declined by 76% after the fence was begun. Meanwhile, however, apprehensions increased in others sectors further east, most notably a 591% increase in the Tucson sector between 1992 and 2004.

Hinting at amnesty causes a rush to the border

A: The president’s wrong on that one, and I’ll tell you why. Every time the president sends out a message or Congress sends a message that there’s a real or perceived benefit, there’s something good to be had in America if you come in illegally, you start a stampede for the border. And we’ve seen that in the number of border arrests that happen every time the president makes a speech in which he even hints at amnesty. It doesn’t make any sense to have this thin line of border patrolmen and now the 6,000 National Guardsmen that the president has sent to the border protecting our border, and at the same time make political statements [that encourage illegal immigration]

Voted YES on building a fence along the Mexican border.

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

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.

Voted YES on preventing tipping off Mexicans about Minuteman Project.

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.

The amendment's sponsor said on its behalf:
• 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.

Voted YES on reporting illegal aliens who receive hospital treatment.

Voted NO on extending Immigrant Residency rules.

Voted NO on more immigrant visas for skilled workers.

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

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.

Rated 92% by USBC, indicating a sealed-border stance.

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)

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.

End Birthright Citizenship; no more anchor babies.

Amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to consider a person born in the United States "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States for citizenship at birth purposes if the person is born in the United States of parents, one of whom is:
1. a U.S. citizen or national;
2. a lawful permanent resident alien whose residence is in the United States; or
3. an alien performing active service in the U.S. Armed Forces.

The amendment made by subsection (a)(3) shall not be construed to affect the citizenship or nationality status of any person born before the date of the enactment of this Act.

[OnTheIssues note: This bill would change the existing interpretation of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which currently defines as a US citizen any person born within US territory. This bill intends to remove the right of illegal aliens to gain US citizenship by bearing children while in the country illegally; the issue is known by bill supporters as "anchor babies"]

Redefine "birthright citizenship" to exclude illegal aliens.

Congressional Summary: Acknowledging the right of birthright citizenship established by section 1 of the 14th amendment to the Constitution, amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to consider a person born in the United States "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States for citizenship at birth purposes if the person is born in the United States of parents, one of whom is:

1. a U.S. citizen or national;
2. a lawful permanent resident alien whose residence is in the United States; or
3. an alien performing active service in the U.S. Armed Forces.

Constitutional Authority Statement: Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following: Section 5 of the Amendment XIV to the Constitution and Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution.

OnTheIssues Explanation:The relevant part of this law is what is NOT in the list above: illegal aliens or undocumented workers. Those groups are this bill's target: it addresses the issue of "anchor babies," wherein non-citizen mothers cross the US border and give birth in the US and thereby establish citizenship for their newborn. If passed, this bill will likely face a Supreme Court challenge on its constitutionality, since the 14th Amendment defines citizens as "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." That clause was written after the Civil War to establish citizenship for former slaves; this bill reinterprets that clause to mean that not everyone born in the US automatically becomes a citizen. The cited authorization of the 14th Amendment is "Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

Stop releasing low-risk illegal immigrants.

Letter from office of Rep. Matt Salmon (R-AZ-5) signed by 37 Members of Congress

Dear Secretary Napolitano,

We are deeply concerned that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is using sequestration as a vehicle to further the Administration's disregard for enforcing our immigration laws. Specifically, we are troubled by recent reports that DHS has released hundreds of illegal immigrants, rather than finding cost savings elsewhere in the agency.

Your agency's decision to release "low-risk" illegal immigrants back into the public under the guise of saving money is unprecedented and dangerous. The inability of DHS to prioritize resources for potential cuts suggests this decision was either politically motivated to further the Administration's amnesty goals or, at best, demonstrates agency incompetence.

Given the public safety and national security concerns this decision raises, we respectfully request you halt any further action to release detained illegal immigrants. Also, please respond to the following questions, regarding individuals already released, pending release, or anticipated to be released:

• The number of detainees released and the geographic location of where the releases took place;
• Any plans for future releases, and the geographic location of where those releases will take place;
• The name of the DHS official who authorized the review of detained illegal immigrants for release;
• The criteria used to determine who is eligible for release;
• The number of reviewed detainees denied release and the specific reasons for such denials;
• A list identifying cuts to the DHS budget implemented prior to the release of the detainees, the budget savings achieved, and why these savings were insufficient;
• How DHS is tracking illegal immigrants released under this plan, and whether they will be ordered back to detention centers if funding becomes available.

Voted YES to ban DREAMer immigrants from military service.

Congressional Summary: The House voted on an amendment by Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ) to H.R. 5293, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2017. The amendment would prohibit funds from being used to extend the expiration of, or reissue a new expiration date to, the Military Accessions Vital to National Interest (MAVNI) program.

Recommendation by Heritage Foundation to vote YES:(6/16/2016): The MAVNI program is a pilot program authorizing "military services to recruit certain legal immigrants whose skills are considered to be vital to the national interest." However, a DoD memo has made it clear that DACA/DAPA recipients are eligible under this program, essentially opening up a pathway to amnesty for illegal aliens who enlist. By ensuring that this guidance ends, DOD will no longer be able to enlist illegal immigrants through MAVNI.

Recommendation by the ACLU to vote NO: (6/28/2011): The DREAM Act promotes fundamental fairness for young people by allowing access to affordable post-secondary education and military service opportunities, regardless of immigration status, and would provide a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants who came to the U.S. as children, have lived here for at least five years and have graduated from high school. The DREAM Act could result in billions of dollars in additional tax revenue from tapping the potential of DREAM-eligible students and future service personnel. Since September 11, 2001, more than 69,000 immigrants have earned citizenship while serving, and more than 125 who entered military service after that date have made the ultimate sacrifice in war by giving their lives for this nation.

Legislative outcome: Failed House 210 to 211 (no Senate vote)

Increase both high-skill and family-based visa caps.

Legislative SummaryThis bill increases the per-country cap on family-based immigrant visas from 7% of the total number of such visas available that year to 15%, and eliminates the 7% cap for employment-based immigrant visas. It also removes an offset that reduced the number of visas for individuals from China. The bill also establishes transition rules for employment-based visas from FY2020-FY2022, by reserving a percentage of EB-2 (workers with advanced degrees or exceptional ability), EB-3 (skilled and other workers), and EB-5 (investors) visas for individuals not from the two countries with the largest number of recipients of such visas. Of the unreserved visas, not more than 85% shall be allotted to immigrants from any single country.

Explanation from the Countable.US: Under the current immigration system, immigrants from any one country can claim no more than 7% of the 140,000 employment-based green cards issued annually to foreign nationals working in the U.S. This significantly disadvantages immigrants from larger countries that more immigrants come from.

For example, China (population 1.3 billion) and India have large backlogs of workers wishing to immigrate to and work in the U.S., but they have the name visa caps as countries such as Iceland or Estonia (population 1.3 million), which have both much smaller populations and far fewer citizens seeking to immigrate to the U.S.

The net effect of this is that immigrants from India and China can face decades-long waits, averaging 2-3 times the wait times for immigrants from other countries, for green cards, and many have to return home because they can't get permanent residency; meanwhile, countries such as Iceland and Estonia never come close to reaching their visa limit caps.

Legislative outcome Roll call 437 in House on 7/10/2019 passed 365-65-2; referred to Committee in Senate 7/9/2019; no action as of 1/1/2020.

Declared English the official language of the US.