Jeff Sessions on Immigration Republican Jr Senator (AL)

DACA program was created without proper authority

After Trump came into office, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced the program had been created "without proper authority" and only after Congress had rejected proposed legislation. The following day, DHS announced DACA would be phased out, pointing out that it had "legal and constitutional defects."

Months later, Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen issued a new memo laying out more policy-based justifications for winding down the program. She said, for example, that the program increased the risk of undermining public confidence in the rule of law.

Federal courts said the administration had acted arbitrarily when phasing out the program. The courts pointed to the administration's thin justification--reasoning Roberts and the Supreme Court eventually agreed with.

Northern Triangle caravans: Separate children from parents

There are a few things more cruel, more inhumane, more fundamentally evil than ripping a child from her parent's arms.

The administration claimed that it wouldn't separate families seeking asylum if they arrived at an official port of entry, as opposed to other parts of the border. But that didn't hold true. Many documented cases of family separation at ports of entry

Asylum was never meant to alleviate world's problems

Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV): "Attorney General Sessions continues to betray every American value of compassion, justice and respect for the rule of law. This is not who America is."

Skeptic of H1-B visa scheme that recruits skilled foreigners

Protect our communities with commitment to deport aliens

Unwaveringly defend US workers and taxpayers

A: On policies like immigration, Sen. Sessions has worked tirelessly to defend US workers and taxpayers from big money special interests. He is unwaveringly committed to the hard working men and women who form the backbone of the nation, and to the heritage of constitutional government that makes America history's most exceptional nation.

FactCheck: Immigration bill requires 700 mile border fence

The border fence is one of five so-called "triggers" that must be in place before most immigrants who get provisional status under the law are eligible for permanent residency. The bill requires a "Southern Border Fencing Strategy" to be submitted to Congress--and implemented--with certification from the Homeland Security secretary "that there is in place along the Southern Border no fewer than 700 miles of pedestrian fencing."

But Sessions' press secretary told us that there's "an opt-out provision" that allows the secretary to avoid fence-building. [But our attorneys said] the "opt-out" provision just offers the administration considerable choice about where to put fencing--not whether to build it. We rate Sessions' claim False.

Opposes amnesty first; finish fencing and enforcement first

SESSIONS: We need to do the right thing for America and appeal to all people, particularly Hispanics.

Q: But why are you so much against this [comprehensive immigration reform] amendment?

SESSIONS: I'm opposed to the bill because it doesn't do what it says. This bill grants amnesty first, and a mere promise of enforcement in the future. Promises of 20,000 agents won't take place, or are not required until 2021. No money is being appropriated for that. The fencing--we passed a law to have 700 miles of double-layered fencing--this bill has a specific provision that Secretary Napolitano does not have to build any fence if she chooses not to, & she's publicly said we've had enough fencing. Why would any member of Congress want to vote for a bill at a time of high unemployment, falling wages, to bring in a huge surge of new labor that can only hurt the poorest among us the most

Led the effort in the Senate to defeat the “amnesty” bills

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

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

Voted NO on comprehensive immigration reform.

Establishes specified benchmarks which must be met before the guest worker and legalization programs may be initiated:
1. operational control of the border with Mexico;
2. Border Patrol increases;
3. border barriers, including vehicle barriers, fencing, radar, and aerial vehicles;
4. detention capacity for illegal aliens apprehended crossing the US-Mexico border;
5. workplace enforcement, including an electronic employment verification system; and
6. Z-visa alien processing.

Proponents recommend voting YES because:

If we do not legislate now, we will not legislate later this year when our calendar is crowded with Iraq and appropriations bills. We are then an election year, and it will be pushed over to 2009. Circumstances will not be better then, they will be worse.

A vote against cloture is a vote to kill the bill. A Senator may vote for cloture and then express himself in opposition to the bill by voting against the bill.

Opponents recommend voting NO because:

If this bill becomes law, we will see only a 13% reduction in illegal immigration into America, and in the next 20 years we will have another 8.7 million illegals in our country. How can that be reformed? I submit this would be a disaster.

The Congressional telephone systems have shut down because of the mass phone calls Congress is receiving. A decent respect for the views of the American people says let's stop here now. Let's go back to the drawing board and come up with a bill that will work.

The American people get it, and they do have common sense and wisdom on this issue. They know repeating the fundamental mistakes of the 1986 bill, joining a big amnesty with inadequate enforcement, will cause the problem to grow and not diminish. They know promising enforcement after 30 years of broken promises isn't good enough. They know the so-called trigger is a joke because if the trigger is never pulled, the Z visas, the amnesty happens forever.

