Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to…
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this closed rule, and in strong opposition to the underlying bill, H.R. 3003.
Mr. Speaker, today the House will consider its 37th closed rule for the year, and tomorrow it will take up number 38. My Republican friends are breaking all kinds of records here.
While I often wonder just why the Republican leadership is so afraid of open debate in the United States House of Representatives, I do recognize that it goes right along with the Republican majority's complete rejection of regular order.
The House of Representatives, I am sad to say, has ceased being a deliberative body where important issues are debated freely. The Republican leadership has shut this place down, and this is yet another example of it.
Look up the history of the bill the House will debate later today or tomorrow, H.R. 3003, the so-called No Sanctuary for Criminals Act. It was introduced on June 22. That was last Thursday. Like its 2015 predecessor, it has had no hearings, no markup, no input from local law enforcement, no regular order.
No one had a chance to testify about this bill. Not the U.S. Conference of Mayors that includes the mayors of over 1,000 cities and towns, Democrat and Republican alike, who represent over 150 million people.
Not the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Catholic Charities, Church World Service, and religious and faith leaders from all across the land.
Not the National Fraternal Order of Police, the Law Enforcement Immigration Task Force, or the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence.
Not the NAACP, the Southern Poverty Law Center, the YWCA, or hundreds of national civil rights, human rights, labor, immigration, and humanitarian organizations.
Mr. Speaker, on a bill that would affect hundreds of cities and towns and counties across America, why wouldn't we want to hear the views of these important law enforcement, State and local government, religious, civil society, and victims' organizations?
The answer is simple, Mr. Speaker. Because they all oppose this legislation. All of them.
It is much easier for Republicans to close down the process and steamroll this terrible bill through Congress than to actually get feedback from the American people and the leaders charged with keeping them safe.
If you are going to pass a bill that has so much public opposition, I guess it makes sense to do it quickly and with as little debate as possible.
Welcome to the House of Representatives, Mr. Speaker, where the voices of the American people are shut out as Republicans continue to ram through their radical agenda.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3003 does nothing to advance cooperation between local law enforcement with the Federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Cooperation between local and Federal agencies to apprehend, try, and punish serious criminal offenders, and in the case of foreign nationals, to imprison and then deport them, has always been a high priority. These are matters of national security.
But instead of continuing to foster cooperation and strengthen this priority, this bill chooses to blackmail, coerce, and penalize local law enforcement agencies and demand that they potentially violate the Constitution of the United States, in particular the Fourth Amendment, the 10th Amendment, and the 14th amendment.
I wish my Republican friends were as faithful to the rights enshrined in these amendments of the Bill of Rights as they are to the Second Amendment, but then that is a whole other debate.
And let's think about this for a minute. What are they proposing to do?
For communities and local law enforcement that believe that doing what this bill asks them to do would make it more difficult for them to do local policing, and would make it more difficult for them to have the trust of members in their community to report crimes. What my Republican friends propose to do is take away important Federal funding to help keep these communities safe.
What are we talking about here?
I think it is important for people to understand this. Programs like the COPS programs, the Community Oriented Policing Services; the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program; the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant program; and national security programs, those things would be taken away from local communities. It doesn't make any sense.
For example, the Bynre JAG is a major source of criminal justice funding for local law enforcement and provided $275 million in fiscal year 2016 for prevention and education programs, drug treatment and enforcement, crime victim and witness initiatives, and other community- based programs.
Other funding programs and grants that are threatened under this bill are used to address sexual assault, gang violence, and trafficking such as the Sexual Assault Kit Initiative, the Violent Gang and Gun Crime Reduction Program, and the Reach and Evaluation on Trafficking in Persons program.
Maybe nobody read what this bill does before they brought it to the floor. I just don't understand the logic of basically trying to blackmail communities by taking away important funding that is designed to protect the citizens of various communities across this country.
Mr. Speaker, this so-called sanctuary cities bill, as I mentioned, threatens to strip local jurisdictions of Federal grants and funding. It specifically targets law enforcement, counterterrorism, and national security grants when they prioritize working with immigrant communities to keep our neighbors and cities and towns safe.
I don't think Washington knows best all the time, unlike my Republican colleagues. I trust my local police departments on this issue more than I trust my friends on the other side of the aisle. Republicans would rather demonize these cities, towns, and local police agencies and force them to squander scarce local resources on immigration enforcement instead of local policing, making our cities and our communities less safe, not more safe.
This is why law enforcement and city governments oppose this bill. It deliberately and cynically undermines their ability to protect their communities, nurture public trust in the police and our legal system, and strengthen public safety.
Mr. Speaker, this bill reeks of prejudice. It isn't meant to solve any problem. It is meant to punish cities that don't embrace the radical views of the anti-immigrant rightwing of the Republican Party. It is meant to demonize all immigrants as criminals. It is meant to turn our local police into the lackeys of ICE.
Mr. Speaker, this House continues to wait and wait and wait for the Republican majority to show some leadership and bring up a comprehensive immigration reform bill. It has been more than 4 years since the Senate passed a strong, bipartisan immigration reform bill, and we are still waiting for House Republicans to step up and act, to actually try to solve a problem rather than continue to divide our country and continue to act in a way that is polarizing.
What we need is a way to bring 11 million of our neighbors, friends, colleagues, small-business owners, and hardworking residents out of the shadows. That is what makes America stronger. That is why 9 out of 10 Americans support immigration reform that creates a path to citizenship for the undocumented, according to a March 2017 poll by CNN/ORC.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the article about the poll.
[From cnn.com, Mar. 17, 2017]
CNN/ORC Poll: Americans Break With Trump on Immigration Policy
(By Tal Kopan and Jennifer Agiesta)
Washington (CNN).--Americans disagree with President Donald
Trump's immigration priorities, according to a new CNN/ORC
poll, with nearly two-thirds of Americans saying they'd like
to see a path to legal status for undocumented immigrants
rather than deportations.
