U.S. Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Auburn) is criticizing President Joe Biden’s new Executive Order that would effectively give amnesty to thousands of illegal immigrants currently in the U.S.

https://x.com/SenTuberville/status/1802798096969003048

The president announced the plan Tuesday that will fast track a path to citizenship for hundreds of thousands of immigrants who’ve been living in the country illegally for more than 10 years and married a U.S. citizen.

Tuberville reacted to the new Biden administration policy Tuesday on Fox Business.

“[T]his has been a complete nightmare for the American people, all American citizens across the country,” Tuberville said. “There’s no border states anymore…it’s a catastrophe  and is something that should be addressed immediately. We’re worried more about other countries and we are about our country. I’ve been down there several times. I feel really bad for border patrol or ICE agents, people that are supposed to be able to do what they do, and control the border. But it’s just it’s out of control.”

The senator said he supports former President Trump’s plan of mass deportations if he’s elected in November.

“I’ve talked to President Trump several times about this he is all for getting elected and in the first thing to start deporting people,” he explained. “The Democrats want to control amnesty or illegal voting by illegal immigrants. But President Trump is all for sending people home. He’s exactly right. Again, the American people don’t deserve what they have been dealt, the hand they’ve been dealt from the Biden administration for the last three and a half years. So this is the number one issue going into this election. I don’t care if Biden runs or somebody runs on the Democratic side. President Trump knows he has to go after this border issue because this could bring our country to its knees quicker than anything else.”

Tuberville emphasized that thinks this is all about trying to create more Democrat voters.

“The Democrats are just reaching for straws, and this is just one way they can get as many people registered as possible,” he argued. “And there’s going to be a lot of people that’s are going to vote that are illegal in this election. But hopefully people understand what’s going on. I think President Trump’s going to get a lot of Democratic vote out of this because people are sick and tired of the nonsense and the illegality of what the Democrats are doing.”

Yaffee is a contributing writer to Yellowhammer News and hosts “The Yaffee Program” weekdays 9-11 a.m. on WVNN. You can follow him on X @Yaffee

WASHINGTON — The United States Supreme Court on Thursday effectively struck down President Barack Obama’s executive actions on immigration, which would have unilaterally granted amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants.

The high court’s vote was a 4-4 tie, which upholds the ruling of a lower court striking down the president’s order. The decision is a major victory for Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), who has been the Senate’s most outspoken anti-immigration hawk, as well as the state of Alabama, which had joined a coalition of 26 states in opposing the president’s actions.

Earlier this year, Sessions and his Alabama colleague Sen. Richard Shelby filed a brief questioning the constitutionality of President Obama’s Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA) policy.

DAPA is an executive order signed by President Obama that exempts illegal immigrants from being deported if they are the parents of a child who is an American citizen.

“Such an action stands in stark contravention to federal law and to the constitutional principle of the separation of powers,” the Senators’ brief stated. “There is little doubt that the Executive adopted the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (‘DAPA’) program as part of an explicit effort to circumvent the legislative process.”

A coalition of states, including Alabama, also filed a brief arguing that DAPA is unconstitutional and runs counter to the Tenth Amendment. The states said that DAPA also violates Article II of the Constitution, which demands that the President must “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” In other words, the coalition of states argued that the President was unlawfully picking and choosing which laws to enforce, and which laws to ignore.

The Supreme Court agreed.

Alabama leaders began reacting to the ruling shortly after it came down. The comment below will be updated as more come in.

Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.)

Today’s Supreme Court decision, which effectively blocks President Obama’s immigration executive actions, is a victory for our system of checks and balances. Time and again, the Obama Administration has attempted to circumvent Congress and push its agenda on the American people through executive fiat. While I am pleased that the Supreme Court has halted this unprecedented power grab for now, today’s decision underscores the importance of electing a president in November who will put a conservative on the Court to defend our Constitution.

Congressman Bradley Byrne (R-AL1)

Once again, the Obama Administration has suffered defeat due to their failure to follow the Constitution and the laws of our country. This decision is a major victory for the rule of law and our opposition to illegal executive amnesty. Instead of continuing to encourage amnesty, the executive branch should enforce the immigration laws already on the books and finally secure our borders.

Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange

This is a strong victory for the Constitution, the rule of law and for the conservative Attorneys General who took this important case all the way to the highest court in the land and prevailed… Today’s decision should send a strong signal to the President and his administration that they cannot continue to ignore the Constitution, Congress and the rule of law.

Last night, Secretary Clinton not only made clear that she would not take action to restore our immigration system, but that she would go even further than the Obama Administration – promising to not deport any illegal aliens except violent criminals or people planning terrorist attacks. This would exclude aliens charged or convicted for drug trafficking, bank or credit card fraud, forgery, theft, driving under the influence, and countless other criminal offenses.

The logic underlying Secretary Clinton’s position is dumbfounding, and assumes that it is better to wait until after an American life is lost, or to wait until a bomb is ready to go off, to attempt to take any enforcement action against those who have violated our immigration laws.

And there is no daylight between her position and that of Senator Sanders. What’s more, their strident support for granting executive amnesty beyond that which even President Obama was willing to do will only further depress the wages and employment prospects of U.S. workers – the very workers who they claim to support. And the morale of federal law enforcement officers will be lowered even further.

The immigration platforms of both Democratic candidates for President of the United States are as dangerous to our communities as they are detrimental to the national interest. Over the last eight years, President Obama has decimated the enforcement of our immigration laws, granted executive amnesty, and distorted our lawful immigration channels to such a point that they bear little to no resemblance to the laws duly passed by Congress.

Recent hearings in the Senate have found that the Obama Administration is deporting the fewest number of criminal aliens from the interior of our country in years; that it has only deported 3 to 4 percent of the illegal alien juveniles who have crossed our southern border in the last two and a half years; and, that nearly half a million aliens overstayed their visas – and face virtually no chance of being deported – in the last fiscal year alone. Yet for Secretary Clinton and Senator Sanders, the Obama Administration’s near obliteration of our immigration system does not go far enough.

Thus, the policies of Secretary Clinton and Senator Sanders declare that all who succeed in entering the country illegally, and all who overstay their visas, will be permitted to remain in the United States for as long as they see fit.

For far too long, the American people have been crying out for a lawful system of immigration – one that serves their interests. One that puts as the highest priority their safety, their jobs, their wages, their schools, and their hospitals.

Unfortunately, the American people can only be assured of this: the immigration platforms of Secretary Clinton and Senator Sanders would ensure continued lawlessness, the further erosion of national sovereignty, the depression of wages, the diminution of job prospects, and a continued fundamental transformation of the United States of America.

U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) serves on four Senate committees: Armed Services, Budget, Environment and Public Works, and Judiciary, where he is Chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration and The National Interest.

MONTGOMERY, Ala. — A panel of 5th Circuit Court of Appeals Judges Monday evening upheld the blocking of a key component of President Obama’s executive actions on amnesty, which would have granted protection from deportation to approximately 5 million illegal immigrants. Alabama joined 25 other states in filing the lawsuit.

The move by the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upholds a ruling made in February of this year by U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen of Texas after an appeal was made by the White House.

“The ruling is a resounding victory for the rule of law in America,” said Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange (R) in a press release Tuesday morning.  “The federal appeals court upheld the argument advanced by Texas, Alabama and 24 other states that President Obama has no legal authority to unilaterally grant amnesty to nearly five million undocumented aliens without the consent of Congress or the review of the states.  This is precisely what the president has done in this case and his actions have been halted by the courts.”

The injunction specifically halts the program Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA), because the President bypassed lawfully-required rules and procedures to implement the amnesty program.

