When I was fighting the Gang of Eight bill in 2013, one of my observations was that this legislation provided much more than amnesty for illegal aliens already here. It created a permanent open border policy across the spectrum of legal and illegal immigration.
One such provision was Section 2310 (page 426), which would have massively expanded the K-1 fiancé visa program, the very visa that San Bernardino terrorist Tafsheen Malik used to gain permanent residence in our country. While the underlying premise of this program makes sense, it has been rife with fraud and 99.7% of requests for K-1 visas have been approved in 2014. According to CIS, “[C]lose to half of the aliens initially slated for K-1 visas (and marriages) did not get married in the United States as planned.”
Section 2310 of the Rubio bill would have extended the courtesy of K-1 visas from foreign fiancés of U.S. citizens to foreign fiancés of legal permanent residents! This would have set off a phenomenon of mass fraudulent chain migration. Think about it this way. We have a record number of immigrants living in this country, particularly from the third world and—most prominent to our discussion—the Middle East. Any one of those individuals, under this bill, could have brought in fiancés from similar countries with the same 99.7% success rate. Also, the millions of illegal aliens awarded amnesty under this bill would have been entitled to bring in fiancés, creating a likely scenario of newly amnestied aliens immediately bringing in a relative or friend under fraudulent pretenses of marriage.
Moreover, by extension, this bill would have extended the K-2 visas—a license to bring in the children of the foreign-born fiancé (even from a previous spouse)—to those spouses of legal immigrants residing in the U.S. The chain migration that would have resulted is bad enough, but could you imagine the endless security risks? As many U.S. citizen Muslim terrorists as there unfortunately are in this country, there are probably even more non-citizen immigrants from the Middle East who likely maintain even stronger ties to their countries of origin. It would have been so easy to bring in limitless numbers of Tafsheen Maliks.
What is also disturbing is that, as Jessica Vaughn noted, immigration officials fail to adequately check into the background of those who sponsor immigrant visas. If the lack of screening of U.S. citizen-sponsors has created a security risk, allowing all immigrants to sponsor visas would be a security nightmare. Remember, there are hundreds of thousands of known criminal legal immigrants in this country that have never been deported but would have been eligible to sponsor visas.
One of the observations from last night’s debate that was lost in the shuffle is that, once again, Marco Rubio did not disavow the Gang of Eight bill. He just repeated the mantra that the American people don’t trust the bill. This jives with his previous comments that, in his estimation, the bill did in actuality have the requisite security measures.
The K-1 provision is just one of many components of this bill that would have presented us with a clear and present security danger, not to mention a massive social and fiscal drain.
No wonder Obama’s former speechwriter said last night that the White House was “very appreciative” of Rubio’s work on immigration.
Look, in the White House, we were very appreciative of all the good work Marco Rubio did on that immigration bill
— Jon Favreau (@jonfavs) December 16, 2015
Daniel Horowitz is a senior editor of Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @RMConservative.