Trump has made tough border security and strict enforcement
of US immigration laws a focal point of his campaign and
presidency--using some of his first executive orders to pave
the way for far more deportations and detentions as well as
ordering the construction of a Southern border wall.
But a CNN/ORC poll released Friday finds that the public is
actually moving in the opposite direction since Trump has won
election.
Americans are more likely to say that the nation's top
immigration priority should be to allow those in the US
illegally to gain legal status--and six in 10 say they are
more concerned that deportation efforts will be overzealous
than they are that dangerous criminals will be overlooked.
All told, 60% say the government's top priority in dealing
with illegal immigration should be developing a plan to allow
those in the US illegally who have jobs to become legal
residents.
In contrast, 26% say developing a plan to stop illegal
border crossings should be the top priority and 13% say
deportation of those in the US illegally should be the first
priority.
The number who prioritize legal status for those working in
the US illegally is up from 51% who said so last fall. That
shift comes across party lines, with Democrats and
independents each 10 points more likely and Republicans 8
points more likely to choose a plan for legal status now
compared with last fall.
While Trump campaigned heavily against ``amnesty'' for
undocumented immigrants, he has avoided rescinding an Obama
administration program offering protections and work permits
to those who were brought to the US as children, and in a
recent meeting with reporters a senior administration
official indicated Trump could be open to a compromise that
included a path to legalization, if not citizenship, if it
came to his desk.
Trump told Congress in his joint address last month that he
supported the idea of an immigration reform compromise, but
offered few details.
Offering citizenship to those immigrants who are living in
the US illegally but hold a job, speak English and are
willing to pay back taxes is immensely popular, with 90%
behind such a plan. That's consistent across party lines,
with 96% of Democrats, 89% of independents and 87% of
Republicans behind it.
The President has described his immigration policies as
focused on removing criminals, though critics of his
administration say enforcement agencies' definition of
criminal is too expansive and sweeps up people who only broke
immigration laws.
He has also ordered the creation of offices and reports
focused on publicizing victims of crimes committed by
undocumented immigrants.
Americans say, however, they are more concerned about the
effects of deportations than they are about immigrant crimes.
Overall, 58% say they're more concerned that deportation
efforts will go too far and result in deportation of people
who haven't committed serious crimes, while 40% say they're
more concerned that those efforts will not go far enough and
dangerous criminals will remain in the US. That number is
largely driven by Democrats--more than two-thirds of
Republicans say they are concerned efforts won't go far
enough.
As for deportation priorities, seven in 10 say the
government should not attempt to deport all immigrants living
in the country illegally, up from 66% in the fall.
A wide majority, nearly eight in 10, support deporting
undocumented immigrants who have committed other crimes,
however, an area Trump says is his focus. There has been a
small uptick, nevertheless, in the share who say the
government shouldn't be deporting those living in the US
illegally who have been convicted of other crimes, from 15%
to 19%.
Opinions vary by party on both of these questions, though
majorities across party lines are on the same side of both
arguments. Among Republicans, 55% oppose attempts to deport
all people living in the US illegally, below the 86% of
Democrats and 71% of independents who feel that way.
Considering deportation of those in the country illegally
who have been convicted of other crimes, 64% of Democrats
favor that, below the 79% of independents and 93% of
Republicans who say the same.
CNN/ORC interviewed 1,025 American adults by phone from
March 1 to 4 for the poll, which has a margin of error of
plus or minus 3 percentage points. Results by party have a
margin of error of plus or minus 6 points.
Mr. Speaker, instead of working together to find commonsense solutions to immigration, the Republican leadership offers extreme, deportation-only bills that undermine public safety and hurt our communities. Let them register; let them pay a fine; let them be documented and not fear talking with the police; and let us recognize their many contributions to communities across America.
These are our friends, our colleagues, and our neighbors. Our kids go to school together. We shop at the same grocery stores and eat at the same restaurants. We serve together on the PTA and worship together at church. Our country is strongest when we lift up our neighbors. This bill will only drive us apart.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is just more of the same old divisive Republican anti-immigrant formula. It will sow fear among the immigrant community, regardless of their status; it will tear families apart; it will subvert public trust of local law enforcement and police; and it will undermine the Constitution of the United States.
Mr. Speaker, America is better than this. I urge my colleagues to reject this closed rule and to oppose the underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
It is clear that the laws aren't working. That is why we need comprehensive immigration reform, and that is why it is so unfortunate that the Republicans in this House have stalled on that issue. We had bipartisan support a few years ago for comprehensive immigration reform, but people here, for some reason, would rather just demagogue the issue than do something about it.
As I said before, I actually trust my local officials, my local police, more than I do my Republican friends who are speaking here today and who spoke in the Rules Committee last night.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter to all of us from the National Fraternal Order of Police, which is strongly opposed to this bill; a letter to all of us from The United States Conference of Mayors, which is strongly opposed to all of this; a letter to all of us from the Law Enforcement Immigration Task Force, which is strongly opposed to this bill; and a letter to all of us from Cities for Action, which is strongly opposed to this bill.
National
Fraternal Order of Police,
Washington, DC, June 27, 2017.
Hon. Paul D. Ryan,
Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington,
Mr. Speaker, I know my friends think Washington knows best, but I trust my local police more.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), the distinguished ranking member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The gentleman, my friend, says that this is a constitutional question. We agree that the Constitution is an important document, and it goes to the heart of why we are opposed to the bill that the gentleman is supporting here. The reason why we say that is because we have had Federal courts that have decided in ways in the past that cause great concern that much in this bill may be unconstitutional.
Now, that is why we should have had hearings, that radical idea that we keep on bringing up, like hearings where people come and testify. But I guess that is too much to ask.
One of the reasons why we are opposed to this is because we are concerned that it may undermine the Constitution, and that is a pretty big deal. I am happy to give the gentleman my copy of the Constitution and references to court cases if he would like to do a little research, but, boy, it would have been nice to have a hearing.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter on behalf of 407 local, State, and national immigrant, civil rights, faith-based, and labor organizations in strong opposition to H.R. 3003.