“At its core, this case is about the Secretary’s decision to change the immigration classification of millions of illegal aliens on a class-wide basis,” the federal court wrote. “The states properly maintain that DAPA’s grant of lawful presence and accompanying eligibility for benefits is a substantive rule that must go through notice and comment, before it imposes substantial costs on them, and that DAPA is substantively contrary to law.”

The White House has yet to officially comment on the decision, but administration officials speaking off the record with The Washington Post expressed concern that the upheld ruling, which is expected to be appealed to the Supreme Court, means the issue won’t be decided before Obama leaves office in 2017.

Attorney General Strange and the top law enforcement officers of the other states involved in the challenge are celebrating the ruling as a victory for the rule of law.

“Alabama and the 25 other states took president Obama at his word when he challenged Congress to sue him if it did not like his attempts to circumvent the limits on his executive authority,” said Attorney General Strange.  “The states took the president to court and have succeeded in stopping his usurpation of the law.  No one, not even the president, is above the law.”

Like this article? Hate it? Follow me and let me know how you feel on Twitter!

— Elizabeth BeShears (@LizEBeesh) January 21, 2015

WASHINGTON — Senators Jeff Sessions (R-AL) and Ben Sasse (R-NE) penned a letter to Social Security Administration Commissioner Carolyn Colvin requesting details on exactly how many illegal immigrants have received Social Security numbers (SSNs) resulting from the President’s executive actions on immigration over the last three years.

“It is our understanding that through January 8, 2013, the Social Security Administration had granted approximately 90,000 Social Security Numbers (SSNs) to noncitizens who were granted deferred action pursuant to the President’s ‘Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals’ (DACA) program,” the letter reads.

Approximately 600,000 younger illegal immigrants applied for DACA protections, which allowed those individuals a protected legal status.

Senators Sessions and Sasse asked how many individuals applied for, and received SSNs as a result of both DACA and the Obama administration’s more recent “executive amnesty” actions which effectively would grant legal status to the parents of DACA immigrants, as well as anyone who has been in the United States since at least 2010.

Both programs are currently stalled, as a federal judge in Texas found the President’s actions were unconstitutional. The White House has vowed to fight for the program all the way to the Supreme Court.

The letter concludes by asking Commissioner Colvin for information on how many illegal immigrants have “applied for and received benefits under either the Social Security Disability Insurance program or the Supplemental Security Income program.”

Senator Sasse is sponsoring a bill which would prohibit Social Security Numbers for amnestied illegal immigrants. The bill, cosponsored by Senator Sessions, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest, would “prevent billions of dollars in being transferred annually from U.S. workers to illegal workers in the form of low-income tax credit support payments.”

Like this article? Hate it? Follow me and let me know how you feel on Twitter!

— Elizabeth BeShears (@LizEBeesh) January 21, 2015

WASHINGTON — A recent survey by The Polling Company, a Washington, D.C.-based public opinion research firm, found that only 11% of the United States’ booming hispanic population believe more immigrants should be allowed in the country if U.S. companies have trouble finding workers.

The poll of 1,008 U.S. adults lends support to Sen. Jeff Sessions’ (R-Ala.) contention that supporting amnesty is not only incompatible with the rule of law, it is not necessary to win the Hispanic vote.

Nationwide, the survey found that only 1% of Americans believe illegal immigrants should get preference for newly-created jobs, and just 8% said more immigrants should be allowed into the country to fill jobs. 75% said they believe companies finding it difficult to fill positions should raise wages and improve working conditions to attract American workers.

Additionally, the poll reveals that black Americans are the racial demographic most opposed to recruiting illegal immigrants to fill American jobs, further suggesting that opposition to amnesty could actually help Republicans expand their support in traditionally Democratic strongholds, rather than further erode it, as some have suggested.

“The President remains wedded to a lawless policy that serves only the interest of an international elite while reducing jobs and benefits for everyday Americans,” Sen. Sessions said recently. “All net employment gains since the recession in 2007 have gone to foreign workers, and yet the President has violated federal law in order to provide work permits to 5 million illegal immigrants—allowing them to take any of the few good jobs that exist… Congress must use every tool at its disposal to stop this unlawful edict, end the immigration lawlessness, and reverse our slide towards congressional irrelevance.”

Here’s how the results of the survey broke down demographically.

Last week, Yellowhammer CEO Cliff Sims wrote an article outlining the strong likelihood that the majority of the U.S. population will be made up of racial minorities by 2044, due primarily to the influx of Hispanic immigrants coming across the Southern border.

But in spite of the Hispanic population being the demographic that is projected to grow the fastest in the coming years, there does not seem to have been any official ALGOP efforts to reach out to them. In their defense, the Alabama Democratic Party is such a disaster its hard for the state GOP to muster a sense of urgency.

One obstacle for Republicans may be that many pundits insist that a platform of amnesty is the only way to reach the growing Hispanic population. But the truth is, the GOP’s message of free markets and family values resonates well with a group of hard-working individuals known for their entrepreneurial spirit and deeply held religious beliefs.

But considering Republican congressional leadership’s recent decision to fund President Obama’s executive actions on illegal immigration, this poll appears to have fallen on deaf ears.

Like this article? Hate it? Follow me and let me know how you feel on Twitter!

— Elizabeth BeShears (@LizEBeesh) January 21, 2015

WASHINGTON — Republican members of Alabama’s congressional delegation on Tuesday spoke out against the US House’s vote to approve funding for the Department of Homeland Security through the remainder of the fiscal year—including funding for President Obama’s executive immigration program.

The final tally was 257-167, including GOP House leadership and 75 other Republican House members joining every Democrat—including Alabama’s Terri Sewell—to approve the measure.

“This is about more than just immigration,” said Congressman Bradley Byrne (R-AL1). “This is about the rule of law and standing up for our Constitution. We must use all the tools at our disposal to fight back against President Obama’s illegal executive amnesty.”

“We cannot sit idly by while the President uproots our system of checks and balances. I hope and truly believe the Judicial Branch will stand with the House of Representatives and find President Obama’s executive action to be unconstitutional. In the meantime, I will continue to stand up for our Constitution every day in Congress.”

Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) echoed Rep. Byrne’s sentiments in a statement saying, “The will of the American people cannot be forever denied. Republicans will have to come to realize that it falls on their shoulders to give voice to the just demands of the American people for a lawful system of immigration that serves their interests, defends their jobs, protects their security.”

Representative Martha Roby (R-AL2) also expressed her displeasure with the bill passed by the House Tuesday.

“I’m beyond disappointed,” Rep. Roby said. “Of course what the Senate Democrats did to block this bill was ridiculous and shameful. When the House and Senate produce variations of the same bill, a conference committee is formed by delegates from both chambers who meet and work out the differences. Unfortunately, Senate Democrats refused, putting the president’s ill-advised amnesty plans above the well-being of the American people and before the rule of law.”

Representative Mo Brooks (R-AL5) said in his statement that he is pleased DHS is funded for the remainder of the year, but is concerned about the precedent Congress’s action sets.

“It is rare when all three branches of the federal government agree,” Rep. Brooks said. “A majority in the Senate and House have declared that Barack Obama’s executive amnesty for illegal aliens is unlawful and unconstitutional. President Obama himself has publicly admitted at least 22 times that his executive amnesty is illegal and unconstitutional. Federal judges in both Texas and Pennsylvania have found that Barack Obama’s executive amnesty conduct is illegal and unconstitutional.”

Newly-elected Congressman Gary Palmer (R-AL6) also released a statement on Tuesday’s vote.

“I have no higher priority as a member of Congress than restoring Constitutional governance,” Rep. Palmer said. “When it comes to funding DHS, the focus has been on immigration, but that is really not the issue. The real issue is the separation of powers set up by our Constitution. I believe the President, the Congress and the Courts should have the power given to them by the Constitution but not one power more.”

