Congressman Scott Peters on screening refugees

This is an archived article and the information in the article may be outdated. Please look at the time stamp on the story to see when it was last updated.

2 comments

  • lorisaldana

    Re:Scott Peters vote on a rushed, expensive and unnecessary immigration bill, and this interview:
    As a resident of the 52nd District, I suspect this is another of Peters’ many steps to appear “moderate” as he plans for running for a local office. It was certainly not a thoughtful, carefully considered vote on good public policy.

    Moreover- every bill comes with an actual price tag for taxpayers- and this one is especially egregious and a waste of tax dollars.

    What evidence did Rep. Peters receive that makes him think this bill was worth voting for? He cites a briefing by an Obama administration official, who opposes the bill. But Peters chose to ignore the facts: longer, more expensive delays are a real part of this measure. Why does Peters think otherwise?

    In contrast: Here is CA Rep. Ted Lieu’s descriptions of how much added money and time these additional checks will require. (https://www.facebook.com/RepTedLieu/videos/416575148539144/)

    So, how does a rushed bill, with no committee hearings, high costs, and the likelihood of a Presidential veto, actually help the country and “reassure communities”? Do we really need to “certify” immigrants who are young children, or old men and women?

    Yet another very disappointing, and expensive, vote by Rep. Peters.

Comments are closed.