Voted YES on declaring English as the official language of the US government.

Proponents recommend voting YES because:

Right now, the polling shows that 91% of the people in America want English as an official language, and 76% of Hispanics believe English should be an official language.

Opponents recommend voting NO because:

I believe the American people understand in order to succeed in our society, immigrants need to learn English. But the amendment would do a number of things that are problematical. The first is that it is contrary to the provisions of law that exist in many States. For example, in New Mexico, you have in their State Constitution, a provision that says that many of the documents within that State have to be provided in both English and Spanish. The same thing is true for the State of Hawaii. I believe this is a States rights issue, and those constitutions of those States ought to be respected. I do not believe it is a matter we ought to be imposing here from Washington DC.

Also, this amendment would undo an executive order conceived by President Bill Clinton and implemented by President George Bush. Both recognized it is important that people who have limited English proficiency receive the kinds of services so they can understand what is going on in terms of the interface between the Government and themselves.

Voted NO on eliminating the "Y" nonimmigrant guestworker program.

Proponents recommend voting YES because:

This legislation says we wish to add something called guest workers or temporary workers. With guest workers, working Americans would discover there is no opportunity for upward mobility at their job. In fact, every day their employers are trying to find ways to push down wages, eliminate retirement, and eliminate health care. What has happened in this country, with what is called the "new global economy," is dramatic downward pressure on income for American workers. The guest worker program provides that 400,000 people will be able to come in to assume jobs in our country per year--adding to the 12 million illegal immigrants already here.

Opponents recommend voting NO because:

I certainly concur about the need to secure our borders, about the need to have a workable immigration system, and the need for reform that ensures the rule of law is restored in the US. Where I differ is in the belief that we can actually achieve these goals if we have no ability for temporary workers to come to the country. This amendment would eliminate the temporary worker program from this bill.

Now, there are several reasons why a temporary worker program, within certain constraints, is a good idea. The first reason is because it will help to relieve the magnet for illegal immigration. The reason most of the people are crossing our border illegally is to get employment. There are jobs available for them. Some people say this is work Americans will not do. That is actually not true. But there are not enough American citizens to do all of the work that needs to be done. So naturally the law of supply and demand sets in here. People come across the border illegally, and they take that work. What we want to do is both close the border, but also eliminate the magnet for illegal employment here, because the reality is desperate people will always try to find some way to get into the country.

Voted YES on building a fence along the Mexican border.

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

Proponents support voting YES because:

It is obvious there is no more defining issue in our Nation today than stopping illegal immigration. The most basic obligation of any government is to secure the Nation's borders. One issue in which there appears to be a consensus between the Senate and the House is on the issue of building a secure fence. So rather than wait until comprehensive legislation is enacted, we should move forward on targeted legislation which is effective and meaningful. The legislation today provides over 700 miles of Within 18 months, achieves operational control over U.S. land and maritime borders, including:

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

Proponents support voting YES because:

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

Voted NO on establishing a Guest Worker program.

Voting YES establishes a guest worker program with a path to citizenship for illegal aliens who have worked in the US for 5 years. The bill:
• Increases border security and enforcement
• Makes it unlawful to knowingly hire, recruit, or refer for a fee an unauthorized alien.
• Establishes a temporary guest worker program (H-2C visa) with a three-year admission and one additional three-year extension; and issuance of H-4 nonimmigrant visas for accompanying or following spouse and children;
• Provides permanent resident status adjustment for a qualifying illegal alien, and family, for aliens who have been in the US and employed for five years.

Proponents of the bill say:
• Our immigration system is broken and needs to be repaired. This bill is a strong step in the right direction. We need to protect our borders and look out for American workers, and we also need a responsible way to meet the need for temporary workers, particularly in the agricultural area, where they represent about 70 percent of the U.S. agricultural workforce, with a path to earned citizenship for hard-working, law abiding temporary workers. This bill, the product of bipartisan compromise, takes a commonsense approach to all of these issues.

Opponents of the bill say:
• Our country has been built by immigrants. But the reason we have had quotas for immigration is the world has progressed in different parts of this globe at a very different rate. In some countries, the economies have lagged far behind.
• There are jobs available in this country with rates of pay that are far in excess of those of Third World countries. We have on our southern border people who aspire to come to this country. In order to protect our way of life and our standard of living and to protect jobs, we have quotas.