June 28, 2017.
Re Vote NO on the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act, H.R. 3003,
and Kate's Law, H.R. 3004.
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the 407 undersigned
local, state, and national immigrant, civil rights, faith-
based, and labor organizations, we urge you to oppose the No
Sanctuary for Criminals Act, H.R. 3003 and Kate's Law, H.R.
3004, and any similar legislation that jeopardizes public
safety, erodes the goodwill forged between local police and
its residents, and perpetuates the criminalization and
incarceration of immigrants. H.R. 3003 would strip badly
needed law enforcement funding for state and local
jurisdictions, runs afoul of the Tenth and Fourth Amendment,
and unnecessarily expands the government's detention
apparatus. H.R. 3004 unwisely expands the federal
government's
ability to criminally prosecute immigrants for immigration-
based offenses, excludes critical humanitarian protections
for those fleeing violence, and doubles down on the failed
experiment of incarceration for immigration violations.
Over 600 state and local jurisdictions have policies or
ordinances that disentangle their state and local law
enforcement agencies from enforcing federal immigration law.
The No Sanctuary for Criminals Act, H.R. 3003, seeks to
attack so-called ``sanctuary'' jurisdictions (many of whom do
not consider themselves as such) by penalizing state and
local jurisdictions that follow the Fourth Amendment of the
U.S. Constitution by refusing to honor constitutionally
infirm requests for detainers. H.R. 3003 penalizes
jurisdictions by eliminating various federal grants,
including funding through the Cops on the Beat program, the
Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program, and
any other federal grant related to law enforcement or
immigration. Importantly, using the threat of withholding
federal grants to coerce state and local jurisdictions likely
runs afoul of the Tenth Amendment's prohibition on
commandeering, a position supported by over 300 law
professors.
``Sanctuary'' policies are critical to promote public
safety for local communities. Fearing referral to U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, victims and witnesses of
crime are significantly less likely to communicate with local
law enforcement. Local law enforcement authorities have
repeatedly echoed this sentiment, acknowledging that
community policing policies are paramount to enhancing public
safety. Indeed, ``sanctuary'' jurisdictions have less crime
and more economic development than similarly situated non-
``sanctuary'' jurisdictions. Withholding critically-needed
federal funding would, paradoxically, severely cripple the
ability of state and local jurisdictions to satisfy the
public safety needs of their communities.
Kate's Law, H.R. 3004, would further criminalize the
immigrant community by drastically increasing penalties for
immigrants convicted of unlawful reentry. Operation
Streamline encapsulates our nation's failed experiment with
employing criminal penalties to deter migration. Under
Operation Streamline, the federal government prosecutes
immigrants for reentry at significant rates. By all practical
measures, Operation Streamline has failed to deter migration,
wasted billions of taxpayer dollars, and unfairly punished
thousands of immigrants who try to enter or reenter the
United States to reunite with their children and loved ones.
We fear that H.R. 3004's increased penalties for reentry
would double down on this failed strategy, explode the prison
population, and cost billions of dollars.
Instead of passing discredited enforcement-only
legislation, Congress should move forward on enacting just
immigration reform legislation that provides a roadmap to
citizenship for the nation's eleven million aspiring
Americans and eliminates mass detention and deportation
programs that undermine fundamental human rights. Legislation
that erodes public safety, disrespects local democratic
processes, and raises serious constitutional concerns
represents an abdication of the Congress' responsibility to
enact fair, humane, and just immigration policy. In light of
the above, we urge you to vote NO on the No Sanctuary for
Criminals Act, H.R. 3003 and Kate's Law, H.R. 3004.
Sincerely,
National Organizations
America's Voice Education Fund; American Federation of
Teachers; American Friends Service Committee (AFSC);
American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee; Americans
Committed to Justice and Truth; Asian American Legal Defense
and Education Fund (AALDEF); Asian Americans Advancing
Justice--AAJC; Asian Americans Advancing Justice--Asian Law
Caucus; Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance, AFL-CIO
(APALA); Asian Pacific Institute on Gender-Based Violence;
ASISTA; Bend the ArcJewish Action; Black Alliance for Just
Immigration; Casa de Esperanza: National Latin@ Network;
Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc.; Center for American
Progress; Center for Employment Training; Center for Gender &
Refugee Studies; Center for Law and Social Policy; Center for
New Community.
Center for Popular Democracy (CPD); Christian Church
(Disciples of Christ) Refugee & Immigration Ministries;
Christian Community Development Association; Church World
Service; Coalition on Human Needs; CODEPINK; Columban Center
for Advocacy and Outreach; Committee in Solidarity with the
People of El Salvador (CISPES); Community Initiatives for
Visiting Immigrants in Confinement (CIVIC); Defending Rights
& Dissent; Disciples Center for Public Witness; Disciples
Home Missions; Dominican Sisters of Sparkill; Drug Policy
Alliance; Easterseals Blake Foundation; Equal Rights
Advocates; Farmworker Justice; Freedom Network USA; Friends
Committee on National Legislation; Fuerza Mundial.
Futures Without Violence; Grassroots Leadership; Hispanic
Federation; Hispanic National Bar Association; Holy Spirit
Missionary Sisters--USA--JPIC; Immigrant Legal Resource
Center; Intercommunity Peace & Justice Center; Interfaith
Worker Justice; Isaiah Wilson; Jewish Voice for Peace; Jewish
Voice for Peace--Boston; Jewish Voice for Peace--Tacoma
chapter; Jewish Voice for Peace--Western MA; Justice
Strategies; Kids in Need of Defense (KIND); Lambda Legal;
Laotian American National Alliance; Latin America Working
Group; Latino Victory Fund; LatinoJustice PRLDEF.
