Rep. Brandon Gill (R-TX) on Wednesday skewered a left-wing attorney during testimony before the Judiciary Committee hearing after he admitted his beliefs that taxpayers should pay to house illegals in jail instead of deporting them, local police should not cooperate with federal immigration agents, and American taxpayers should provide healthcare benefits to illegals.
The heated exchange occurred during the Committee’s hearing on the 1982 Supreme Court decision in Plyler v. Doe, which required states to provide illegal aliens a free K-12 education. Gill sparred with liberal witness Thomas A. Saenz, President & General Counsel, Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund.
Gill kicked off his questioning with the simple question of “if somebody crosses the border illegally, what should happen to them?”
Saenz gave the long, drawn-out response of “Federal law indicates that there are steps that can be taken to remove them. Now that can happen at the border, or it can happen when they are integrated into society. There are protections once you are integrated in society, especially depending on how long.”
During several minutes of back and forth on whether or not illegals should be allowed to come in and later commit crimes, Saenz said he believes that Americans should be forced to rehabilitate illegals instead. He further claimed that simply deporting illegal alien criminals is “too facile,” while arguing that rehabilitation at the expense of US taxpayers is “for the benefit of society.”
He then doubled down, saying that even if “police arrest an illegal alien for breaking into somebody’s home in the middle of the night,” they “should be put through the criminal law system that we have” and not given to immigration officials. Then, he attempted to avoid the question of whether the illegal should be handed over to immigration authorities after being convicted and serving their sentence or whether they should be released back into the community. “There are too many repercussions of a policy like that,” he said. “You’re putting it in the context of a single instance, so it’s very difficult to answer the question.”
Gil then asked, “Should American taxpayers pay for Medicaid for illegal aliens?’ That’s when Saenz flat-out admitted, “In many circumstances, yes.” He continued, “And not just American taxpayers, but immigrant taxpayers who also pay taxes as well. As you know, sir, there is no exception for tax paying based on immigration status.”
Gil further asked if he believes illegals should receive Social Security benefits, but Saenz claimed his question was “misleading” and refused to answer, instead claiming there are no illegals receiving Social Security.
However, President Trump revealed last August that his administration identified and “kicked nearly 275,000 illegal aliens off of the Social Security system.” Additionally, “12.4 million names where they were over 120 years old,” were removed from the list.
Gil concluded his questioning in response to Saenz’s Social Security claims, firing back, “It’s a really basic question, and you don’t want to answer it because you’ve got a crazy, radical open borders agenda that we can all see.”
WATCH:
Gill: Mr. Saenz, if somebody crosses the border illegally, what should happen to them?
Saenz: Federal law indicates that there are steps that can be taken to remove them. Now that can happen at the border, or it can happen when they are integrated into society. There are protections once you are integrated in society, especially depending on how long.
Gill: If we find them crossing into the country illegally, they should be deported, to put it simply. Is that right?
Saenz: If someone does not have a right to enter, yes, there is a right under federal law to interdict them and prevent them from entering. That’s been a basic element of immigration law for a very long time, including during Plyler.
Gill: Do you believe that American tax dollars should be used to rehabilitate criminal and legal aliens within our own borders?
Saenz: I believe it’s in our own interest to rehabilitate anybody who commits a crime.
Gill: Including criminal illegal aliens that never should have been—
Saenz: If it happens within our borders, it’s to the benefit of all of us to rehabilitate them. Rehabilitation of those who are convicted criminals is not for their own benefit! It’s for the benefit of society.
Gill: How many criminal illegal aliens should we rehabilitate?
Saenz: Again, anyone who commits a crime and is convicted of a crime should be rehabilitated for the benefit of the entire society.
Gill: So if an illegal alien comes into our country and murders or rape somebody, we ought to rehabilitate them, is your view, and there’s no limit to the number of illegal alien criminals we should rehabilitate. Is that your testimony?
Saenz: I wasn’t asked to testify about that, Congressman. I was asked to testify about Plyler. I’m not sure what this has to do with Plyler.
Gill: I’m clarifying your position, which you just attempted to lay out.