Voted NO on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security.

To reduce document fraud, prevent identity theft, and preserve the integrity of the Social Security system, by ensuring that persons who receive an adjustment of status under this bill are not able to receive Social Security benefits as a result of unlawful activity.

Proponents of the amendment say to vote NAY because:
• The Immigration Reform bill would allow people to qualify for social security based on work they did while they were illegally present in the US and illegally working in the US. People who broke the law to come here and broke the law to work here can benefit from their conduct to collect social security.
• In some cases, illegal immigrants may have stolen an American citizen's identity. They may have stolen an American's social security number to fraudulently work. This amendment corrects this problem.

Opponents of the amendment say to vote YEA because:
• Americans understand that for years there are undocumented workers who have tried to follow our laws and be good neighbors and good citizens, and have paid into the Social Security Trust Fund.
• Once that person regularizes his or her status, and as they proceed down the path to earned citizenship, they should have the benefit after having followed the law and made those contributions. That is fairness.
• We should not steal their funds or empty their Social Security accounts. That is not fair. It does not reward their hard work or their financial contributions.
• The amendment proposes to change existing law to prohibit an individual from gaining the benefit of any contributions made while the individual was in an undocumented status. I oppose this amendment and believe it is wrong.

Voted NO on giving Guest Workers a path to citizenship.

Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, an alien having nonimmigrant status is ineligible for and may not apply for adjustment of status.''

Proponents of the amendment say to vote NAY because:
• The Immigration Reform Act purports to create two different paths to citizenship for those, first of all, who are in the country living outside of the law in an undocumented status, and secondly, for those who are not yet present in the country but who want to come here at some future date to work.
• We have given the somewhat misleading name of ''guest worker'' to the so-called future flow. A guest is not ordinarily defined as someone who moves in with you and never leaves.
• These so-called guest workers could work here up to 6 years, after which they then apply for a green card. They then get on the path to American citizenship 5 years later.
• It is important for us to debate this issue honestly. The amendment simply makes the point that a guest worker ought to be temporary.

Opponents of the amendment say to vote YEA because:
• If this amendment should pass, that whole compromise is destroyed because a fundamental part of that compromise was that those who have been here for 2 to 5 years would be eligible for green card status and citizenship. This amendment would destroy that compromise.
• We have examples today in Europe of having people living in your country with no hope to ever be a part of that society. No hope, no opportunity, no future, but we will let you work.

Voted YES on allowing more foreign workers into the US for farm work.

Voted YES on visas for skilled workers.

Voted YES on limit welfare for immigrants.

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

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

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

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

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

Zero tolerance for border crossing via increased prosecution.

Expand Operation Streamline (the zero-tolerance prosecution policy for illegal entry and reentry) to all 20 border sectors. Amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to:

1. revise and increase criminal penalties, including establishing mandatory minimum penalties, for an alien's entry into the United States at an improper time or place; and
2. revise criminal penalty and related provisions, and establish mandatory minimum sentences, respecting the reentry of an alien who has been removed from the United States.

Government services in English only.