League of United Latin American Citizens; Lutheran
Immigration and Refugee Service; Mi Familia Vota; Milwaukee
Chapter; Jewish Voice for Peace; NAACP; National Center for
Transgender Equality; National Coalition Against Domestic
Violence; National Coalition for Asian Pacific American
Community Development; National Council of Asian Pacific
Americans (NCAPA); National Council of Jewish Women; National
Council of La Raza (NCLR); National Day Laborer Organizing
Network (NDLON); National Education Association; National
Immigrant Justice Center; National Immigration Law Center;
National Immigration Project of the NLG; National Iranian
American Council (NIAC); National Justice for Our Neighbors;
National Korean American Service & Education Consortium
(NAKASEC); National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health.
National Latina/o Psychological Association; National
Lawyers Guild; National LGBTQ Task Force Action Fund;
National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights; National
Resource Center on Domestic Violence; NETWORK Lobby for
Catholic Social Justice; OCA--Asian Pacific American
Advocates; Our Revolution; People's Action; PICO National
Network; Queer Detainee Empowerment Project; Refugee and
Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services (RAICES);
School Social Work Association of America; Sisters of the
Presentation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, New Windsor;
Southeast Asia Resource Action Center (SEARAC); Southern
Border Communities Coalition; Southern Poverty Law Center;
T'ruah: The Rabbinic Call for Human Rights; The Advocates
for Human Rights; The Hampton Institute: A Working Class
Think Tank.
The National Alliance to Advance Adolescent Health; The
Queer Palestinian Empowerment Network; The Sentencing
Project; The United Methodist Church--General Board of Church
and Society; U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants;
UndocuBlack Network; Unitarian Universalist Association;
Unitarian Universalist Legislative Ministry of New Jersey;
Unitarian Universalist Service Committee; UNITE HERE; United
Child Care, Inc.; United for a Fair Economy; UU College of
Social Justice; UURISE--Unitarian Universalist Refugee &
Immigrant Services & Education; Voto Latino; We Belong
Together; WOLA; Women's Refugee Commission; Working Families;
Yemen Peace Project; YWCA.
State and Local Organizations
(MILU) Mujeres Inmigrantes Luchando Unidas; #VigilantLOVE;
580 Cafe/Wesley Foundation Serving UCLA; Acting in Community
Together in Organizing Northern Nevada (ACTIONN); Advocates
for Basic Legal Equality, Inc.; Alianza; All for All;
Alliance San Diego; Allies of Knoxville's Immigrant Neighbors
(AKIN); American Gateways; Aquinas Center; Arkansas United
Community Coalition; Asian Americans Advancing Justice--
Atlanta; Asian Americans Advancing Justice-LA; Asian
Americans United; Asian Counseling and Referral Service;
Asian Law Alliance; Asian Pacific American Legal Resource
Center; Asylee Women Enterprise; Atlas: DIY.
Bear Creek United Methodist Church--Congregation Kol Ami
Interfaith Partnership; Bethany Immigration Services;
Brighton Park Neighborhood Council;
Cabrini Immigrant Services of NYC; Campaign for Hoosier
Families; Canal Alliance; Capital Area Immigrants' Rights
Coalition; CASA; Casa Familiar, Inc.; Casa Latina; Casa San
Jose; Catholic Charities; Catholic Charities San Francisco,
San Mateo & Marin; Causa Oregon; CDWBA Legal Project, Inc.;
Central American Legal Assistance; Central New Jersey Jewish
Voice for Peace; Central Pacific Conference of the United
Church of Christ; Central Valley Immigrant Integration
Collaborative (CVIIC).; Centro Laboral de Graton.
Centro Latino Americano; Centro Legal de la Raza; Centro
Romero; Chelsea Collaborative; Chicago Religious Leadership
Network on Latin America; Church Council of Greater Seattle;
Church of Our Saviour/La Iglesia de Nuestro Salvador
Episcopal; Church Women United in New York State; Cleveland
Jobs with Justice; Coalicion de Lideres Latinos-CLILA;
Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA); Coalition of
African Communities; Coloradans For Immigrant Rights, a
program of the American Friends Service Committee; Colorado
People's Alliance (COPA); Columbia Legal Services; Comite Pro
Uno; Comite VIDA; Committee for Justice in Palestine--Ithaca;
Community Action Board of Santa Cruz County, Inc; Community
Legal Services and Counseling Center.
Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto; Community of
Friends in Action, Inc.; Connecticut Legal Services, Inc;
CRLA Foundation; CT Working Families; DC-Maryland Justice for
Our Neighbors; Delaware Civil Rights Coalition; Do the
Most Good Montgomery County (MD); Dominican Sisters--Grand
Rapids (MI); Dream Team Los Angeles DTLA; DRUM--Desis
Rising Up & Moving; East Bay Sanctuary Covenant;
Ecumenical Ministries of Oregon; El CENTRO de Igualdad y
Derechos; El Monte Wesleyan Church; Emerald Isle
Immigration Center; Employee Rights Center; Encuentro; End
Domestic Abuse WI; English Ministry--Korean Presbyterian
Church of St. Louis.
Episcopal Refugee & Immigrant Center Alliance; Equal
Justice Center; Equality California; Erie Neighborhood House;
First Congregational UCC of Portland; First Unitarian
Universalist Church of Berks County; Florida Center for
Fiscal and Economic Policy; Florida Immigrant Coalition, Inc.
(FLIC); Franciscans for Justice; Frida Kahlo Community
Organization; Friends of Broward Detainees; Friends of Miami-
Dade Detainees; Georgia Latino Alliance for Human Rights;
Gethsemane Lutheran Church; Grassroots Alliance for Immigrant
Rights; Greater Lafayette Immigrant Allies; Greater New York
Labor Religion Coalition; Greater Rochester COALITION for
Immigration Justice; Grupo de Apoyo e Integracion
Hispanoamericano; HACES.