Saenz: I think my opposition is quite clear. Thank you.
Gill: Okay, how much money should we spend on rehabilitating criminal legal aliens?
Saenz: We should spend as much money as necessary to rehabilitate anyone who is convicted of crime in this country again, let me just note Congressmember, it has nothing to do with Plyler versus Doe. These are children, and with an education, they are far less likely to ever commit a crime!
Gill: We’re getting there, and you’re here to answer my questions, actually. Couldn’t we just secure the border and deport illegal aliens as opposed to rehabilitating them on our own tax dollars?
Saenz: That’s too facile, Congressmember, and I think you should understand that. The simple fact is, society benefits from rehabilitation. It’s not a gift to anyone who’s convicted of a crime. It’s for society.
Gill: Society’s paying for rehabilitation it sounds like. Do you believe that there should be a strict wall of separation between local law enforcement and immigration officials?
Saenz: Do I believe there should be such a law? Yes, I do.
Gill: That there should be a strict wall, to be clear, a strict wall of separation.
Saenz: All laws are strict. I’m not aware of Congress or any legislature passing a lenient law.
Gill: It’s walls, W, A L, L.
Saenz: Oh, wall. I thought you said law. I think a wall would be incredibly ridiculous, frankly.
Gill: A wall of separation between local law enforcement and immigration officials.
Saenz: Oh, a wall of separation. Okay. Yes, Congressmember, yes. Again, I do believe there should be a law of separation. And if you want to describe that law metaphorically as a wall, I would accept that.
Gill: Okay. I was using— I was actually using your words where you said there should be a strict, strict wall of no cooperation between local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities. That’s something that you had said in an interview with NPR in November of 2016. So police arrest—
Saenz: I’ve just acknowledged that, so I’m not sure why you’re putting myself to myself. I’m sure that interview was not about Plyler.
Gill: I’m the one asking questions here, not you. If police arrest an illegal alien for breaking into somebody’s home in the middle of the night. Should they turn that illegal alien over to immigration officials?
Saenz: So, Plyler versus Doe guarantees an education—
Gill: It’s just a yes or no question.
Saenz: And as a result, that means that those kids who receive that education are far less likely to break into anyone’s home, Congressmember.
Gill: But I’m asking, let’s say they do, should they be turned over to immigration officials? It’s just a yes or no question.
Saenz: No, no, no. They should be put through the criminal law system that we have.
Gill: But what about after serving their, let’s say they’re convicted, and they serve a sentence, and this is a criminal and legal alien. They broke into somebody’s home. They’re convicted, they serve, let’s say, a five year sentence. Instead of releasing them onto the street, should local law enforcement or prison officials give them over to immigration officials?
Saenz: There are too many repercussions of a policy like that. You’re putting it in the context of a single instance, so it’s very difficult to answer the question.
Gill: It’s very clear that your answer is no.
Saenz: No, that’s not clear. That’s not clear, sir. Please don’t put words in my mouth. You have my words from NPR, and what I say here, you don’t need to put words in my mouth.
Gill: Should American taxpayers pay for Medicaid for illegal aliens?
Saenz: In many circumstances, yes. And not just American taxpayers, but immigrant taxpayers who also pay taxes as well. As you know, sir, there is no exception for tax paying based on immigration status.
Gill: Should American taxpayers pay for Social Security for illegal aliens? It’s a yes or no question. I think the answer is no, so I’m asking you.
Saenz: It’s not a yes or no question. It doesn’t happen. We don’t provide Social Security benefits to undocumented people. I wasn’t aware that was a topic of today’s hearing.
Gill: I don’t think that should happen, and I’m asking you if you think it should happen.
Saenz: I don’t believe that that’s a question when we doesn’t happen. It’s misleading to suggest it does. No one who’s undocumented receives Social Security.
Gill: It’s a really basic question, and you don’t want to answer it because you’ve got a crazy, radical open borders agenda that we can all see.
The post WATCH: Rep. Brandon Gill DESTROYS Leftist Attorney After He Claims Americans Should Pay for Illegals’ Welfare – “You’ve Got a Crazy, Radical Open Borders Agenda” appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.