BOR: - Immigration

New Poll Finds 67% of Texans Support Immigration Reform

americasvoice — Thu, 13 Jun 2013 19:20:54 GMT

A new poll released today by the Alliance for Citizenship, Partnership for a New American Economy, and Republicans for Immigration Reform found that 67% of Texans support immigration reform with a pathway to citizenship.

The Texas poll is part of a 29-state series finding overwhelming support for immigration reform nationwide. View the full PDF here.

Considering their hijinks on the Senate floor this week--with John Cornyn introducing a poison pill amendment and Ted Cruz continuing to argue that citizenship is not necessary in immigration reform--have the two Senators from Texas seen these numbers?

Read the questions and full results below the jump.

Q1. There is bipartisan immigration reform legislation being debated in Washington. The bill would secure our borders, block employers from hiring undocumented immigrants, and make sure that undocumented immigrants already in the U.S. with no criminal record register for legal status. If a long list of requirements is met over more than a decade, it provides eligibility for a path to citizenship. Would you support or oppose this proposal?

Strongly support 41%
Somewhat support 26%
Somewhat oppose 7%
Strongly oppose 14%
Not sure 12%

Q2. Do you support or oppose an immigration reform plan that ensures undocumented immigrants currently living in the U.S. pay a penalty, learn English, pass a criminal background check, pay taxes, and wait a minimum of thirteen years before they can be eligible for citizenship?

Strongly support 46%
Somewhat support 26%
Somewhat oppose 7%
Strongly oppose 14%
Not sure 7%

Q3. Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for an elected official who votes for this legislation?

More likely 59%
Less likely 21%
Wouldn't make a difference 9%
Not sure 10%

Q4. Now, I'm going to read you a statement. Please tell me whether you agree or disagree. 'My Senator should support this legislation because everyone agrees our immigration system is broken, and this bill is tough but fair. It would tighten border security, crack down on employers who hire undocumented immigrants, and solve this problem once and for all.'

Strongly agree 51%
Somewhat agree 26%
Somewhat disagree 6%
Strongly disagree 13%
Not sure 4%

Q5. How important is it that the U.S. fix its immigration system this year?

Very important 68%
Somewhat important 17%
Not too important 6%
Not important at all 6%
Not sure 4%

Q6. If you are a woman, press 1. If a man, press 2.

Woman 53%
Man 47%

Q7. If you are 18 to 35 years old, press 1. If 36 to 50, press 2. If 51 to 65, press 3. If 66 and older, press 4.

18 to 35 14%
36 to 50 26%
51 to 65 35%
66 and older 25%

Q8. If you are white, press 1. If black, press 2. If Hispanic, press 3. If anything else, press 4.

White 68%
Black 12%
Hispanic 15%
Anything else 5%

Q9. If you are a Republican, press 1. If a Democrat, press 2. If an independent or any another party, press 3.

Republican 48%
Democrat 28%
Independent/Other 24%

WaPo Exposes John Cornyn's Poison Pill: How Conservatives Are Trying to Kill Immigration Reform

americasvoice — Wed, 12 Jun 2013 18:56:34 GMT

This morning, John Cornyn introduced his border security amendment to the Gang of 8 immigration bill--and many in the immigration reform world agree that it's a poison pill. Harry Reid knows it, Chuck Schumer knows it, and now Greg Sargent at the Washington Post is calling Cornyn out on it.

As Sargent wrote:

The details of the Cornyn amendment are not encouraging. It looks like it is designed for the express purpose of killing the bill.

Which is Cornyn's purpose. Cornyn may be making noises about supporting immigration reform if the enforcement conditions are right--and Marco Rubio may have been trying to work with him on that. But it's a futile effort.

Cornyn is never going to vote for immigration reform. What he wants to do is kill it.

And his chosen vehicle is this new border security amendment that uses enforcement triggers to potentially push around the goalposts that must be achieved before legalization and citizenship can be attained--a position unacceptable to immigration reform advocates.