Hana Center; Harvard Islamic Society; Her Justice; HIAS
Pennsylvania; Hispanic Interest Coalition of Alabama;
Hispanic Legal Clinic; Hudson Valley Chapter of JVP; Human
Rights Initiative of North Texas; ICE-Free Capital District;
Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights; Immanuel
Fellowship: a bilingual congregation; Immigrant Justice
Advocacy Movement (IJAM); Immigrant Legal Advocacy Project;
Immigration Action Group; Immigration Center for Women and
Children; Inland Empire--Immigrant Youth Coalition (IEIYC);
Interfaith Movement for Human Integrity; International
Institute of Buffalo; Irish International Immigrant Center;
IRTF--InterReligious Task Force on Central America and
Colombia.
Japanese American Citizens League, San Jose Chapter; Jewish
Voice for Peace--Albany, NY chapter; Jewish Voice for Peace--
Albuquerque; Jewish Voice for Peace--Austin; Jewish Voice for
Peace--Bay Area; Jewish Voice for Peace--Cleveland; Jewish
Voice for Peace--DC Metro; Jewish Voice for Peace--Denver;
Jewish Voice for Peace--Ithaca; Jewish Voice for Peace--Los
Angeles; Jewish Voice for Peace--Madison; Jewish Voice for
Peace--New Haven; Jewish Voice for Peace--Philadelphia;
Jewish Voice for Peace--Pittsburgh; Jewish Voice for Peace--
Portland; Jewish Voice for Peace--San Diego; Jewish Voice for
Peace--South Florida; Jewish Voice for Peace--Syracuse, NY;
Jewish Voice for Peace--Triangle NC; Jolt.
Justice for our Neighbors Houston; Justice for Our
Neighbors Southeastern Michigan; Justice For Our Neighbors
West Michigan; JVP-HV. Jewish Voice for Peace--Hudson Valley;
Kentucky Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights; Kids for
College; Kino Border Initiative; Kitsap Immigrant Assistance
Center; KIWA (Koreatown Immigrant Workers Alliance); Korean
Resource Center; La Casa de Amistad; La Coalicion de Derechos
Humanos; La Comunidad, Inc.; La Raza Centro Legal; Lafayette
Urban Ministry; Las Vegas Chapter of Jewish Voice for Peace;
Latin American Legal Defense and Education Fund; Latino
Racial Justice Circle; Latinx Alliance of Lane County; Legal
Aid Society of San Mateo County.
Legal Services for Children; Lemkin House inc; Long Island
Wins; Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition;
Massachusetts Law Reform Institute; Middle East Crisis
Response (MECR); Migrant and Immigrant Community Action
Project; Migrant Justice/Justicia Migrante; MinKwon Center
for Community Action; Mission Asset Fund; Mississippi
Immigrants Rights Alliance (MIRA); Mosaic Family Services;
Movement of Immigrant Leaders in Pennsylvania (MILPA);
Mujeres Unidas y Activas; Mundo Maya Foundation; National
Lawyers Guild--Los Angeles Chapter; New Jersey Alliance for
Immigrant Justice; New Mexico Dream Team; New Mexico
Immigrant Law Center; New Mexico Voices for Children.
New Sanctuary Movement of Philadelphia; New York
Immigration Coalition; NH Conference United Church of Christ
Immigration Working Group; North Carolina Council of
Churches; North County Immigration Task Force; North Jersey
chapter of Jewish Voice for Peace; Northern Illinois Justice
for Our Neighbors; Northern Manhattan Coalition for Immigrant
Rights; Northwest Immigrant Rights Project (NWIRP); OCCORD;
Occupy Bergen County (New Jersey); OneAmerica; OneJustice;
Oregon Interfaith Movement for Immigrant Justice--IMIrJ;
Organized Communities Against Deportations; OutFront
Minnesota; Pangea Legal Services; PASO--West Suburban Action
Project; Pax Christi Florida; Pennsylvania Immigration and
Citizenship Coalition,
Pilgrim United Church of Christ; Pilipino Workers Center;
Polonians Organized to Minister to Our Community, Inc.
(POMOC); Portland Central America Solidarity Committee;
Progreso: Latino Progress; Progressive Jewish Voice of
Central PA; Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada;
Project Hope--Proyecto Esperanza; Project IRENE; Puget Sound
Advocates for Retirement Action(PSARA)n; Racial Justice
Action Center; Reformed Church of Highland Park; Refugees
Helping Refugees; Refugio del Rio Grande; Resilience Orange
County; Rocky Mountain Immigrant Advocacy Network (RMIAN);
Rural and Migrant Ministry; Safe Passage; San Francisco CASA
(Court Appointed Special Advocates); Services, Immigrant
Rights, and Education Network (SIREN).
Sickle Cell Disease Association of America, Philadelphia/
Delaware Valley Chapter; Sisters of St. Francis, St. Francis
Province; Sisters of St. Joseph of Rochester, Inc; Skagit
Immigrant Rights Council; Social Justice Collaborative; South
Asian Fund For Education, Scholarship And Training (SAFEST);
South Bay Jewish Voice for Peace; South Texas Immigration
Council; Southeast Immigrant Rights Network; St John of God
Church; Students United for Nonviolence; Tacoma Community
House; Tennessee Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition;
Teresa Messer, Law Office of Teresa Messer; Thai Community
Development Center; The Garden, Lutheran Ministry; The
International Institute of Metropolitan Detroit; The Legal
Project; Tompkins County Immigrant Rights Coalition;
Transgender Resource Center of New Mexico.
Trinity Episcopal Church; U-Lead Athens; Unitarian
Universalist Mass Action Network; Unitarian Universalist PA
Legislative Advocacy Network (UUPLAN); United African
Organization; United Families; University Leadership
Initiative; University of San Francisco Immigration and
Deportation Defense Clinic; UNO Immigration Ministry; UPLIFT;
UpValley Family Centers; VietLead; Vital Immigrant Defense
Advocacy & Services, Santa Rosa, CA; Volunteers of Legal
Service; Washtenaw Interfaith Coalition for Immigrant Rights;
Watertown Citizens for Peace, Justice, and the Environment;
Wayne Action for Racial Equality; WeCount!; WESPAC
Foundation; Wilco Justice Alliance (Williamson County, TX).
