Based on the summary I have, the Schumer/Rubio amnesty bill would actually weaken enforcement requirements that are already in current law.
For instance, the bill’s “Border Security Goal” is “An Effectiveness Rate of 90% in a fiscal year for all High Risk Sectors along the Southern Border” defined this way:
“Effectiveness Rate” definition — The number of apprehensions and turn backs in a specific sector divided by the total number of illegal entries.
“High Risk Border Sector” — Border sectors where apprehensions are above 30,000 individuals per year.
But current law, the Secure Fence Act of 2006, requires operational control (similar to the above metric) of all land, and maritime, borders, not just “high risk” areas. Sure, it’s been ignored by the executive, but is that a reason to lower the bar further?
Likewise, the Schumer/Rubio bill requires the Homeland Security secretary to certify that there’s “an electronic exit system at air and sea ports of entry that operates by collecting machine-readable visa or passport information from air and vessel carriers” in order to flush out visa overstayers. But Congress has already required the development of of a biometric entry-exit system (i.e., fingerprints or facial recognition or whatever) rather than the biographic, or paper-based, version the bill calls for. What’s more, current law requires exit-tracking at all entry points, not just airports and seaports, but also land crossings — a requirement passed 17 years ago and re-passed five more times since.
So, the political class has ignored immigration-security requirements passed over the years, and now is promising to water down the requirements it has long ignored. Unbelievable.