Read more below the jump.
As Sargent describes the amendment:

First, the details. The Cornyn amendment - which Marco Rubio, a key voice on reform, has made positive noises about - would harden the "trigger" that must be achieved before the path to citizenship can kick in. It does this by mandating that the Secretary of Homeland Security "may not adjust the status of aliens who have been granted registered provisional immigrant status" - those who, under the Senate bill, would be granted legal status at the outset, and would have to wait 10 years for the path to citizenship to start - until a number of conditions have been met.
Cornyn's amendment would require that nine years and six months after immigration reform becomes law, the HHS secretary must submit a report to the president and Congress that, "under penalty of perjury," that states that "full situational awareness" and "operational control" of the southern border has been achieved; that the mandatory employment verification system is operational; and that a biometric entry and exit data system has been implemented at all designated airports and seaports. If DHS cannot attest that these conditions have been met, undocumented immigrants cannot get green cards or embark on the path to citizenship.
Here's how that differs from the current Senate bill. The gang of eight compromise also stipulates that "e-verify" and the entry-exit system be set up before citizenship can happen. But it does not tie border security metrics directly to citizenship as a condition for it. Rather, the Senate bill directs DHS to come up with a plan to secure the border and allots billions of dollars to carry it out. The Senate bill also sets as a goal that by the fifth year, 90 percent of border crossers must be being apprehended and 100 percent of the border must be being surveilled. If that doesn't happen, a border commission is set up and another $2 billion is allotted for border security.
In the Senate bill, failure to meet those security metrics would not nix the path to citizenship. By contrast, in the Cornyn amendment, if the 90 percent apprehension and 100 percent surveillance metrics are not being met, citizenship doesn't happen.

But, if this amendment became law, it would be far too easy to hold off legalization and citizenship forever by continually manipulating and pushing back the metrics in order to claim that the border still wasn't secure enough. Even now, conservatives are basically doing just that--claiming that we cannot pass immigration reform until the border is secure, even though they won't give a reasonable definition of what a secure border should look like, and even though we already spend $18 billion on immigration enforcement every year.

As Sargent continues:

In other words, if citizenship is dependent on those metrics being met, in 10 years a Republican Congress could redirect border security money elsewhere for the explicit purpose of falling short of achieving them, according to Frank Sharry, the head of the pro-immigration America's Voice. Or a DHS secretary appointed by a Republican president could simply decline to find that the metrics have been met, he adds. In this scenario, Sharry concludes, you could have come very close to achieving those metrics, but if you fall just short of 100 percent surveillance or 90 percent apprehension in just one sector of the border (something that could be engineered deliberately), it could nix citizenship for millions.
"It's not that these metrics can't be achieved," Sharry says. "It's that they would now be subject to manipulation so that they deliberately won't be achieved."

Also, as Chuck Schumer brilliantly explained yesterday, the Gang of 8 bill doesn't need anymore security provisions. It already is a balance between strict enforcement provisions and measures that grant legalization and citizenship. Senators like Mark Kirk (R-IL) may, troublingly, want the Cornyn amendment to pass as a prerequisite for their support of immigration reform. But that is not a position in support of reform at all--because the Cornyn amendment, if passed, is sure to kill the bill. As Greg Sargent concludes:

The Senate "gang of eight" bill already gives conservatives much of what they say they want. It requires billions to be spent on border security - and a plan to be drawn up to enforce it - years before citizenship happens. And it does contain triggers that citizenship is contingent upon - such as e-verify - that would enhance security. "The way to stop people from crossing the border, improving border security, is to make it harder for them to get jobs illegally," Sharry says.
The problem is that the Cornyn amendment is very well designed to make it hard for Republicans not to support it. Senator Rubio has been insisting that the bill must be moved to the right to win over more Republicans; it's an open question whether he'll support Cornyn's amendment. But Republicans who don't embrace it may now find themselves exposed to criticism from the right for not supporting "hard triggers" as conditions for citizenship. The question of whether Rubio will ultimately embrace Cornyn's changes is crucial, given that many Republicans are closely watching Rubio for cues, and given that Democrats have repeatedly said they are a non-starter.
Concludes Sharry: "Cornyn could very well destabilize the debate in a way that threatens it."

Schumer: We Know Cornyn's Game, Won't Let His Poison Pill Stop Immigration Reform

americasvoice — Wed, 12 Jun 2013 18:54:43 GMT

Earlier today, as we noted, Majority Leader Harry Reid said:

I am concerned that some who oppose the very idea of reform see these triggers as a backdoor way to undermine the legislation. And I believe some Republicans with no intention of voting for the final bill - regardless of how it is amended - seek to offer these amendments with the sole purpose of derailing this vital reform.

It's very clear to us that one of the Senators who has no intention of voting for reform but is offering poison pill amendments to kill the bill is John Cornyn.