“Congress can and should pass legislation to secure our borders and fix our immigration system, but nothing in the law justifies unilateral action by the executive. The Constitution forbids the executive from unilaterally making law, and that is precisely what the President is attempting to do. I have consistently opposed measures that would legitimize President Obama’s unlawful executive action and I am deeply disappointed that this bill has passed. ”

This story will be updated as more comments come in.

WASHINGTON — Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest, issued a statement Tuesday condemning the GOP Senate leadership’s retreat in the effort to defund President Obama’s executive actions on illegal immigration.

“Essential to any sovereign nation is the enforcement of its borders, the application of uniform rules for entry and exit, and the delivery of consequences for individuals who violate our laws,” Sen. Sessions said in his statement. “President Obama has nullified those laws, rules, and borders, and replaced those consequences with rewards.”

The House joined the Senate Tuesday afternoon in approving funding for the Department of Homeland Security through the remainder of the fiscal year—including funding for President Obama’s executive immigration program. 75 GOP members of the House joined with every Democrat member to approve the measure.

Senator Sessions, along with several other Republicans who stood firm against the President’s actions, insist the move sets a precedent of executive power trumping Constitutional responsibilities specifically given to Congress. Some members of Congress are confident the court system will ultimately find the President’s actions unconstitutional, but the White House has signaled it will make a case for their legality, all the way to the Supreme Court.

Republican congressional leadership, however, has signaled their desire to move on to other issues.

“[We cannot] allow the President to dismantle the constitutional powers of Congress,” Sen. Sessions said, “ceding our status as a coequal branch, on the hope the Judiciary intervenes to restore some fraction of that lost authority. When it comes to defending our sovereignty there is no ‘moving on.’ Now is not the time for recrimination; now is the time for renewed determination.”

Senator Sessions has long been among the most vocal opponents of the President’s immigration plan. Last week conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh hailed the Senator for being one of the only Republicans not “scared to death” to speak out, even in the face of media scrutiny.

“The will of the American people cannot be forever denied,” said Sessions. “Republicans will have to come to realize that it falls on their shoulders to give voice to the just demands of the American people for a lawful system of immigration that serves their interests, defends their jobs, protects their security.”

“What motivates and excites a small group of open-borders billionaires has no connection to the hearts and lives of the working people of this country,” Sen. Sessions concluded. “They have been silenced for too long. Those who think this fight is over could not be more mistaken; it is only beginning. When the power of the American people is finally leveraged, people will be astonished by the results.”

Like this article? Hate it? Follow me and let me know how you feel on Twitter!

— Elizabeth BeShears (@LizEBeesh) January 21, 2015

“While I support providing critical funding for agencies that protect our national security,” Sen. Shelby said in a press release Friday, “I opposed the DHS appropriations bill because it does not address the President’s unconstitutional executive amnesty.”

Senate Democrats have blocked the House-passed DHS funding for several weeks, prompting GOP Senate leadership to propose funding of the agency—including President Obama’s executive program—through the end of the year, while also introducing a separate measure that would strip the program of money.

Senate Democrats are now filibustering the amnesty-stopping bill.

In his statement, Sen. Shelby voiced concerns echoed by many conservatives that giving Obama’s program approval is tantamount to giving the President permission to disregard the separation of powers enumerated in the Constitution.

“President Obama has himself admitted 22 times that he does not have the authority to unilaterally grant amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants currently in our country,” Sen. Shelby said. “However, Democrats repeatedly blocked the Senate from moving forward on the House-passed DHS bill that would prevent federal funds from being used to implement the President’s unlawful action. I opposed today’s bill because I do not believe that we should allow this blatant abuse of power to continue. I remain committed to fighting against executive amnesty.”

Meanwhile, on the House side, a vote was made to grant a 3-week extension to DHS funding, averting a partial shutdown of the agency, and giving members more time to come to a compromise.

Though it is a much shorter timeframe than the one passed by the Senate Friday, the #3 Senate Democrat, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) signaled Friday that his Caucus would not filibuster the House’s extension.

The shorter extension would need to be on President Obama’s desk this evening to avoid the partial shutdown of DHS.

Like this article? Hate it? Follow me and let me know how you feel on Twitter!

— Elizabeth BeShears (@LizEBeesh) January 21, 2015

Rush Limbaugh said on Wednesday he believes Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) may be the only Republican in the Senate who is not scared of Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and the liberal media narrative that a partial shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) would be Republicans’ fault.

After promising to roll back President Obama’s executive actions on illegal immigration, Senate Republicans have failed in multiple attempts to pass a bill funding DHS without providing resources to implement the president’s program of granting legal status to several million immigrants who entered the country illegally.

As a result, Republican leadership has proposed passing a bill funding both, then coming behind that with a second bill defunding the President’s “executive amnesty.” Opponents of the plan have pointed out that there would be little chance of passing the second bill after giving up any leverage they currently have.

“Jeff Sessions is the lone voice in the Senate, and I’m not trying to be disrespectful of other Republicans in the Senate, but he has spoken up loudly and consistently, fearlessly about the lawlessness of this Regime, and he continues to be the only one that does,” said Limbaugh. “There may be other Republican senators in there who agree with him to a degree or another, but they haven’t been nearly as up front and present as Sessions.”

To illustrate his point, Limbaugh pulled two soundbites of Sessions speaking on the Senate floor this week.

In the first clip, Sessions criticized some of his Republican colleagues for being scared of being blamed for a partial DHS shutdown, which would happen if a funding bill is not passed by Friday.

Sessions: There are some, even on the Republican side, that say, “Oh, gosh, you know, the president will blame us even if it’s not our fault, and we might as well cave in and give him what he wants.” Well, what he wants is something he can’t be given. What he wants is Congress to capitulate and erode its powers and responsibility. He wants Congress to violate its duty to fund something that is illegal and contrary to Congress’ wishes.

In the second clip, which Rush said contained a “key element” explaining what is happening, Sessions said he believes it is unwise for Republicans to, as Limbaugh put it, “hide behind” a recent federal judge’s ruling that put the president’s executive actions on hold. The Alabama senator contends that it is impossible to know what will happen in the appeals process, and therefore Congress should do its “duty” and defund what they believe to be an illegal use of executive power.

Sessions: We’ve been hearing it said that, well, we can fully fund Homeland Security without any restrictions, allowing the president to do this because the courts stopped (his executive actions). We don’t know what the courts are going to do, and this Congress has its duty, and this Congress has a duty to fund only things that it believes are appropriate and lawful, and so Congress shouldn’t fund it on that basis, period.

Limbaugh closed the segment by bemoaning the fact that more Republicans have not backed Sessions’ approach throughout the immigration fights of the last several months.

“They’re just scared to death of a shutdown,” Limbaugh said. “They’re just scared to death.”

Like this article? Follow me on Twitter and let me know what you think.

— Cliff Sims (@Cliff_Sims) December 3, 2014

WASHINGTON — Four members of Alabama’s congressional delegation have signed a letter to House leadership asking them to hold strong against pressure from the White House and Senate to pass a DHS reauthorization bill funding President Obama’s executive actions on illegal immigration.

“We write you today to thank you for standing firm and forcing the Senate to act on a Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill that stops President Obama’s unlawful executive actions on immigration,” the letter reads. “The House of Representatives continues to reflect the will and sentiment of the majority of Americans by combatting the President’s executive overreach.”

Alabama congressmen Mo Brooks (R-AL4), Bradley Byrne (R-AL1), Gary Palmer (R-AL6), and Martha Roby (R-AL2) joined with at least 16 other members to sign the letter addressed to House Speaker John Boehner, Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, and Majority Whip Steve Scalise.

The letter is particularly timely as it reaches House leadership on the same day Senate leadership announced a compromise with Senate Democrats that would allow the Senate to vote on a bill funding DHS, along with the disputed executive amnesty provisions, until September 30th.

