My friend from Iowa makes interesting arguments. but to some extent undermines those arguments. He says rule of law is important. and. therefore. the committee should have accepted an amendment in the committee to make illegal what folks in our embassies and in our missions did. thereby undermining the argument that in any way there was any law violated. There was no law against expending funds to process these visas. There were no promises made to Iracti interpreters and translators they would be guaranteed a visa. But when our folks in the field see a situation developing where the people who have allowed them to do their job. at great risk for their life and limb. are in desperate need for them and their families to essentially be appreciated and rewarded for that l ife- threatening effort. and they tell their folks that they work for in the Defense Department and in the State Department and the folks in Congress who are dealing with these issues that we need to do something about them. and we respond. that doesnt constitute a promise that no one had authority to make. a violation of the rule or law. And. by definition. I understand. and we have had many discussions on our immigration issues. in fact. the gentleman and I are both here now rather than at a hearing on the immigration issue. I understand the gentleman has a definition of amnesty which is wider than mine. but I never realized how much wider it was. that a bill that adds to the number of visas that can be given. after background checks and going through the regular process to ensure the security interests that we have before we issue a visa. that a bill that would increase the number of visas for these people who have put themselves in harms way on behalf of the United States is an amnesty law. This takes that very expansive definition the gentleman has and I think expands it even further. I yield to the gentleman.
Keywords matched
visas visa immigration