Today, we learn that Senator Chuck Schumer understands the game Cornyn is playing. He's seen it before -- as has Frank Sharry, Executive Director here at America's Voice. Schumer is shutting down the idea that Democrats are looking at Cornyn's amendment as anything other than a poison pill -- because that's what it is.

From TPM's Brian Beutler:

Democrats want it to be crystal clear. They don't think Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) is crucial to passing immigration reform. So they aren't negotiating with him over his non-starter amendment to make a pathway to citizenship contingent upon establishing an unrealistic border security regime.
An article published by National Journal quotes Cornyn claiming Democrats are "talking to me" about his amendment, which Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has called a "poison pill," and suggesting it's an indication that they lack 60 votes to pass the broader bill.
But in unreported remarks Wednesday morning at a "Bibles, Badges and Business" event in downtown Washington, D.C., Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), the leading Democratic immigration reform bill negotiator, implicitly disputed Cornyn's claim - and a source close to Schumer, who provided the quote, says Cornyn's characterization is false.
"We cannot accept the Cornyn amendment," Schumer said. "I've told John that already. The way it would change the triggers would jeopardize the path to citizenship. You should tell the people you're lobbying that that is not going to happen. There may be other amendments dealing with the border that we can accept but not that one."
The source close to Schumer adds, "Schumer likes Cornyn a lot personally, but he spent the first two years after President Obama's election in 2008 trying to work with Cornyn on an immigration reform bill. He's impossible to get to 'yes' on this issue."
On the Senate floor Monday night, Schumer told Cornyn "you know full well that [your amendment is] a deal killer," and that other Republicans are kicking around border security ideas that might ultimately be amenable to Democrats. But because Democrats don't consider Cornyn's vote gettable, there have been no staff- or member-level discussions since then.

Cornyn is impossible to get to yes on immigration reform. His goal is to block the path to citizenship and kill reform. Fortunately, Senate Democrats (and we suspect some of Cornyn's fellow Republicans) are on to him.

Immigrants Have Contributed Billions More to Medicare Than They Have Taken

Emily Cadik — Thu, 06 Jun 2013 19:00:00 GMT

In addition to the moral arguments for immigration reform, the practical arguments keep adding up. The potential economic boost, the increased tax revenue and the contributions to the housing market (to name a few) all make a compelling case on economic grounds to naturalize the 11 million undocumented immigrants already living in the U.S. A new study on Medicare adds another layer to the argument by showing immigrants already contribute more to the program than they benefit from it - a trend that will become more pronounced as more immigrants are poised to contribute to the economy.

From the Austin American-Statesman:

"[A new] study, led by researchers at Harvard Medical School, measured immigrants' contributions to the part of Medicare that pays for hospital care, a trust fund that accounts for nearly half of the federal program's revenue. It found that immigrants generated surpluses totaling $115 billion from 2002 to 2009. In comparison, the American-born population incurred a deficit of $28 billion over the same period.
The findings shed light on what demographers have long known: Immigrants are crucial in balancing the age structure of American society, providing an infusion of young, working-age adults who support the country's aging population and help cover the costs of Medicare and Social Security. And with the largest generation in the United States, the baby boomers, now starting to retire, the financial help from immigrants has never been more needed, experts said."

Anti-immigrant rhetoric accuses immigrants of exploiting the advantages of an economy to which they don't contribute. Ted Cruz, for instance, who has vowed to vote against any immigration bill that includes a path to citizenship, said in an interview, "I think integral to remaining a nation that doesn't just welcome but celebrates legal immigrants is ensuring that those who come here are coming because they want to work towards the American dream and provide for their families and not be dependent on means-tested welfare."

It must come as a surprise to Ted Cruz that immigrants are actually helping American citizens access the 'welfare' on which he claims immigrants are dependent - and that allowing immigrants to more fully participate in our economy might actually be key to addressing our looming Medicare and Social Security crises.

Doctor NO: Sen. John Cornyn is Up to His Old Tricks on Immigration

americasvoice — Wed, 05 Jun 2013 20:32:41 GMT

There he goes again. Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) is up to his old tricks on immigration. POLITICO reports that Senator Cornyn will introduce a "sweeping amendment to the immigration bill when it goes to the floor next week, seeking to replace an entire section devoted to border security and tweak the national security and criminal justice titles." The Washington Post has an outline of the amendment, which seems to call for hard triggers that threaten the path to citizenship for 11 million immigrants and for restrictions on who is eligible for getting on the path in the first place.