Though a few House Republicans have signaled they would be willing to vote for such a compromise, the congressmen who signed the letter are asking their leadership to stand strong.

Today, Rep. Brooks reportedly told The Hill “there’s no way on God’s green earth” he would vote for a bill funding amnesty.

Other members are confident the courts will sort it out, ultimately ruling in their favor. The Federal District court ruling that declared Obama’s executive actions illegal could take months to go through the appeals process. The White House has said they are willing to defend the President’s amnesty program all the way to the Supreme Court.

“The Federal District Court’s concerns with the President’s executive actions on immigration are very encouraging,” the letter says. “However, we must remember that these decisions are subject to review by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court of the United States, and the ultimate fate of the President’s executive action remains in question. For this reason, the Legislative Branch has a responsibility to use its exclusive and constitutionally-granted authority to prevent the President’s unlawful usurpation of power, without waiting for a final interpretation from the Judicial Branch. District Court rulings can be overturned, but the power of the purse is absolute.”

Republicans in Alabama’s Congressional delegation have all been outspoken opponents of President Obama’s plan, not only because it will shield up to 5 million illegal immigrants from deportation, but because it also sets a precedent for usurpation of Congressional and constitutional power.

“Regardless of how we may feel about immigration issues generally,” the letter concludes, “the issue at hand is the preservation of the separation of powers and the preservation of the Constitution. Now is the time to stand firm against these unlawful executive actions.”

Like this article? Hate it? Follow me and let me know how you feel on Twitter!

— Elizabeth BeShears (@LizEBeesh) January 21, 2015

Over the past several weeks, Senate Democrats have blocked debate on the Department of Homeland Security funding bill that passed the House earlier this year. This legislation provides critical funding for agencies that protect our national security while also defunding the President’s executive amnesty granted to millions of individuals who have broken our nation’s immigration laws.

Just this week, a federal judge in Texas issued a preliminary injunction against the Administration’s executive overreach. President Obama has himself acknowledged that he does not have the authority to grant amnesty to the millions of illegal immigrants currently in our country. In fact, he has admitted as much 22 times since he took office. However, instead of allowing for debate and a vote on legislation that would right a wrong by preventing federal funds from being used to implement the President’s executive action, Democrats – many of whom also admit that the President legally cannot unilaterally change the law – continue to defend this blatant abuse of power.

It is important that we not forget that President Obama waited to announce his unconstitutional plan until after the midterm election. While the American people did not have the opportunity to hold him and those who support his unlawful policy accountable at the ballot box, Republicans will not stand idly by and allow for this deliberate abuse of power to continue.

Our nation was founded on a system of checks and balances, and I believe that action to circumvent the constitutional process and Congress should not be tolerated. Not only has the Administration circumvented Congress and the American people through unilateral executive amnesty, but the President has also ignored existing immigration laws.

The American people expect their leaders to lead – not to undermine our laws, encourage more illegal immigration, and place a further burden on the American taxpayer. Border security, enforcement, and removal – not amnesty – must be our response to our nation’s illegal immigration problem.

As we continue this important debate, I remain committed to restoring our system of checks and balances and putting an end to executive amnesty. It is time for Senate Democrats to end their obstruction and allow us to move forward on a plan that reflects the will of the American people.

Senator Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) is the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. He also serves on the Appropriations Committee and the Committee on Rules and Administration.

MONTGOMERY, Ala. — In a ruling late Monday night, U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen of Texas halted the implementation President Obama’s executive orders on immigration. Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange, US Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL), Congressman Gary Palmer (R-AL6) and Congressman Robert Aderholt (R-AL4) welcomed the ruling.

“Today’s ruling by U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen of Texas underscores that America was founded upon the rule of law and President Obama is bound to abide by the constitutional limits of his authority,” Attorney General Strange said in a press release Wednesday.

“The court’s ruling is yet further affirmation that the President’s action – as the President himself admitted many times – is illegal,” Senator Sessions added. “President Obama has suspended some 500 pages of existing immigration law passed by the representatives of the American people, and replaced it with the very measures those representatives have repeatedly rejected. The President’s action violates our laws, our Constitution, and the centuries of legal heritage that yielded our Republic.”

“This ruling is the first step in restoring constitutional governance by respecting and upholding the separation of powers,” Rep. Palmer said in his press release. “The ruling should come as no surprise to the Obama Administration or members of Congress given the clear lack of constitutional authority to support President Obama’s executive order.”

“The judge’s decision merely reaffirms what the president has said on almost two dozen occasions when he said that he does not have the constitutional authority to grant defacto amnesty to broad categories of illegal immigrants,” said Congressman Aderholt. “While some may try to paint it as something else, Judge Hanen’s decision simply agrees with the President’s original position.”

Alabama has joined Texas and 24 other states in a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the President’s executive actions granting de facto amnesty to millions of immigrants in the country illegally.

The White House shot back at judge Hanen’s ruling, saying “The district court’s decision wrongly prevents these lawful, commonsense policies from taking effect. The Supreme Court and Congress have made clear that the federal government can set priorities in enforcing our immigration laws — which is exactly what the President did when he announced commonsense policies to help fix our broken immigration system.”

The Department of Justice has indicated that it will appeal the district judge’s decision.

Judge Hanen ruled the President’s executive order goes beyond the “prosecutorial discretion” afforded the office because it bestows benefits on illegal immigrants, instead of simply refusing to enforce the country’s existing laws.

Proponents of the President’s immigration order were quick to downplay the ruling, calling it nothing more than a “speed bump.”

“We’ve hit a speed bump on the road to the implementation of these programs, but folks should stay the course, get their documents ready, prepare to apply, because the programs will open their doors eventually,” Karen Tumlin, Managing Attorney of the National Immigration Law Center said.

The ruling comes as the US Senate struggles to pass appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that would leave out funding for President Obama’s executive amnesty program over the filibustering of Senate Democrats.

In his press release Tuesday, Sen. Sessions reminded those blocking the passage of DHS funding that, “This ruling is not an escape hatch for Democrat lawmakers who have been filibustering the House bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security and block illegal amnesty. Congress cannot fund the very action which dissolves Congress’ lawmaking powers. Rather, today’s ruling should furnish our colleagues with yet one more reason to end their filibuster. ”

Rep. Palmer seconded Sessions’ call to action. “Unless the Democrats in the Senate wish to ignore the decision of the court, they should end their filibuster and allow the DHS funding bill to go to the Senate floor. The House-passed DHS funding bill is consistent with the federal judge’s order and provides the funding necessary for ensuring that DHS can carry out its mission without undue and unnecessary interruption.”

Like this article? Hate it? Follow me and let me know how you feel on Twitter!

— Elizabeth BeShears (@LizEBeesh) January 21, 2015

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9PpZ_IvMOc

WASHINGTON — Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) shot back at Dick Durbin (D-IL) Thursday for saying Republicans are threatening national security.

He’d “been trying to understand what is holding up funding for the Department of Homeland Security,” Durbin said earlier in the day.

“Have you ever heard of a filibuster?” Sessions asked Durbin during remarks on the Senate floor Thursday morning. “What about the filibuster you’re leading to block the bill that funds Homeland Security? I mean, how much more obvious can the answer be to what’s holding up funding for the Department of Homeland Security?… You and your team of filibusterers. That’s what it is. There is no doubt about that. We need to get this straight.”

The bill funding DHS has been held up in the Senate for weeks, where Senate Dems are filibustering even the possibility of a vote unless the GOP concedes to also fund Obama’s executive amnesty.

Sessions told Durbin that, despite the media and Democratic party’s best efforts to place blame on the shoulders of the GOP, “the whole world knows who is blocking the bill that funds Homeland Security.”

The illegal immigrants given amnesty by Obama’s executive actions could cost taxpayers upward of trillions of dollars, according to some estimates.

