Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
-- -- heading with immigration reform.
My constituents have long been for the rule of law and they understand that you can't be a nation if you don't have borders and if you don't defend your borders and decide who comes and goes you can't call them -- that's where they aren't home and I think that's where they are across the heart of America.
-- was we watched the gang of aids proposal roll out here I guess it's a couple weeks ago now 844.
Then they long said it's not amnesty.
And yet there when you read the bill and you -- down through it and -- the summaries it is it is in multiple ways.
And -- do you find -- amnesty -- to grant amnesty is to pardon immigration law breakers and reward them with the objective of their crime.
Well that's exactly what this bill -- only reaches much beyond what I imagine them out -- the audacity to file as a bill.
Legalized -- everybody here this in America illegally with some potential exceptions.
It sends an -- out of those who are already deported and back in their home countries.
And says one issue re -- we think we can probably bring -- back to the United States.
And it's an implicit implied promise that.
Anybody in the future they can get into America can stay in America as long as they don't commit a felony or multiple misdemeanors.
That's the scope of that plus there's -- amnesty there for employers who knowingly and willfully.
Hired hired illegals and it's a waiver for all kinds of document fraud Social Security fraud.
Anybody this live -- here under an assumed name and working illegally.
They get amnesty for all of that so it's a big.
-- -- -- -- -- And it wouldn't last a year ago it would have made the proponents -- politically vulnerable that they would have curled up and run from such an idea.
But today they're signatures are honest and for me I can't believe they had the audacity to do amnesty of the -- that they propose.
Congressman king your colleagues in the senate obviously have a big broad land party -- -- -- as it's known it's gotten a lot of attention was senator rubio.
Possibly your colleagues in the house -- talked about doing immigration reform.
Kind of piece by piece are you more in that -- -- and if so what would you accept in terms.
Pieces of immigration reform as opposed to a huge.
Bill if you.
We'll Mike lived through the house approach to this from in listening to the chairman of Judiciary Committee Bob good lot of my -- as a good friend.
-- come at this with a piece by piece approach is far superior to the senate version.
But I'm I'm not particularly thrilled even by that.
Because if the house moves a piece of immigration reform -- crossed for example to make.
And they send that over to the senate where the senate might pass a comprehensive amnesty bill.
That makes that are common principles situation where the leaders could appoint a conference committee.
And then send -- a big amnesty bill that the senate had already passed over -- the house and -- -- amenable portions of I'm I'm concerned about that -- But if and another piece and I'm very concerned about is that.
-- the president has defied immigration law he's refused to enforce immigration law.
He knows it's unconstitutional for him to do that he has said so and now by the way he lost a significant case in the Houston here just last Tuesday.
They have found with the Plano so that being the ice -- -- the -- union president as she in his Chris crane.
Found with them and nine out of ten components of it.
So I don't know how you make a deal with the president that refuses to enforce immigration law.
And but if I if I could add a couple of components to this legislation to try to get us there under that assumption.
I would build a fence a wall on offense along on and on our southern border.
And I don't suggests it has to be 2000 miles long we just build it until they stopped going around the end that would be our criteria.
And then shut off the jobs magnet.
He may do that with mandatory.
I trust the IRS to be eager about enforcement so I've introduced legislation called the new idea act.
And the idea stands for the illegal deduction elimination act.
And it clarifies that wages paid to illegals are not not tax deductibles a business expense.
It moves those dollars over into the gross receipts -- again when they're denied by a normal audit.
We give the employers safe harbor if he uses.
But otherwise those wages would be taxable.
And it turns your ten dollar an hour illegally into about a sixteen dollar an hour illegal.
As a six years national limitations then that means that.
Maybe millions of employers that would make prudent decisions to clean up their workforce it wouldn't require a lot of ice agents running around checking on employers.
Just a normal audit process would be plenty.
Filter by section