Women Watch Afrika, Inc.; Worksafe; Young Immigrants in
Action; YWCA Alaska; YWCA Alliance; YWCA Berkeley/Oakland;
YWCA Brooklyn; YWCA Clark County; YWCA Elgin; YWCA Greater
Austin; YWCA Greater Pittsburgh; YWCA Greater Portland; YWCA
Madison; YWCA Minneapolis; YWCA Mount Desert Island; YWCA NE
KANSAS; YWCA of Metropolitan Detroit; YWCA of the University
of Illinois; YWCA Olympia; YWCA Pasadena--Foothill Valley;
YWCA Rochester & Monroe County; YWCA Southeastern
Massachusetts; YWCA Southern Arizona; YWCA Tulsa; YWCA
Warren; YWCA Westmoreland County.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) in order to respond.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to defeat the previous question. And if we do defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to this rule to bring up Representative Bobby Scott's Raise the Wage Act, H.R. 15, which would finally give workers the raise they deserve, and increase the Federal minimum wage to $15 an hour within 7 years.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison) to discuss our proposal.
Mr. Speaker, the reason why we are trying to bring this to the floor by way of defeating the previous question is because the Republican majority in this House had basically locked everything down so we can't get important bills to the floor.
We can't even get amendments to the underlying bill that we are debating here today. It is really unfortunate and sad for this institution.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter to the entire Congress from the American Immigration Lawyers Association in opposition to this bill; a letter from Amnesty International in opposition to this bill; and a letter from Church World Services in opposition to this bill.
Statement of the American Immigration Lawyers Association Opposing the ``No Sanctuary for Criminals Act'' (H.R. 3003) and ``Kate's Law'' (H.R.
3004), June 27, 2017.
As the national bar association of over 15,000 immigration
lawyers and law professors, the American Immigration Lawyers
Association (AILA) opposes ``No Sanctuary for Criminals Act''
(H.R. 3003) and ``Kate's Law'' (H.R. 3004). AILA recommends
that members of Congress reject these bills which are
scheduled to come before the House Rules Committee on June 27
and to the floor shortly thereafter. Though Judiciary
Chairman Goodlatte stated that the bills will ``enhance
public safety,'' they will do the just the opposite:
undermine public safety and make it even harder for local law
enforcement to protect their residents and communities. In
addition, the bills which were made public less than a week
before the vote and completely bypassed the Judiciary
Committee, include provisions that will result in violations
of due process and the Fourth and Tenth Amendments to the
Constitution.
At a time when over 9 out 10 Americans support immigration
reform and legalization of the undocumented, Republican
leadership is asking the House to vote on enforcement-only
bills that will lead to more apprehensions, deportations, and
prosecutions of thousands of immigrants and their families
who have strong ties to the United States. Instead of
criminalizing and scapegoating immigrants, Congress should be
offering workable reforms that will strengthen our economy
and our country.
The No Sanctuary for Criminals Act, H.R. 3003
H.R. 3003 would undermine public safety and interfere with
local policing: H.R. 3003 would amend 8 Sec. U.S.C. 1373 to
prevent states or localities from establishing laws or
policies that prohibit or ``in any way'' restrict compliance
with or cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. The
bill dramatically expands 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1373 which is more
narrowly written and prohibits local law enforcement from
restricting the sharing and exchange of information with
federal authorities, but only with respect to an individual's
citizenship or immigration status.
Rather than empowering localities, the extremely broad
wording of H.R. 3003 would strip localities of the ability to
enact common-sense crime prevention policies that ensure
victims of crime will seek protection and report crimes. The
bill would also undermine public safety by prohibiting DHS
from honoring criminal warrants of communities deemed
``sanctuary cities'' if the individual being sought by local
law enforcement has a final order of removal.
Under H.R. 3003, localities that fail to comply with
federal immigration efforts are penalized with the denial of
federal funding for critical law enforcement, national
security, drug treatment, and crime victim initiatives,
including the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program
(SCAAP), Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS), and
Byrne JAG programs that provide hundreds of millions of
dollars to localities nationwide.
In an effort to force localities to engage in civil
immigration enforcement efforts, including those against
nonviolent undocumented immigrants, the bill would make it
far more difficult for many localities, including large
cities, to arrest and prosecute potentially dangerous
criminals. The bill could even offer criminals a form of
immunity, knowing that any crimes they commit in a designated
sanctuary city would result, at most, in their removal from
the country as opposed to criminal prosecution.
H.R. 3003 would run afoul of constitutional safeguards in
the Fourth Amendment: By prohibiting localities from
restricting or limiting their own cooperation with federal
immigration enforcement, H.R. 3003 effectively compels
localities to honor ICE detainer requests--a controversial
and constitutionally suspect practice that is nonetheless
widely-used by ICE. Federal courts have found that ICE use of
detainers violates the Fourth Amendment, and that localities
may be held liable for honoring them.
The bill also expands detainer authority by establishing
that ICE may issue detainer requests for localities to hold
undocumented immigrants for up to 96 hours--twice what is
currently allowed--even if probable cause has not been shown.
Courts have concluded that localities cannot continue
detaining someone unless ICE obtains a warrant from a neutral
magistrate who has determined there is probable cause, or in
the case of a warrantless arrest, review by a neutral
magistrate within 48 hours of arrest. The expansive
provisions in H.R. 3003 would force localities to choose
between detaining people in violation of the Constitution or
being punished as a ``sanctuary city.''
Furthermore, this bill provides government actors and
private contractors with immunity if they are sued for
violating the Constitution. Provisions in this bill transfer
the financial burden of litigation by substituting the
federal government for the local officers as the defendant.
If H.R. 3003 becomes law, American taxpayers would be stuck
paying for lawsuits brought by those who are unjustly
detained.
The bill goes even further by creating a private right of
action allowing crime victims or their family members to sue
localities if the crime was committed by someone who was
released by the locality that did not honor an ICE detainer
request.