Several of Alabama’s Congressional delegates have spoken out on the need to pass DHS funding before the February 27th deadline, though they may disagree on how.

On Wednesday Congressman Mo Brooks (R-AL5) called on the Senate to “go nuclear” to pass the funding bill.

“The Senate leadership claims they lack the 60 votes to overcome a Democrat filibuster and pass the House’s Homeland Security funding bill,” Rep. Brooks said. “Yet a mere majority of the Republican Senate has the power overcome Democrat Senator obstructionism. Just as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and the Democrat Senate majority in 2013 used the ‘nuclear option’ to change Senate rules and cut off filibusters on presidential appointees, now-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and the Republican majority has the power to exercise the ‘nuclear option’ and eliminate filibusters for any bill that funds the federal government.”

Senator Sessions disagrees with the use of the “nuclear option,” saying it’s important to abide by long-held Senate rules.

“The only thing standing in the way of this bill is the Senate Democrats who will not allow the bill to go forward,” Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-AL4) said in a press conference Thursday.

Congress is expected to recess Friday for a week long Presidents Day break. When they return to Washington, they will only have a week before DHS’s current funding dries up, threatening a shutdown of the agency.

Like this article? Hate it? Follow me and let me know how you feel on Twitter!

— Elizabeth BeShears (@LizEBeesh) January 21, 2015

“Are you afraid to say to the President of the United States, ‘we don’t agree with this and we’re not going to fund this?’” Sessions asked rhetorically. “Is that the world we’re in? Are we hiding under our desks that the President may go on television and attack us because we don’t agree with his ideas? Surely not.”

The Senate is expected to consider legislation from the House this week that would fund the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) without appropriating money to Obama’s executive actions on immigration.

Democrats, however, want to pass what they’re calling a “clean” bill funding DHS, including the president’s immigration orders, a push that Sen. Sessions called “an affront to constitutional order.”

“This bill will not deny a penny of funding,” Sessions said. “It will not deny any funding for any program, activity or action that’s authorized by law. It does not deny funding for any of those programs that are actually authorized by the laws of the United States.”

Thursday evening President Obama told a group of House Democrats he would “happily” veto any bill he deemed would worsen the nation’s immigration policy.

While on the Senate floor, Sen. Sessions also read aloud the statements of several Democratic lawmarkers who had expressed concern about Obama’s executive actions.

“In fact it is sort of remarkable that this is a bipartisan position that the president has overreached,” Sessions said.

“So I would say, colleagues, why, why would any senator, Democrat or Republican, when the very integrity and the constitutional powers that have been given to Congress are eroded in a dramatic way by the president of the United States, why would we not want to assert congressional authority?”

Sessions pledged in early January after being appointed Chairman of the Immigration Subcommittee that he would be a voice for those who have been ignored during the immigration debate in recent years.

“This subcommittee will give voice to those whose voice has been shut out: the voice of the dedicated immigration officers who have been blocked from doing their jobs; the voice of the working families whose wages have been reduced by years of record immigration; the voice of the American IT workers who are being replaced with guest workers; the voice of the parents who are worried about their schools and hospitals; and the voice of all Americans who believe we must have a lawful system of immigration they can be proud of and that puts their interests first,” said Sessions.

“Our first urgent task in this regard is for the Senate GOP to rally the nation behind an effort to halt the President’s unlawful amnesty. Additionally, there is a great deal of misinformation about what actions must actually be taken to create a sound immigration system. Our subcommittee will seek to serve all members, and the public, as a hub for the facts, data, statistics, and evidence they can rely upon for honest information. I became a prosecutor believing that there is a truth, and that a proper analysis of the facts will lead us to that truth. The challenge is large but the task is just, and rests on the solid moral foundation of our citizens’ legitimate demands. I look forward to working with my colleagues towards this end.”

http://youtu.be/FbjsvEjXLgo
(Video above: Sen. Jeff Sessions questions AG nominee Loretta Lynch during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing)

“Who has more right to a job in this country: a lawful immigrant who’s here, a green card holder, or a citizen, or a person who entered the country unlawfully?”

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) on Wednesday posed that simple question to President Obama’s Attorney General Nominee Loretta Lynch during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing to consider her nomination. It was an expected line of questioning from Sessions, who said last year that the Senate should reject any proposed replacement for current AG Eric Holder who supports the President’s immigration policies.

But even if the question was predictable, the answer was not.

“Well Senator, I believe the right and obligation to work is shared by everyone in this country, regardless of how they came here,” Lynch calmly replied.

In a single sentence, Lynch, by freely admitting she believes illegal immigrants have just as much of a right to American jobs as do U.S. Citizens, made immigration the central issue of her nomination. That, in turn, increases Sessions’ profile during the process.

Shortly after the hearing concluded, Sessions came out hard against Lynch’s nomination.

Unfortunately, when asked today whether she found the President’s actions to be ‘legal and constitutional,’ Ms. Lynch said that she did. I therefore am unable to support her nomination.

My concerns are furthered by Ms. Lynch’s unambiguous declaration that ‘the right and the obligation to work is one that’s shared by everyone in this country regardless of how they came here…

Such a notion of civil rights, as Civil Rights Commission Member Peter Kirsanow articulated, is “incoherent and ahistorical.” Essential to civil rights is the equal and uniform application of the laws. When the President capriciously suspends those laws and provides benefits to people here unlawfully, he injures the rights of lawful workers—denying them the protections Congress passed to secure their jobs and wages.

We are at a dangerous moment. Professor Jonathan Turley described it as a “constitutional tipping point.” For the Senate to approve this nomination would bring us another step closer to the point’s edge.

Sessions appeared on Fox News Wednesday night and added that he believes there is “some chance” that Lynch will not be confirmed, which is not abnormal for AG nominees.

According to an analysis by FiveThirtyEight, “Attorney general nominees are by far the most likely to face serious resistance” when compared to other presidential appointments that require senate confirmation.

Sessions said that he is specifically looking for a nominee who adheres to the rule of law, particularly when it comes to the nation’s borders.

“We need someone at the Department of Justice who will restore fidelity to our national laws and boundaries,” he said. “No Senator should vote to confirm anyone to this position who does not firmly reject the President’s planned executive amnesty—or any other scheme to circumvent our nation’s immigration laws—and who does not pledge to serve the laws and people of the United States.”

Like this article? Follow me on Twitter and let me know what you think.

— Cliff Sims (@Cliff_Sims) December 3, 2014

WASHINGTON — The U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday passed a bill funding the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) but overturning President Obama’s executive actions on immigration.

On a 236-191 vote, the House provided $39.7 billion in funding for the Department of Homeland Security for the remainder of the fiscal year. Alabama’s six Republican congressmen supported the measure, while the delegation’s lone Democrat opposed.

Two key anti-amnesty amendments attached to the DHS bill were crafted by Alabama congressmen.

“The amendment that I sponsored is an important first step of this new Congress,” said Rep Robert Aderholt (R-AL4). “Simply put, the language defunds what has become known as the President’s amnesty orders, and, among other things, restores the Secure Communities program. The President’s unauthorized program known as deferred action is also terminated — no new applicants are allowed, and holders of a current deferral cannot get those renewed when they expire. Finally, the bill has language making it illegal for the President to use revenue from visa fees to fund his unconstitutional amnesty orders.”

Rep. Martha Roby added an amendment ensuring illegal immigrants convicted of any sex crimes, child abuse or domestic violence are prioritized for deportation by authorities.

“You want a great example of why the president acting unilaterally to circumvent Congress is a bad idea?” Roby asked. “Right now, illegal immigrants convicted of child abuse, sexual offenders and domestic abusers are not a top priority for deportation in this country. This amendment simply makes them a priority for deportation.”