According to Frank Sharry, Executive Director of America's Voice:

This is classic Cornyn. We know the pattern all too well. He pretends to be sincere about the need for reform. He asks for changes that are a bridge too far. He destabilizes the bipartisan agreement already in place. He helps to thwart reform. He votes no in the end anyway. That's why we bestowed a lifetime achievement award for being the 'Biggest Hypocrite on Immigration.'"

Read more below the jump.
Despite Senator Cornyn's rhetoric and supposed rationale, the border and interior enforcement provisions already in the Senate's immigration bill amount to the largest enforcement increase in American history. As Senator Cornyn's home-state Houston Chronicle captures in an editorial today:

The fact is, the federal government has largely met border-security benchmarks laid out in the three immigration-reform bills introduced in the Senate since 2006...implacable opponents of reform will continually move the metrics. It's a strategy to sabotage an effort that enjoys bipartisan support in Congress and popular support around the country.

Added Sharry:

While calling himself an immigration reformer, Senator Cornyn has always found a way to 'get to no' on immigration. Back in the McCain-Kennedy days, Senator Cornyn made beautiful speeches about the need for reform. Then he worked with Jon Kyl to propose a bill aimed at undermining support for McCain-Kennedy. When the bill moved to the Senate floor in 2006, he proposed poison pill amendments and then, despite the fact that 23 Republicans voted for it, he voted against it. In 2007, after winning approval for a poison pill amendment that undermined support for the bill and began the demise of the effort, he again voted no. To add insult to injury, only moments after he helped defeat reform, Senator Cornyn took to the Senate floor and gave a speech about the need to pass immigration reform. In 2010, he voted against the DREAM Act, blocking the bill from the 60 votes needed to end a Republican filibuster and dashing the DREAMs of millions of young people. And we are supposed to believe that this time he'll get to yes? We're not buying it for a moment.
The bottom line is that bill currently before the Senate has found the sweet spot: it combines the achievable path to citizenship that Democrats need with the largest increase in immigration enforcement in American history that the Republicans say they need. Messing with this balance threatens the whole project. Cornyn knows this. His colleagues should, too.

Photoblog: DREAMers in NY Protest Ted Cruz' Position on Immigration: "You Cruz, You Lose"

americasvoice — Thu, 30 May 2013 19:05:17 GMT

During the Senate markup of the Gang of 8 immigration reform bill (which ended last week), Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) made it obvious how anti-immigrant he can be, most specifically by introducing and voting for an amendment which would bar all undocumented immigrants from ever being able to attain citizenship.

Since then, DREAMers, immigrants, and allies-many of whom are Cruz's constituents back in Texas-have been up in arms, marching on Cruz's office to protest his votes on immigration. (Cruz's anti-citizenship amendment failed, but Cruz later voted against moving the immigration reform bill forward altogether.)

Read more and check out more photos below the jump.
Yesterday, Cruz came to New York to speak to the state GOP, and was met by more than a hundred shouting, chanting, drumming protestors who turned out to "unwelcome" Cruz from Manhattan. Using New York's historical status as a beacon for immigrants to highlight Cruz's stance against immigrants, the DREAMers (from Texas and New York) held signs saying "You Cruz, You Lose."

One of them was Ramiro Luna, a Texas DREAMer who came to the US at age 7.

"We're going to chase him wherever he goes," Luna said to the Dallas News. "We want him to know the immigrant community is not afraid of him."

Agreed Guisela Morroquin, a graduate student at Hunter College who was born in Guatemala, "Cruz was an immigrant himself and he doesn't acknowledge it. He's from Canada," she said, referring to his birth there.

She continued, "He's not supporting people like us. We're part of this nation, whether he likes it or not."

View photos from yesterday's protest below, courtesy of the DRM Action Coalition:

Immigration Reform Could Produce 3 Million New Home Buyers

Emily Cadik — Thu, 30 May 2013 18:30:00 GMT

We often hear about the immigrants who build our houses. But we don't often hear about the immigrants who buy them.

The National Association of Hispanic Real Estate Professionals recently estimated that legalization of undocumented immigrants could result in up to 3 million new home buyers, generating up to $500 billion in new real estate transactions.

Of the 11 million undocumented immigrants currently living in the U.S., they estimate that 6 million will pursue legalization or citizenship. Half of these would pursue homeownership based on average salary and home prices, as well as historic patterns of home buying among naturalized immigrants.