H.R. 3003 would violate the Tenth Amendment: H.R. 3003
would compel states and localities to utilize their local law
enforcement resources to implement federal civil
immigration enforcement in violation of the Tenth Amendment's
``commandeering'' principle. The Tenth Amendment does not
permit the federal government to force counties and cities to
allocate local resources, including police officers,
technology, and personnel, to enforce federal immigration
law. The federal government also cannot withhold funds from
localities refusing to participate in federal efforts if the
programs affected are unrelated to the purpose of the federal
program, or if the sanctions are punitive in nature.
H.R. 3003 would expand detention without due process: H.R.
3003 would increase the use of detention without ensuring
those detained have access to a bond determination. Under the
bill, nearly anyone who is undocumented, including those who
have overstayed their visa would be subject to detention
without a custody hearing. The bill also establishes that DHS
has the authority to detain individuals ``without time
limitation'' during the pendency of removal proceedings.
These provisions would dramatically expand the federal
government's power to indefinitely detain individuals, and
would likely result in ever growing numbers of undocumented
immigrants held in substandard detention facilities.
Kate's Law, H.R. 3004
H.R. 3004 would expand the already severe penalties in
federal law for illegal reentry (NA 276; 8 U.S.C. 1326). The
number of people prosecuted for illegal reentry has grown
steadily to about 20,000 prosecutions each year, and such
cases comprise more than one quarter of all federal criminal
prosecutions nationwide. H.R. 3004 adds sentencing
enhancements for people who are convicted of minor
misdemeanors and people who have reentered multiple times but
have no criminal convictions. This bill will not improve
public safety and will undermine due process and protections
for asylum seekers. H.R. 3004 would waste American taxpayer
funds by imposing severe prison sentences upon thousands of
people who pose no threat to the community and who have
strong ties to the country and are trying to unite with their
loved ones.
H.R. 3004 would impose severe sentencing enhancements upon
people with minor offenses: H.R. 3004 would add sentencing
enhancements for minor misdemeanor convictions, including
driving without a license and other traffic-related offenses.
Under the current version of INA Sec. 276, if a person is
charged with reentering the U.S. after being removed, their
punishment is enhanced by up to ten years only if they have
been convicted a felony or three or more misdemeanors
involving drugs or violence. Under H.R. 3004 someone who has
been convicted of any three misdemeanors regardless of
severity would be subject to a term of up to ten years.
This expansion would unfairly target large numbers of
people who are not a threat to public safety but instead are
trying to reunite with family members and have other strong
ties to the United States. Currently half of all people
convicted of illegal reentry have one child living in the
country. Increasing sentences for illegal reentry would also
waste taxpayer dollars, costing huge amounts of money to lock
up non-violent people.
H.R. 3004 would punish people who attempt to seek asylum at
the border: H.R. 3004 expands the provisions of INA 276 to
punish not only people who reenter the U.S. or attempt to
reenter the U.S., but also people who cross or attempt to
cross the border. The bill goes on to define ``crosses the
border'' to mean ``the physical act of crossing the border,
regardless of whether the alien is free from official
restraint.'' That means that people who present themselves at
ports of entry to request asylum and are taken into custody
by CBP to await a fear screening would be subject to criminal
charges based on a past removal, even though they are seeking
refuge in the U.S.
H.R. 3004 would impose severe sentencing enhancements for
people with multiple entries: The bill would also create new
sentencing enhancements for people who have reentered the
U.S. multiple times, even if they have no other criminal
convictions. If someone has been removed three or more times,
and is found in the United States or attempts to cross the
border again, H.R. 3004 law would provide for sentencing
enhancements of up to ten years. The bill makes no exception
for bona fide asylum seekers, which means that people who are
seeking refuge in the U.S. from atrocities abroad could be
subject to a lengthy prison sentence under these provisions.
H.R. 3004 would undermine due process by blocking
challenges to unfair removal orders: The bill will prevent an
individual from challenging the validity of a removal order,
even it was fundamentally unfair in the first place. The
Supreme Court held in U.S. v. Mendoza-Lopez,481 U.S. 828
(1987) that due process requires that a challenge be allowed
if a deportation proceeding is used as an element of a
criminal offense and where the proceeding ``effectively
eliminate[d] the right of the alien to obtain judicial
review.'' This provision in H.R. 3004 is likely
unconstitutional and will cause grave injustice to
defendants, such as asylum seekers who were deported without
the opportunity to seek asylum.
Again, Mr. Speaker, our objection is that Washington doesn't always know best. We ought to trust our local law enforcement officials, our local police as to what is effective in terms of protecting the citizens of our community.
To introduce legislation that would essentially punish our local police for doing what they think is in the best interest of their communities, this bill should be renamed ``punish our local police,'' because that is what it does.
I can't believe that we are going down this road. Maybe it is a nice sound bite, maybe it is a nice press release, maybe it fits in with the Trump campaign rhetoric on immigrants and immigration; but this is just a lousy idea. And I think if we did hearings on this bill, if we actually spent some time being thoughtful about this issue, my colleagues would come to that conclusion.
Again, I would say that what we should be talking about is fixing our
broken immigration system. We need comprehensive immigration reform. The Senate, in a bipartisan way, stepped up to the plate and did it. It is about time Members of this House have the guts to bring a comprehensive immigration reform bill to the floor and fix our broken immigration system.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I include in the Record a letter to every Member of Congress from The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights in opposition to this bill; a letter to all of us from the ACLU in opposition to this bill; a letter to every Member of Congress from the National Task Force to End Sexual & Domestic Violence that is in opposition to this bill; as well as a letter to Members of Congress from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and Catholic Charities USA in opposition to this bill; and a letter from NETWORK, which is a lobby for Catholic social justice in opposition to this bill.
The Leadership Conference
on Civil and Human Rights,
Washington, DC, June 27, 2017.
Oppose the ``No Sanctuary for Criminals Act'' (H.R. 3003) and ``Kate's
Law'' (H.R. 3004)
Dear Representative: On behalf of The Leadership Conference
on Civil and Human Rights, a coalition of more than 200
national advocacy organizations, I urge you to oppose H.R.