The action now moves to the Senate, where the 54 Republicans will have to rally 6 Democrats to their cause in order to meet the 60-vote threshold needed to overcome a Democratic filibuster.

“Senator Jeff Sessions has been of tremendous help throughout the process,” said Aderholt. “No one has worked harder on this issue than Jeff, and his efforts have been invaluable. Senator Sessions has his work cut out for him in the Senate, but it has been my intent all along for the House to provide him with a good, conservative bill to work from.”

Like this article? Follow me on Twitter and let me know what you think.

— Cliff Sims (@Cliff_Sims) December 3, 2014

WASHINGTON — With the U.S. House poised to vote on a plan to block President Obama’s executive actions on immigration, which granted de facto amnesty to roughly 5 million illegal immigrants, two Alabama Republicans have been thrust into the spotlight.

While most of the country was watching the college football National Championship game, the House Rules Committee, the panel that decides which bills come to the floor for consideration, voted 7-3 along Party lines to attach five amendments aimed at the President’s “executive amnesty” to a larger bill funding the Department of Homeland Security. Two of those amendments are being sponsored (one each) by Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-AL4) and Rep. Martha Roby (R-AL2).

Aderholt’s amendment prevents any funds from being used to carry out President Obama’s executive actions on immigration and blocks any similar orders from being issued in the future. Additionally, it seeks to stop the so called “prosecutorial discretion” the Obama Administration has used to stop enforcing certain immigration laws and defunds illegal aliens’ ability to receive any Federal benefits.

“The programs we are defunding, regardless of their form, have no statutory or constitutional basis,” Aderholt said in his remarks to the committee, explaining the final piece of his amendment.

Roby’s amendment ensures that sex offenders and domestic violence perpetrators are priorities for removal by immigration enforcement.

The other amendments target various portions of the administration’s vast web of immigration policies, most notably President Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. DACA granted administrative ‘legal’ status and work authorization to many illegal immigrants, leading central Americans to flock across the border illegally in hopes of being granted amnesty through executive action.

The House is expected to vote on the package as soon as Tuesday. The GOP-controlled Senate will then have to act, but due to the rules of the body, 54 Republicans will have to attempt to reach a 60-vote threshold to overcome a virtually guaranteed Democratic filibuster. President Obama has also threatened a veto, so even in the event that a bill does pass, the Senate would then need 67 votes and the House 290 votes to override.

Like this article? Follow me on Twitter and let me know what you think.

— Cliff Sims (@Cliff_Sims) December 3, 2014

WASHINGTON, Ala. — Alabama congressmen Martha Roby (R-AL2) and Mo Brooks (R-AL5) have now joined congressman Robert Aderholt (R-AL4) in filing bills aimed at rolling back President Obama’s immigration executive orders that gave de facto amnesty to millions of illegal aliens.

In December, prior to Republicans taking control of the Senate, Congress passed the so called “CRomnibus,” funding the government through September, with the exception of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which it only funded through Feb. 27.

In spite of opposition from staunch conservatives, backers of the bill said it put Republicans in a position to roll back the President’s immigration orders by waiting until the GOP assumed control of the Senate.

The three Alabama Republicans now hope to get their language attached to a funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security, which could be taken up as soon as next week.

Aderholt’s bill is the most comprehensive of the three, coming in at over thirty pages, while Roby’s and Brooks’ bills are just a couple of pages long and more limited in scope.

A spokesperson for Roby said he did not believe Roby’s bill and Aderholt’s bill are competing with each other.

“To the contrary, I think it says a lot that two Appropriations committee members from Alabama both independently of each other filed defund immigration bills right off the bat,” he said. “Simply put, this bill seeks to present model language that can be used to block President Obama’s unilateral executive actions on immigration by specifically prohibiting federal funding from being used to implement them.”

The challenge for each of the Alabama members carrying bills will be to get their language attached to the larger appropriations bill funding the Department of Homeland Security.

Aderholt was successful last summer in pulling off a similar maneuver on a border security bill. His staff worked through the Christmas holidays crafting the language for the current bill and are now rallying support behind the scenes.

Roby has a close relationship with House Leadership and has also already been pushing to have her language attached to the larger bill.

“I have spoken directly to the Majority Leader to impress upon our leadership that our Conference must be serious about addressing executive amnesty head on in a straightforward and meaningful way,” she said. “I know there will be a broad and dynamic debate about how to address executive amnesty, but let’s start the conversation right here. I believe this language gives us a great starting point for blocking executive amnesty by using the ‘power of the purse,’ so let’s go from here.”

Brooks’ bill, which has the backing of several staunchly conservative groups and and has already garnered 11 co-sponsors, focuses on fighting the President’s executive authority in the courts.

“The federal courts are best suited to determine if President Obama is exceeding his authority, and, if so, how to reverse it,” he said.

Like this article? Follow me on Twitter and let me know what you think.

— Cliff Sims (@Cliff_Sims) December 3, 2014

WASHINGTON — Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-AL4) will introduced legislation Wednesday that takes direct aim at President Obama’s executive orders on immigration. The Alabama congressman plans to defund the President’s immigration orders by attaching his bill to funding for the Department of Homeland Security, taking a major step toward delivering on a promise Republicans made late last year.

In December, prior to Republicans taking control of the Senate, Congress passed the so called “CRomnibus,” funding the government through September, with the exception of the Department of Homeland Security, which it only funded through Feb. 27.

In spite of opposition from staunch conservatives, backers of the bill said it put Republicans in a position to roll back the President’s immigration orders by waiting until the GOP assumed control of the Senate.

Aderholt’s bill seeks to deliver on Republicans’ promise, and will likely garner the support of hardline conservatives.

One of the challenges Republicans have faced in defunding the President’s executive orders is that he could simply reword and re-issue them under a different name.

Aderholt’s bill would not only defund the current orders, but would also take away the President’s ability to issue similar orders moving forward.

“I am introducing legislation today that not only defunds President Obama’s Executive Amnesty orders but also removes his discretion in granting the benefits that goes along with them,” Aderholt told Yellowhammer on Tuesday. “My goal was to draft a conservative bill that addresses the executive amnesty issue and that is what we have done.”

The most notable part of Aderholt’s bill blocks the benefits granted to illegal immigrants in the President’s executive actions, denying, for example, the issuance of green cards and work permits.

It also creates penalties for lack of enforcement in handing over criminal illegal aliens to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and speeds up the deportation process by applying the humanitarian standards (religious persecution, sex trafficking, etc.) at the beginning of the deportation process instead of at the end. Aderholt’s office says that will “save hundred of millions of dollars by returning the illegal entrants to their home country within weeks instead of months and years.”

Other House members are expected to propose immigration solutions that do not go as far as Aderholt’s, but could receive the backing of House leadership. Last summer, it was Aderholt’s tougher enforcement language that made it into the House’s final border bill, in spite of House leadership’s early objections. However, that bill was not taken up by the Democratic-controlled Senate and Aderholt’s language was not included in the CRomnibus.

His challenge now will be to rally enough support from his colleagues to get the bill attached to Department of Homeland security funding bill, which is no easy task. But with the introduction of his bill on Tuesday, Aderholt has joined Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions as one of Washington’s most important players in the current immigration debate.

Like this article? Follow me on Twitter and let me know what you think.

— Cliff Sims (@Cliff_Sims) December 3, 2014

The start of a new year is a great time for reflecting on the past and looking confidently toward the future.

Many like to make resolutions to give a “fresh start” to a goal. Whether it is exercising more, eating healthier, going after that dream job, or spending more time with family, many times resolutions have as much to do with what we haven’t done in the last year than what we want to do in the next. In other words, our “unfinished business” can often take the form of New Years resolutions.

That is certainly true of my hopes for Congress in the new year. There is plenty of “unfinished business” left to take care of, from jumpstarting job growth and getting families relief from burdensome healthcare policies to securing our border and reining in dangerous executive overreaches.

