Ted Cruz Launches Petition To Thwart Gang Of Eight As Dems Reveal Amendment To Legalize ‘Victims’ Displaced By… Climate Change

0 Shares
Senators vote on the Budget Resolution in Washington

Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) started a grass-roots petition last week to pressure his fellow Senators to back away from the Gang of Eight’s bipartisan immigration bill.

Telling supporters the bill isn’t principled in its pitch to grant amnesty to more than 10 million illegal aliens living in the United States, Cruz said it’s “urgent” that constituents send a unified message to Congress that legal immigration has to be the cornerstone of any attempt to reform laws and policies that direct a foreign national down a path to U.S. citizenship.

“This is urgent. We must stop this Gang of 8 immigration bill, which would give amnesty to an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants with no guarantee of a secure border,” said Cruz in an email to his supporters, as reported by Breitbart. “The Senate debate is in the final stages and we need to send Washington a strong signal of the overwhelming grassroots opposition to this amnesty bill from Americans across the country…act now – without delay – to help us defeat amnesty and stand for legal immigration!”

The petition kicked off just a day after Senator Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) introduced an amendment to the immigration plan that, if approved, will allow “stateless,” displaced people staying in the United States to apply for legal status if their native countries have been altered by natural disaster due to climate change.

Schatz said climate change is not an “abstract challenge” but an indisputable fact with a human toll the U.S. can help mitigate, by allowing its many foreign victims to seek legal status here (since, presumably, America is immune to the “climate change” that’s running everyone else to our shores):

The amendment I am proposing is quite simple. If enacted, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, may designate individuals or a group of individuals displaced permanently by climate change as stateless persons.

Again, let me be clear about what this amendment does. It simply recognizes that climate change, like war, is one of the most significant contributors to homelessness in the world. And like with states torn apart and made uninhabitable by war, we have an obligation not to deport people back to a country made uninhabitable by sea level rise and other extreme environmental changes that render these states desolate. It does not grant any individual or group of individuals outside the United States with any new status or avenue for seeking asylum in the United States.

The amendment may not seek to grant anyone a new status, but it does immeasurably swell the population of non-citizens who can claim a legal foothold in the United States. And it does so disingenuously, by sheltering the argument for seeking legal status under the incredibly divisive, controversial and very dubious aegis of climate change as an incontrovertible, immutable fact.

The proposed amendment also would require funding for a study to assess (or, more likely, assign) the impact of climate change on populations who migrate internally within the U.S.

Ben Bullard

Reconciling the concept of individual sovereignty with conscientious participation in the modern American political process is a continuing preoccupation for staff writer Ben Bullard. A former community newspaper writer, Bullard has closely observed the manner in which well-meaning small-town politicians and policy makers often accept, unthinkingly, their increasingly marginal role in shaping the quality of their own lives, as well as those of the people whom they serve. He argues that American public policy is plagued by inscrutable and corrupt motives on a national scale, a fundamental problem which individuals, families and communities must strive to solve. This, he argues, can be achieved only as Americans rediscover the principal role each citizen plays in enriching the welfare of our Republic.

  • vicki

    In 1986 Congress came up with amnesty for illegal aliens. They PROMISED us that if we went along with this plan that it was a once in forever amnesty.

    So a simple question for Congress

    Were they lying to us then or are they lying to us now?

    • Richard Gibbard

      Yes to both.

  • Richard Gibbard

    Somebody is clearly on crack to propose that we take in these so-called ”climate change refugees.” If they’re people from our Pacific island territories, I can live with that; but anybody else, forget about it.

  • Alex

    Borders are for whiners….

  • wavesofgrain

    This ‘climate change’ scheme will be forced on us, as Obama and many others have been in on this for years. It is purely a political ploy to enrich those that have stock in those ‘Climate Exchanges’, which Obama began by funding through the Joyce Foundation in early 90’s. Wake up, folks. Follow the money trail.

  • Warrior

    Can you say “overboard”?

  • wandamurline

    If you want to stop climate change…then cut the funding for HAARP who is shooting electronic impulses into the stratosphere….I believe that this is the reason for all the recent hurricanes, flooding, droughts and tornadoes. Shut them down for three years and let’s see if we really do have global warming…..which is nothing more than a word to use to fill the pockets of the elists like Al Gore and scare the sheeples and we certainly do have a bunch of them who are willing to give up their freedoms in return for “safety”….bull. They need a real history book and read up on Austria under Hitler, where Austria voted to allow Hitler to run their country (like voting for Obama) and within three years they had no freedoms, no valuables, and many were finally sent to concentration camps. It did not end well and this is what I see for America if we don’t stop the carnage.