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

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

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

Click here for definitions & background information on Immigration. Click here for a Wikipedia profile of Jeff Sessions. Click here for a Ballotpedia profile of Jeff Sessions. Click here for SenateMatch quiz answers by Jeff Sessions. Click here for a summary of Jeff Sessions's positions on all issues. Click here for issue positions of other AL politicians. Click here for issue statements from AL primary archives. Click here for issue statements from AL secondary archives.
Other candidates on Immigration:		Jeff Sessions on other issues:
AL Gubernatorial: Chris Countryman David Carrington Kay Ivey Parker Griffith Robert Bentley Stacy Lee George Tommy Battle Walt Maddox AL Senatorial: Arnold Mooney Bradley Byrne Doug Jones John Merrill John Rogers Luther Strange Marcus Bowman Richard Shelby Ron Crumpton Roy Moore Tommy Tuberville AL politicians AL Archives	Senate races 2019-20: AK: Sullivan(R,incumbent) vs.Gross(I) vs.Blatchford(D) AL: Jones(D,incumbent) vs.Tuberville(R) vs.Sessions(R) vs.Moore(R) vs.Rogers(D) vs.Merrill(R) AR: Cotton(R,incumbent) vs.Harrington(L) vs.Whitfield(I) vs.Mahony(D) AZ: McSally(R,incumbent) vs.Kelly(D) CO: Gardner(R,incumbent) vs.Hickenlooper(D) vs.Madden(D) vs.Baer(D) vs.Walsh(D) vs.Johnston(D) vs.Romanoff(D) vs.Burnes(D) vs.Williams(D) DE: Coons(D,incumbent) vs.Scarane(D) vs.Witzke(R) vs.DeMartino(R) GA-2: Isakson(R,resigned) Loeffler(R,appointed) vs.Warnock(D) vs.Collins(R) vs.Tarver(D) vs.Carter(D) vs.Lieberman(D) vs.Grayson(R) vs.Stovall(I) vs.Buckley(L) GA-6: Perdue(R,incumbent) vs.Ossoff(D) vs.Hazel(L) vs.Tomlinson(D) vs.Terry(D) IA: Ernst(R,incumbent) vs.Greenfield(D) vs.Graham(D) vs.Mauro(D) vs.Franken(D) ID: Risch(R,incumbent) vs.Jordan(D) vs.Harris(D) IL: Durbin(D,incumbent) vs.Curran(R) vs.Stava-Murray(D) KS: Roberts(R,retiring) vs.Marshall(R) vs.Bollier(D) vs.LaTurner(R) vs.Wagle(R) vs.Kobach(R) vs.Lindstrom(R) vs.Grissom(D) KY: McConnell(R,incumbent) vs.McGrath(D) vs.Morgan(R) vs.Cox(D) vs.Tobin(D) vs.Booker(D) LA: Cassidy(R,incumbent) vs.Perkins(D) vs.Pierce(D)	MA: Markey(D,incumbent) vs.O`Connor(R) vs.Ayyadurai(R) vs.Kennedy(D) vs.Liss-Riordan(D) ME: Collins(R,incumbent) vs.Gideon(D) vs.Sweet(D) vs.Rice(D) MI: Peters(D,incumbent) vs.James(R) vs.Squier(G) MN: Smith(D,incumbent) vs.Lewis(R) vs.Overby(G) vs.Carlson(D) MS: Hyde-Smith(R,incumbent) vs.Espy(D) vs.Bohren(D) MT: Daines(R,incumbent) vs.Bullock(D) vs.Collins(D) vs.Driscoll(R) vs.Mues(D) vs.Geise(L) NC: Tillis(R,incumbent) vs.Cunningham(D) vs.E.Smith(D) vs.S.Smith(R) vs.Tucker(R) vs.Mansfield(D) NE: Sasse(R,incumbent) vs.Janicek(R) NH: Shaheen(D,incumbent) vs.Messner(R) vs.Martin(D) vs.Bolduc(R) vs.O'Brien(R) NJ: Booker(D,incumbent) vs.Mehta(R) vs.Singh(R) vs.Meissner(R) NM: Udall(D,retiring) vs.Lujan(D) vs.Ronchetti(R) vs.Walsh(L) vs.Clarkson(R) vs.Oliver(D) vs.Rich(R) OK: Inhofe(R,incumbent) vs.Broyles(D) vs.Workman(D) OR: Merkley(D,incumbent) vs.Perkins(R) vs.Romero(R) RI: Reed(D,incumbent) vs.Waters(R) SC: Graham(R,incumbent) vs.Harrison(D) vs.Tinubu(D) SD: Rounds(R,incumbent) vs.Ahlers(D) vs.Borglum(R) TN: Alexander(R,retiring) vs.Hagerty(R) vs.Bradshaw(D) vs.Sethi(R) vs.Mackler(D) vs.Crim(R) TX: Cornyn(R,incumbent) vs.Hegar(D) vs.Hernandez(D) vs.Bell(D) vs.Ramirez(D) vs.West(D) VA: Warner(D,incumbent) vs.Taylor(R) vs.Gade(R) WV: Capito(R,incumbent) vs.Swearengin(D) vs.Ojeda(D) WY: Enzi(R,retiring) vs.Lummis(R) vs.Ben-David(D) vs.Ludwig(D)	Abortion Budget/Economy Civil Rights Corporations Crime Drugs Education Energy/Oil Environment Families Foreign Policy Free Trade Govt. Reform Gun Control Health Care Homeland Security Immigration Jobs Principles Social Security Tax Reform Technology War/Peace Welfare Other Senators Senate Votes (analysis) Bill Sponsorships Affiliations Policy Reports Group Ratings
Contact info: Email Contact Form Fax Number: 202-224-3149 Mailing Address: Senate Office SR-326, Washington, DC 20510