Partisan gridlock over the last several years has kept our country from making progress on these important issues, as well as many others. I am eager to change that in 2015, and I believe we can be successful.

One reason I am optimistic about this year is the changing landscape of Congress. After major victories on Election Day, this week Republicans will assume the majority the U.S. Senate and grow the majority in the U.S. House.

So, with measured optimism about the new year, here is a short list of issues and items I would like to take action on in the 114^th Congress:

• • Continuing to reform the Central Alabama VA. While some progress has been made, major staffing and care efficiency problems persist.

• • Addressing President Obama’s immigration actions. In the coming months, Congress must work to reverse the President’s s ill-advised orders through the Appropriations process.

Providing proper funding for our military. “Sequestration” devastated our military and compromised readiness. We must reverse the trend of military cuts and restore proper funding.

• • Passing and enacting the Working Families Flexibility Act. My bill to offer working moms and dads more choices with their overtime passed the House last Congress, but was blocked in the Senate. I plan to try again this year.

• • Helping advance and pass other sensible legislation that has been held up in the Senate, such as the Keystone Pipeline, repealing the Obamacare employer mandate tax, incentivizing the hiring of veterans, and implementing reforms to help welfare recipients find jobs and lift their families out of poverty.

These are just some of the many issues awaiting Congress’ attention. In the coming months, I look forward to working to make progress on behalf of Alabama’s 2^nd District.

Martha Roby represents Alabama’s 2^nd Congressional District in the United States House of Representatives.

Remember the “Defund ObamaCare” strategy of Fall 2013? There were two basic reasons it didn’t work:

1. Democrats held the Majority in the Senate;
2. The threat of shutting down the entire government allowed the other side to distract attention away from the failures of ObamaCare.

This year, with a funding battle over immigration before us, Congress sought to remedy both problems by:

1. Delaying the fight just three weeks until Republicans control the Senate; and
2. Taking an entire government shutdown off the table to focus solely on the issue of executive amnesty.

So, this past week, Congress passed an Appropriations plan that funds 11 of the 12 government divisions through the remainder of Fiscal Year 2015. The exception is Homeland Security, which is where immigration enforcement funding is contained. The plan includes a temporary Continuing Resolution for Homeland Security, delaying the issue slightly so that Congress can utilize the “power of the purse” to rein in President Obama’s immigration actions in three weeks when Republicans take the Majority in the Senate.

The strategy of combining a Continuing Resolution with an Omnibus Appropriations bill was coined “CR-Omnibus.” It is the best approach to defeating executive amnesty.

Some have charged that the proposal somehow “funds” President Obama’s executive amnesty plans because it temporarily continues funding for Homeland Security at current levels. That is incorrect, as evidenced by the calls of some of the most outspoken amnesty opponents for a Continuing Resolution that temporarily funds ALL areas of government, including Homeland Security.

The CR-Omnibus we passed continued funding for immigration enforcement agencies the exact same way a full-government Continuing Resolution would have. So, if a Continuing Resolution for all of government does not “fund” amnesty, then how does a Continuing Resolution for only Homeland Security?

The answer is, of course, it doesn’t.

The truth is the Appropriations plan does not “fund” amnesty. It funds Homeland Security at the same levels as the alternative, full government Continuing Resolution would have. The only difference is we locked in full-year spending reforms in other aspects of the government and took the possibility of a government shutdown off the table for January.

Part of the problem here is the way we talk about legislation. Rhetoric can confuse the issue. For instance, look through all the appropriations bills and you won’t find money appropriated for “amnesty” like some are suggesting. There is no line item for “Obama’s Amnesty Program.” It’s just not there.

What “defunding amnesty” really means is attaching policy riders to an Appropriations bill that specifically prohibit particular actions, or adding a provision saying that under no circumstances can the administration find any little extra pot of money in the DHS budget to, for example, pay for licenses and permits needed to fulfill Obama’s order. Nearly every Republican I know wants those policy riders.

But, just like with ObamaCare in 2013, the reality is “defund” policy riders we want will not pass with a Democratic Senate. It is simply misleading for any politician to suggest they would.

No one really disputes that going down the “defund” path before we have a Senate Majority would result in little more than show votes of solidarity for Republicans and then a temporary Continuing Resolution funding the entire government at status quo levels. That would earn Republicans a “moral victory” in which we could pat each other on the back for fighting the good fight, but ultimately lose the battle – exactly what happened with the ObamaCare funding fight last October.

I don’t want a “moral victory” on defeating amnesty. I want a real victory, and the best way to get one is with a Republican Senate Majority.

So, in January, President Obama is going to face a choice: shut down just the Department of Homeland Security or accept a limit on his power. Given the way the American public feels about his reckless immigration policies and our ability to then focus their attention on this single issue, I like our chances. That is the best strategy for defeating executive amnesty.

Beyond immigration, there are many other good aspects of the Appropriations plan. Among them:

– Bringing the federal deficit to half what it was in 2010;
– Slashing funding for the IRS by $345 million;
– Bringing total IRS cuts to $1 billion since 2010;
– Slashing funding for the EPA, meaning a total reduction of 21 percent since 2010;
– Bringing EPA staffing down to its lowest level since the Reagan Era;
– Preventing federal authorities from regulating farm ponds and irrigation ditches under the Clean Water Act;
– Instilling transparency and accountability for OSHA enforcement activities;
– Providing critical military funding, including specific projects that are Alabama-based, including:
o new Lakota Helicopters to enhance the aviation training mission at Fort Rucker; and
o the Navy’s Mobile-built Littoral Combat Ship and Joint-High Speed Vessel.

Martha Roby represents Alabama’s 2nd Congressional District in the U.S. House of Representatives

WASHINGTON — U.S. Rep. Martha Roby (R-AL2) on Monday said that the so-called “CRomnibus,” the $1.1 trillion government funding bill passed by the House and Senate last week, does not fund the President’s executive actions on immigration, in spite of what others have said.

The bill funds the government through next September, but only funds the Department of Homeland Security through Feb. 27.

Republicans who voted for the plan, including Roby, have said passage of the CRomnibus avoided a government shutdown, and also gives Republicans an opportunity to readdress DHS funding in February — a move they believe will help them push back against President Obama’s executive actions on immigration.

“By temporarily funding Homeland Security, Congress can use the ‘power of the purse’ to rein in President Obama’s immigration actions in the new term,” Roby said. “I want to stress that in no way does the bill ‘fund’ amnesty, as some have claimed. To the contrary, the bill puts Congress in the strongest possible position to stop the President’s executive amnesty plans by setting up a showdown for when Republicans control the Senate and have more votes in the House come January.”

Several of Roby’s colleagues from the Alabama congressional delegation joined her in voting for the bill.

RELATED: Everything you need to know about the Alabama delegation’s ‘CRomnibus’ votes

However, among those who voted against the plan were Alabama’s two U.S. senators, Jeff Sessions and Richard Shelby, both of whom said they opposed the final legislation because they believe it funds the President’s immigration executive order.

“The United States Senate – challenged directly by the President’s unconstitutional immigration order – has laid prostrate and defenseless,” an exasperated Sessions said after the bill’s passage. “Reid and his caucus have aggressively blocked a vote on my amendment to prohibit funds for the President’s illegal action.”

“The omnibus fails to properly address President Obama’s action to grant amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants through executive fiat,” Shelby added.

But Roby and other Republicans who backed the plan say the difference of opinion on the CRomnibus is over tactics, not policy.