Hispanics, who make up 80 percent of the undocumented immigrant population in the U.S., are the fastest-growing group of first-time homebuyers, with over 1 million purchasing homes from 2010 to 2012.

Read about the impact in Texas after the jump.
Texas will be especially impacted, with 1.65 million undocumented immigrants living in the state. That could translate into potentially 800,000 new home-buyers.

Undocumented immigrants are a driving force in Texas's economy. Immigrants are already responsible for $265 billion in purchasing power in Texas as of 2012 - an enormous increase from $55 billion in 2010. Removing all of the undocumented immigrants in Texas would result in a loss of $69 billion in economic activity and $31 billion in gross state product. But undocumented immigrants are still excluded from a major part of our economy without being able to own homes.

As the housing market continues to recover slowly, excluding millions of potential homeowners from buying carries a huge opportunity cost.

Ted Cruz's Amendment 3 Gutting Citizenship Now in Markup

americasvoice — Tue, 21 May 2013 20:11:39 GMT

Update: Cruz 3 has just been rejected on a 5-13 vote. Senators supporting a permanent, second-class status: Sessions, Lee, Grassley, Cruz, Cornyn.

Right now the Senate Judiciary Committee (#CIRmarkup) is considering Sen. Ted Cruz's amendment 3, one of the worst amendments that has been proposed to the Senate Gang of 8 immigration bill. Cruz seems to think that citizenship is a "poison pill" and that the only way the bill can pass through the House is without the pathway to citizenship.

We ask Ted Cruz: what does he want to do with Eric?

Find out below the jump.
Eric Balderas is a current undergraduate at Harvard College. Like Ted Cruz, he wasn't born in this country. Like Ted Cruz, he came to the US at a young age and settled in Texas, where he grew up, went to school, and eventually became his high school valedictorian. Like Ted Cruz, he attends an Ivy League university. Like Ted Cruz, Eric wants to pursue a career in public service. Watch a moving video about Eric here.

But unlike Ted Cruz, Eric does not have papers and is concerned about how much he will be allowed to contribute to this country, if he is not allowed to someday earn citizenship. If Sen. Cruz does not want immigrants like Eric to ever be able to attain citizenship, what is his proposed alternative? Does he want Eric to self-deport? Or to live forever as a second-class resident in the only country he's ever called home? What kind of vision for the country is either option, for a potential 2016 presidential candidate?

Cruz' speech in favor of Amendment 3 will haunt him in 2016 #cirmarkup @mittromeny
- David Leopold (@DavidLeopold) May 21, 2013

If Cruz runs in 2016, his failed amendment against path to citizenship could be a heavy albatross around his neck when comes to Latino vote
- Ana Navarro (@ananavarro) May 21, 2013

Here's Sen. Chuck Schumer pushing back against Cruz's damaging idea, which flies against the US' entire history of immigration policy:

If there is no path to citizenship, there is no immigration reform. You cannot have an America where people come to work and never achieve citizenship.
To go to a European type citizenship, which has clearly not worked over there...creates a sense of disparity, a sense of alienation. [Citizenship] is the heart of the bill.
This won't pass in the Senate. Won't have my vote, you won't have the vote of a lot of people.

RNC Hispanic Outreach Director Resigns Over "Intolerance", Becomes Democrat

Joe Deshotel — Wed, 15 May 2013 21:12:11 GMT

The Republican National Committee's Director of Hispanic Outreach for Florida, Pablo Pantoja, has quit his post and registered as a Democrat. In his letter of resignation he cited the recent anti-immigrant study by the Heritage Foundation and the general "culture of intolerance surrounding the Republican Party today". The study itself has been making headlines because language it contains is eerily similar to one of its authors' college dissertations that concluded, "no one knows whether Hispanics will ever reach IQ parity with whites".

The entire study is predicated on the idea that allowing our current immigrant population to become citizens would create an unsustainable burden on current taxpayers. To the contrary, Texas' own Republican Comptroller found, undocumented immigrants are an actual net positive on the economy -- and we have the nation's 2nd largest immigrant population! Her offices study concluded in 2006 that, "The absence of the estimated 1.4 million undocumented immigrants in Texas in fiscal 2005 would have been a loss to our gross state product of $17.7 billion."

