My Path to Informed Voting – Part Two
Yesterday I gave you my thoughts on how well Representative Martha McSally was actually representing *me* in the 114th Congress, based on her recorded votes for the first week of the session and giving her a pass/fail on each vote. For the week, it was 3 pass votes and 3 fails.
Tonight, I’ll look at how she voted during the week ending January 16. The Arizona Daily Star listed 6 votes for that week.
- “Homeland Security Budget” (HR 240) – The bill was primarily to fund the DHS, but there were also two GOP amendments included to “negate executive orders by President Obama on immigration policies.” McSally voted FOR. I am personally in favor of the President’s actions last November regarding illegals already here in the country. There are ample precedents, by Presidents of both parties, to support his actions. Further, the DHS doesn’t have enough money to go round up all of the illegals and deport them, so it makes sense to prioritize the deportation efforts and go after the ones who really need to be kicked out, like criminals. I would have voted against this bill unless the immigration amendments were stripped out. My verdict: FAIL.
- “Defunding of ‘Dreamers’ Program” (amendment to HR 240, above) – This amendment was a vote to kill the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program by preventing renewal of DACA status for those already in the program and barring new enrollees. McSally voted AGAINST. Because this program affected illegals who were brought here as children by their parents, and see the US as their only home, I also would have voted against it. My verdict: PASS.
- “Defunding of Immigration Order” (amendment to HR 240, above) – This amendment was a vote to kill the President’s Executive Order from last November affecting illegals who are parents of US citizens or permanent legal (noncitizen) residents born before 11/20/14. These parents must meet several criteria to be included under this Executive Order. McSally voted FOR the amendment. I would have voted against it because, by and large, this group of illegals is a productive cohort and is beneficial to the country, regardless of their immigration status. My verdict: FAIL.
- “GOP Immigration Amendments” (amendment to HR 240, above) – This amendment was an attempt to remove the two GOP amendments mentioned in #1, above. McSally voted AGAINST. Since I would have voted against HR 240 unless these amendments were stripped (see above), I would therefore have voted for this. My verdict: FAIL.
- “Financial Deregulation” (HR 37) – Apparently this bill did not pass on its first vote (see my post from last night) so it was voted on again – and passed. Again, McSally voted FOR. My reasoning to vote against this bill remains unchanged, so my verdict here is FAIL.
- “Companies that Assist Terrorists” (Amendment to HR 37, above) – This amendment, according to the Star, “would prohibit regulatory relief in the American financial system for state sponsors of terrorism or any company that has been convicted of assisting a terrorist organization.” McSally voted AGAINST this amendment. If my understanding of the quoted statement is correct, her vote basically said, “No, we’re not going to financially punish any company that has been convicted of helping terrorists, or any country that’s designated ‘a state sponsor of terrorism.'” I guess she thinks whatever criminal punishment the company got would be enough (?). My verdict: FAIL.
So, of the six listed votes for the week ending January 16, I rated my Representative a failure on 5 and a pass on 1. Her cumulative totals: 9 fails and 4 passes.
The Peripatetic Traveler 
um, i thought the 1st post tally was 3 pass and 4 fail… but i could be wrong. nicely done; i’m not really sure what to think about immigration laws and illegals here, and why or how they can be here etc etc. i think if they are here and they are able to give back to this country by working (even if illegally), then they should be able to stay and pay taxes and contribute as a citizen. if they are not working, not trying to go to school, and not contributing (regardless of family status as citizen or non), then they need to go away, and this includes children who are here with parents who are not contributing.
the percentage of “illegals” in this country who are non-contributing is far too low to make them a priority to sniff out. illegal immigrants have a net positive effect on their local economies. it is in the overwhelming interests of citizens to stop demonising them, and afford their children paths to citizenship, and provide the parents a normalisation of their resident status. going after any illegal immigrants but criminals is a waste of time a tax payer money.
You’re right Ali – it was 4 and 3. I mistyped it. Good catch!
Overall, immigration is a very complicated issue with a lot of things wrong – and a lot of things right. Like so many other issues facing the country, it doesn’t lend itself well to sound bites, but everyone tries to squish it down to sound bites anyway. With specific respect to the illegals who are already here, I think the vast majority of them should be given some sort of path (another complicated part of the whole immigration issue) to either legal residency or citizenship. I don’t, however, have specific ideas on how to accomplish that goal.