“The problem is right now we have the same number of Republican votes in the Senate as last year when the government shut down over our attempts to defund ObamaCare,” she said. “There are two basic reasons the defund strategy didn’t work last time: 1. Democrats had the Majority in the Senate. 2. The threat of shutting down the entire government allowed the other side to distract away from the failures of ObamaCare. Our plan remedies both problems by waiting three weeks until Republicans control the Senate and by taking a complete shutdown off the table to focus 100 percent on amnesty.”

Like this article? Follow me on Twitter and let me know what you think.

— Cliff Sims (@Cliff_Sims) December 3, 2014

Sen. Jeff Sessions originally delivered these remarks on the floor of the U.S. Senate Saturday, Dec. 13, 2014.

The U.S. Department of Commerce informs us that ‘today’s typical 18- to 34-year-old earns about $2,000 less per year (adjusted for inflation) than their counterpart in 1980.’  That is a sharp and painful wage decline for young Americans.  What has happened in the labor market since 1980?

Data from the U.S. Census Bureau offers this insight: ‘From 1930 to 1950, the foreign-born population of the United States declined from 14.2 million to 10.3 million… [but] Since 1970, the foreign-born population of the United States has increased rapidly due to large-scale immigration.’  Census Bureau statistics report that in 1980, the foreign-born population stood at 14.1 million.

From 1980 through 2013, the immigrant population tripled from 14 million to more than 41 million.

This large increase in the size of the immigrant population is the direct product of policies in Washington.

Legal immigration during the 80’s averaged around 600,000 a year.  But since 1990 through today it has averaged about 1 million annually—meaning the annual rate almost doubled.  The sustained large-scale flow of legal immigration—overwhelmingly lower-wage and lower-skilled—has placed substantial downward pressure on wages.

We have, right now, a very slack labor market with more jobseekers than jobs.

The White House has itself estimated that are three unemployed persons for each one job opening.  The Economic Policy Institute estimates that, in the construction industry, there as 7 unemployed persons for each available job opening.

This large-scale immigration flow, paired with the forces of globalization and automation, has made it ever more difficult American workers to earn a wage that can support a family.

Consider this report just published in the New York Times:

Working, in America, is in decline. The share of prime-age men — those 25 to 54 years old — who are not working has more than tripled since the late 1960s, to 16 percent. More recently, since the turn of the century, the share of women without paying jobs has been rising, too. The United States, which had one of the highest employment rates among developed nations as recently as 2000, has fallen toward the bottom of the list…

At the same time, it has become harder for men to find higher-paying jobs. Foreign competition and technological advances have eliminated many of the jobs in which high school graduates…once could earn $40 an hour, or more.

Since end of the 1960s—the time frame identified by the article—the share of the U.S. population that is foreign-born has increased from less than 5 percent to more than 13 percent.

As a total number, the size of the foreign-born population has quadrupled over the last four decades.

Due to current Washington policy, these figures are only going to rise.  The Congressional Research Service estimates that the foreign-born population could reach as high as 58 million within a decade based on recent trends.  Only an adjustment in policy will change this trajectory—just as policy was changed early in the 20^th century to allow labor markets to tighten.

This is an issue that affects all residents, foreign-born and U.S.-born.  In fact, among those most affected by the size of these large immigrant flows are the immigrants themselves.  By continuing to admit these large numbers over such a sustained period of time, many immigrants themselves are unable to find jobs.  For instance, less than half the immigrants who entered California since 2010 are participating in the labor force. In Los Angeles—where 4 in 10 residents is an immigrant—one-third of immigrants recently-arrived live in poverty.

We have an obligation to those we lawfully admit not to admit such a large number that their own wages and job prospects are diminished.  A sound immigration policy must serve the needs of those already living here.

Immigrants and native-workers are also competing with a large flow of temporary guest workers—individuals brought into the U.S. from abroad for the explicit purpose of taking a job.  Each year, the U.S. admits roughly 700,000 guest workers for this purpose.  Of those roughly 700,000 guest workers only about 10 percent are for agricultural work—the other 90 percent take jobs in almost every industry in America, from good-paying construction jobs to coveted positions at technology firms in Silicon Valley.

The pressures on the middle class are great.  You have a large flow of permanent immigration and temporary workers, the elimination of many good-paying jobs at factories and plants due to advances in robotics, the shedding of manufacturing jobs due to overseas competition, a sluggish over-regulated economy that is growing too slowly to keep pace with population growth, and the high costs of energy, healthcare and household goods.

Policymakers in Washington need to be reducing the burdens on working families, not increasing them.

Harvard Professor Dr. George Borjas estimates that high immigration flows from 1980-2000 reduced the wages of lower-skilled American workers by 7.4 percent.  In gross dollar terms, Professor Borjas estimates that current immigration rates produce an annual net loss of $402 billion for American workers who compete with foreign labor.

Furthermore, as documented by the Center for Immigration Studies relying exclusively on government data, all net employment gains among the working-age since the year 2000 have gone to immigrant workers.  This remarkable trend occurred even as the number of working-age native workers increased by nearly 17 million.

Here a few more statistics:

• – Nearly 1 in 4 Americans in their prime working years (ages 25–54) are not working. This includes 10 million American men and 18 million American women.
• – Real median weekly earnings are lower today than they were in 2000.
• – Median family income is down $4,000 since November 2007.

It is in this context that we must consider the economic fallout from the President’s unconstitutional executive amnesty.  In plain violation of law and the expressed will of the American people, the President has ordered 5 million work permits to be issued to those here illegally—who will now be able to take any job in America.

This illegal amnesty is part of a broader immigration vision from the President.  The legislation he endlessly champions—the bill written behind closed doors with immigration activists and open borders billionaires—surges immigration rates yet higher.  After four decades of record immigration, the President’s bill—supported unanimously by Senate Democrats—triples the issuance of permanent residency cards and doubles foreign guest worker admissions over the next ten years.

The Center for Immigration Study explains that this legislation would, in a mere six years from today, increase the percentage of the U.S. population board abroad to a level never before reached in America history. And by 2033, nearly 1 in 6 U.S. residents under this plan will be foreign-born.

Unsurprisingly, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projected that the result of this legislation would be lower wages, higher-unemployment, and reduced-per capita GNP.

All of this begs a simple question: who is looking out for American workers?

Who is looking out for their interests, fighting to help them get better jobs and pay, working to help their communities climb out of poverty?

The immigration debate in our nation’s capital is always centered on the needs of illegal immigrants, foreign workers, or large employers.  Isn’t it time, after decades of open immigration, to focus on how we can help Americans?

Is not the sensible and rational thing to do to slow down a bit, allow wages to rise, assimilation to occur, and to help those struggling here today rise into the middle class?

The American people have begged and pleaded for a lawful system of immigration that serves the national interest—not the special interests.  But the politicians have refused, refused, refused.  This summer alone the White House met 20 times with business executives, amnesty lobbyists, immigration activists to craft their executive amnesty.  You know who wasn’t invited into that room? You, the American citizen.  You don’t get a say.

These super-elites in Washington and Wall Street dream of a world without borders, a paradise where things like laws and rules and national boundaries don’t get in the way of their grand chimera.  The only challenge these great global citizens face are these pesky people called voters, who cling to the old-fashioned idea of a nation as a home and a border as something real and worth protecting.  These elites, you see, know better.  If you’re worried about your jobs or wages, if you are concerned that the pace of immigration into your community is too fast and too large, if you feel like your needs aren’t being considered, well, you’re just a nativist you see.  You’re being selfish.

So when an election happens, and the people rebel against this open-borders agenda, there is really one thing for these wise elites to do.  They must impose their own laws.

How Congress answers this challenge will shape the future of this Republic.  Will we defend and protect the people who sent us here—their laws, their Constitution, their communities —or will we abandon them?  I pose that question to this body, and I suggest there is no purpose to our being here if it is not to serve and protect and defend the loyal people who sent us here on their behalf.

Jeff Sessions represents Alabama in the United States Senate.