At this point the Heritage Foundation has distanced itself from the study's controversial author, who has now "resigned", but the damage is done. Right-wing commentators on every form of media have used the cynical study to hide their anti-immigrant bias behind the veil of fiscal responsibility. What it is really about for immigrants is the opportunity to fully express their basic human rights, the freedom to own a home, raise a family or start a business, and now what should be a more important concern for Republicans - the right to vote.

John Cornyn: Up to His Old Tricks on Immigration

americasvoice — Tue, 14 May 2013 23:19:11 GMT

Below is a post that Frank Sharry, the Executive Director of America's Voice, wrote for Huffington Post about Sen. John Cornyn and his stances on immigration:

As a group of eight senators, four Republicans and four Democrats, work together to make progress on immigration reform, there's one senator not in the group to keep an eye on. His name is John Cornyn.

In fact, Cornyn is famous for posing as reformer even as he works to derail reform.

From 2005 through 2007, the group I headed worked closely with Senators McCain and Kennedy to pass bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform. In 2005 and 2006 Senator Cornyn teamed up with Senator Kyl of Arizona to propose an alternative bill. He made eloquent speeches about the need for reform. He issued positive press releases on his hopes for reform. He held meetings with advocates for reform. We believed -- and hoped -- he was positioning himself to be the deal maker on a bill that would fix our immigration system once and for all.

Unfortunately, Cornyn turned out to be typical politician. All hat and no cattle. As the immigration bill moved to the Senate floor in 2006, he proposed poison pill amendments to weaken support for it. He voted against it, even though 23 other Republicans voted for it. It turned out all that posturing was aimed at undermining, not enacting, reform.

Read more about how Cornyn's up to his same old tricks in 2013.
In 2007, Senator Cornyn's hardline friend, Jon Kyl, decided to fight for reform rather than against it. Kyl engaged in bipartisan negotiations. The bill that emerged was similar to the earlier Cornyn-Kyl bill. President Bush and Senator Kyl fought for it. Senator Cornyn proposed poison pill amendments to weaken support for the bill. He then voted against it.

It was June 28, 2007. The bill negotiated by Kyl to win over Republicans such as Senator Cornyn had just gone down to defeat. And then, none other than Senator Cornyn stood up to give a speech on the Senate floor -- about the need to pass immigration reform!

He said, "This is a big issue, one that is worthy of the greatest deliberative body in the world -- the U.S. Senate -- and it is an issue on which I assure each of my colleagues that I intend to do my part to try to solve." But we all knew reform would be derailed for years after this defeat, and when Cornyn had his chance to resolve it just moments earlier, he voted no.

Cornyn did the same thing again in 2010. The DREAM Act passed the House and won 55 votes in the Senate in December 2010. But Cornyn was one of the Republicans who opposed it, keeping the bill from the 60 votes needed to end a Republican filibuster and dashing the DREAMs of millions of young people. One month later, at the Hispanic Leadership Network conference, he had the audacity to portray himself as a dedicated supporter of immigration reform.

But what about this year? Isn't this the year that conservative Republicans are working hard to enact immigration reform that combines border security, employment verification, new family and employment immigration lines, and a way for those here illegally to earn citizenship? Yes it is. Senators such as Marco Rubio and Rand Paul are using their political capital to fight for common sense reform.

And John Cornyn? Up to his old tricks. Despite the bipartisan effort to craft an immigration reform bill, Cornyn is grandstanding with a new, so-called "border security" bill despite the numerous reports showing that the border is more secure than it's ever been. Another enforcement-only measure that does nothing to actually fix our broken immigration system clearly signals that Cornyn's ready to derail progress once again.

But, just a couple weeks, ago, while accepting the "Small Business Advocate of the Year" award from the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce in March, Cornyn talked about the need to fix our broken immigration system. That same afternoon, Cornyn sent a letter to Patrick Leahy, Chair of the Judiciary Committee, asking him to slow down the bipartisan process for immigration reform so that he could "study" it more. Cornyn joined anti-immigrant hardliners Jeff Sessions and Chuck Grassley on the letter, as well as Texas' own Ted Cruz.

Study the issue? Yeah, right. I predict that Cornyn will once again pretend to be for reform as he works with opponents to derail it.

So here's the thing, Senator: you can try to hold immigration reform hostage until you are blue in the face -- or until Texas turns blue. But you can't have it both ways. It's your actions that matter, not your words. You either vote for reform or you don't. And millions of voters who want reform are watching.