Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this is an attempt to codify a 2013 USCIS memo establishing parole in place for unlawful aliens, spouses, children,…
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this is an attempt to codify a 2013 USCIS memo establishing parole in place for unlawful aliens, spouses, children, and parents of Active-Duty forces.
While I support the underlying rationale behind this amendment and also that policy, I cannot support this because it is too vague, broad, and ambiguous, and it does not accomplish the purpose for which it is intended. The purpose is to protect those servicemembers.
Mr. Chairman, I will tell you what this does is we don't even ask the servicemember if they want that person here. So if the person is a victim of domestic violence, escaping a spouse who is following them, there is no provision to even ask the spouse: Do you want this person to be living close to you that you are trying to escape?
It does not take into account any underlying crimes that that person may or may not have committed. Whether it is domestic violence, sexual battery, it puts the other servicemembers at risk when we don't.
Mr. Chairman, specifically, the memo provided that these relatives or anyone who has ever served in the U.S. Armed Forces for any period of time, with or without regard to whether the discharge was honorable or dishonorable, is eligible to receive parole on a categorical basis.
Mr. Chairman, we can't honor folks who have been dishonorably discharged. We are not honoring the rest of our soldiers when we honor just anyone.
In a 2013 meeting with the Obama administration, USCIS admitted that the servicemember is never contacted to determine whether he or she wants the unlawful aliens to receive parole in place.
It admitted there is no process in place to verify that the servicemember actually served in the Armed Forces.
The USCIS admitted that parole in place could be granted even if the servicemember was dishonorably discharged.
It admitted that the servicemember could have felony convictions and his or her immediate relatives would still be eligible for parole in place.
These felony convictions could be for domestic violence, sexual assault, all the things that we have come to despise and are trying to stamp out in our Armed Forces.
USCIS admitted that, even in cases of divorce, a servicemember's ex- spouse could be eligible for parole in place, and it admitted that unlawful alien relatives could still receive parole in place despite a past criminal record.
This amendment does not fix any of those issues and could allow a relative, even if estranged from a servicemember, to be granted parole.
Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I continue to oppose. Like I said, it is overly vague and broad. With the right words added to this, this could be something that works and that is helpful. But, in its current form, I can't support it.
Mr. Chair, I continue to ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
I have no further speakers, so when the gentleman is ready to close, I am ready to close.
Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Takano, my friend from California, for entering this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I do continue to oppose this amendment. But with that I just ask that he look at making it a little more finite and making it a little less vague, and with that I could support this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.