  • me

    They say mexico is going to replace china as manufaturing leader in the world. You can bet if it happens we will have a flood of ilegals going back. Some of us may try to sneak across the border to find a job. Call it reverse illegal imigration.

  • JimH

    Wouldn’t a refugee coming in with our knowing about it be different than someone sneaking in?
    Now that the Senator from Hawaii doesn’t know the difference, should he really be on that committee?
    All across the world there are earthquakes, floods, volcanoes and tsunami’s. After all that, there is no huge influx of refugees coming to out country or even a huge influx of people from the disaster area sneaking into the country.
    What is this guys real agenda?

  • bill t

    I”ve finally decided that the only way to solve all these problems is to drop a bomb on DC

  • Doc Sarvis

    Please Mr. Cruz, tell us how much it will cost to “secure border”.
    Simple – low cost solution is for Americans to stop hiring illegals. Even Conservatives can understand that. Unfortunately, that takes a polarizing issue off the table for them.

    • wavesofgrain

      As a business owner who ensured I would never hire illegals by requiring employees to be citizens, I was invaded by Homeland Security. I had NO illegals, never had, been in business 25 years, but did not have I-9’s on a few employees. As I had mostly a family run business, they fined me 9 grand, even though I produced the paperwork in 2 days. They DO NOT FINE those in the south with illegals, they just tell them to be sure they are not present when they arrive the next day. I was, however ordered to take the question “Are you a citizen of the US?” off my employee applications. It was to be replaced with “Are you authorized to work in the US”. As most of these illegals produce SS #’s, the whole ball of wax, it is nearly impossible to weed out illegals anymore. So, your idea, Doc Sarvis, would not solve the problem.

      • Doc Sarvis

        Seems like a pretty easy fix with more standardization of employment form requirements. Not a problem.
        Have you heard how much of our budget it will take to “secure the border?

        • wavesofgrain

          The savings of staving off illegal immigrant crime, paying for anchor babies from cradle to grave will more than make up for any cost of a border fence.

  • Michael Shreve

    The U.S. BABYSITTING service never ends. FIRST they turn US into children dependent on the federal government, THEN they invite EVERYONE else into the U.S to suck at our mommy’s breast. GREATNESS is NOT achieved by opening the door to our bank account, let alone our home.

    • Doc Sarvis

      I think that “let alone our home” was the gist of the Native Americans feelings when many of our ancestors arrived long ago.

      • JimH

        So, Doc, Should the new name for illegal aliens be “undocumented pioneer”?

        • Doc Sarvis

          Not sure it matters what they are called. These folks are doing what some of our Founding Fathers families had done coming to this land to improve their lot in life for themselves and their families.

          • JimH

            Hi Doc, Some people come through the front door to improve their lot in life and their family’s.

            It’s not like there isn’t any other way for the illegals to get here.

            So were the pioneers and illegals both wrong or right.

            You can’t have it both ways.(or maybe you can)
            It doesn’t really matter what we call these people, it was just a joke about how politicians and other people give different names to others to make things seem different.

          • wavesofgrain

            A great proportion of illegals draw welfare and have generational non-working welfare relatives. In the days of yore, immigrants came here to WORK hard to make a better life for their children, learned English, adopted our culture instead of demanding us to change ours. Now, illegals come here to take advantage of the welfare benefits. That is what the billboards advertize in Mexico…800 #’s for all the welfare, SS, etc etc (and voter registration) when they arrive in America. It is a win-win for Mexico/Obama. Mexico gets rid of their indigent, and America gains votes towards a Soros/Obama a Democratic Majority.

          • Ibn Insha

            One thing for sure, our founding fathers did not go on welfare.

      • Ibn Insha

        Can you tell me the name of the country that our ancestors arrived to or the political boundaries of the country Native American’s occupied at that time or the name of its capital?

  • Maynard Runkle

    If you go to the movie theater and try to push in front of the line and go in without paying you will get thrown out. If you tell them your air conditioning went out, they will not suddenly change their minds and say “OK. In that case, you can stay.”

    Send them back to where they came from and take the money off of their country’s foreign aid.
    This influx of desperate people is great for employers. The less affluent citizens who cannot afford to hire workers get the challenge of additional competitors for jobs and better be ready to accept lower wages and fewer benefits.