3003, the ``No Sanctuary for Criminals Act,'' and H.R. 3004,
``Kate's Law.'' These two bills may sound ``tough,'' but they
would ultimately make the problems with our national
immigration system even worse than they already are.
H.R. 3003 would unnecessarily and unwisely penalize states
and municipalities that are attempting to strike the delicate
balance between cooperating with federal immigration
authorities, on one hand, and respecting the constraints
imposed on them by the U.S. Constitution, on the other. At
the same time, it would do nothing to address the
constitutional concerns raised by the use of immigration
``detainer'' requests, concerns that the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) itself has recognized in the past.
Among its provisions, H.R. 3003 would eliminate various
federal law enforcement grants to states and municipalities,
such as the ``Cops on the Beat'' program, unless
jurisdictions comply with all DHS detainer requests. It aims
to overturn local policies adopted by over 300 jurisdictions
across the country that have determined, as a matter of
constitutional law and sound public policy, including
community policing efforts, that they cannot hold individuals
beyond their release dates solely on the basis of a DHS
detainer request.
The senseless and tragic 2015 killing of Kathryn Steinle in
San Francisco has renewed the debate over so-called
``sanctuary cities.'' Yet the term suggests, incorrectly,
that certain states and municipalities are refusing to work
with federal immigration enforcement authorities. The truth
is that state and local law enforcement agencies (``LEAs'')
throughout the country already aid in the identification of
individuals who are subject to immigration enforcement action
through the sharing of fingerprints of those who are taken
into custody. LEAs with limited detainer policies have
determined, however, that they cannot continue to detain
individuals for immigration enforcement purposes, under the
Fourth Amendment and pursuant to numerous court rulings,
unless DHS obtains a judicial warrant, as all other law
enforcement agencies are required to do.
H.R. 3003 would not address the Fourth Amendment concerns
raised by the use of DHS detainers. Instead, it would leave
many state and municipal governments in an untenable
position: either they must disregard their constitutional
responsibilities and erode the trust they have built between
the police and the communities they serve, or they will face
the loss of vital federal law enforcement funding that helps
them fight crime in their jurisdictions. Congress should not
force such an arbitrary and unwise choice on cities.
H.R. 3004, the other immigration-related bill expected to
come to the House floor this week, would significantly
increase sentences for previously-removed individuals who
reenter the country. While the bill is an improvement over
other bills by the same name, in that it does not include
mandatory minimum sentencing provisions, it would still lead
to a likely increase in the federal prison population without
any tangible benefits. The Department of Justice's
``Operation Streamline'' program, upon which this bill would
build, has already shown that increased criminal prosecutions
do little but waste resources while failing to deter
unauthorized border crossings. It should be ended, not
expanded.
For these reasons, I urge you to vote against H.R. 3003 and
Mr. Speaker, I, again, would simply say that if we really want to do something about immigration, we ought to come together, like the Senate did not long ago, and pass comprehensive immigration reform. But, apparently, that is not in the DNA of the current leadership of this House.
Instead, we have bills that demagogue the immigration issue, that demean immigrants, that cause hysteria, and I find that very unfortunate.
This bill is a bad idea. It falls in the same category as that other bad, stupid idea of building a wall across our country.
What we ought to be doing is serious legislating, enough demagoguing, and let's get back to doing the people's business, and that includes comprehensive immigration reform.
Mr. Speaker, as I said, we need to fix our immigration laws. When a mother in the Philippines has to wait 25 years or more for a visa to reunite with her son in the United States, is that system working? No.
To lose the entire childhood and young adulthood of your son? What mother wouldn't try to enter the United States some other way, in fact, any way that she could in order to be with her child?
When your daughter is threatened with rape and murder if she doesn't become a sexual slave to gang members; when your son and the entire family is threatened with death if the boy doesn't join the gangs, wouldn't you run away and try to find safety someplace else?
And when the family arrives at the U.S. border and they actively seek out the U.S. Border Patrol and voluntarily surrender to them and ask for safe refuge and asylum, is that really entering our borders illegally?
You know, when you have been an upstanding member of the community for 10, 15, 20 years or more in the United States, and you get pulled over because the tags have expired on your car, or your license, do you really deserve to be deported, to tear apart your family, to leave behind the businesses that you have spent a lifetime creating?
And does anyone in this Chamber honestly think that if this father or mother is deported, that they won't do everything they can to try to come back to be with their kids?
I mean, these are real stories. It is not fiction. They are not fantasies. It is real. And if you listened to people in your community, you would know these stories.
If you paid attention to your local police, you would know why it is so damaging to turn them in to ICE, because they rely on these community members to inform them of criminal activities in their community. The police don't want to do what you are asking them to do. Why would you force this on them? And why would you punish them by taking away essential Federal funding to help them protect the citizens of this country?
This is a bad idea. I guess, maybe it is a good press release. Maybe Steve Bannon thinks it is a good idea. Maybe it is a good sound bite for Trump. Who knows what the rationale behind this is. But it is not sensible. It is not thoughtful.
So if you want to get serious about these issues, you know, come together, like the Senate did, in a bipartisan way, and come up with comprehensive immigration reform. That is our duty. That is our job, as Members of Congress, not this garbage. This is a waste of time. This is an insult to the American people. We ought to be able to do better.
So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this. I urge them to defeat the previous question so we can have a debate and vote on whether or not to increase the minimum wage to $15 to give people a raise. Again, we have to do that because this House is being so tightly controlled that you can't get anything to the floor.
I would remind my colleagues that the underlying bill that we are talking about here today on immigration is under a closed rule. We will have another closed rule tomorrow. So much for democracy. So much for deliberative process. So much for openness. There is no such thing here. I mean, the Rules Committee has become a place where democracy goes to die, where everything gets shut down.
We need to do better. This process stinks, and this bill is lousy. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, vote ``no'' on the rule, and if it gets to the point we have to debate this, vote ``no'' on the underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
