Access to Counsel Act of 2021
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 330, I call up the bill (H.R. 1573) to clarify the rights of all persons who are held or detained at a port of entry or at any detention facility overseen by U.S. Customs and Border Protection or U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. 1573.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Madam Speaker, H.R. 1573, the Access to Counsel Act of 2021, is an important bill that will ensure that individuals who seek to lawfully enter the United States can contact a family member or an adviser if they are held for an extended period at a port of entry.
Last September, the Judiciary Committee and the Foreign Affairs Committee held a hearing to explore President Trump's Muslim ban and the chaos that unfolded at airports across the country when it was first announced.
I can personally attest to that chaos, based on my experience at JFK Airport immediately after the ban was implemented. Refugees, individuals with valid visas, and even lawful permanent residents were detained for hours and were prevented from speaking with attorneys. Some even had their phones taken away and were unable to call their family.
Although the issue grabbed the headlines then, it is, unfortunately, a problem that occurs daily. Due to the complexity of U.S. immigration law and the fact-intensive nature of questions regarding admissibility, it is not uncommon for some people to spend hours undergoing inspection by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, or CBP.
During this time, individuals are often prevented from communicating with those on the outside. And if the individual is lucky enough to have a lawyer, CBP will often refuse to speak to them, even if they can provide critical information or correct the legal error. Moreover, serious consequences can result from being refused admission.
Some have argued that this bill will require CBP to expend significant resources, but I believe they fundamentally misunderstand the substance of the bill. To be clear, H.R. 1573 does not provide a right to counsel, nor does it impose any obligation on the Federal Government to build any additional space to accommodate counsel or hire new staff, nor to pay for counsel.
The bill simply ensures that no one who presents themselves at a port of entry with valid travel documents is completely cut off from the world during the inspection process. It allows those seeking admission, including U.S. citizens, to communicate with counsel and other parties if they are subjected to secondary inspection that lasts longer than 1 hour. The bill specifically contemplates that this could be accomplished telephonically.
It is absurd to claim that providing these individuals with the opportunity to call their families or an attorney and potentially receive their assistance during the inspection process will consume significant CBP resources.
Madam Speaker, I would like to extend a special thanks to my colleague, Representative Jayapal, for her leadership on this issue and for championing this bill.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), who is the chairwoman of the Immigration and Citizenship Subcommittee.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman from California such time as she may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to have a lot more to say about this bill a little later, but I have to respond to one point that the gentleman just made.
He said he was considering whether the agreement to enter the Union was valid or was worth it. He is not the first to consider that. John Calhoun considered that. Others considered it, and they tried it. The result was a civil war. So I certainly hope that no one is thinking of that again.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Jayapal), who is the sponsor of the bill.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, I have heard a lot of nonsense on this floor. I have heard a lot of fiction on this floor today, but not everything the Republicans have said is fiction.
They said, for instance, there is a crisis at the border. Indeed, there is a crisis at the border.
The crisis at the border started under President Trump and has continued under President Biden; the same crisis. The difference is that President Trump tried to deal with the crisis in the cruelest way possible, by tearing babies away from their parents, by tearing families apart, and by doing so, so incompetently--I assume it was incompetence; maybe it was malevolence, I don't know--that they didn't even get the records so that people today can figure out how to reunite these families.
The crisis continues, but at least we are dealing with it. We are trying to deal with it in a humane way.
It is also interesting the fictions we have heard about this bill: This bill will cost money, this bill gives people the right to an attorney, and the Federal Government will have to pay for that attorney. Not true. Not true.
I suspect my Republican colleagues have lost the ability to read a bill somehow. The bill is very clear. The bill simply says that if someone with valid documents--valid documents--no litigation as to whether they are valid or not, they have got to be valid in the first place, a U.S. citizen, a green card holder, someone with a valid visa, that is all we are talking about. The bill simply says that those people, if detained at a border entry point for a period of time for longer than an hour have the right to make a phone call.
A phone call doesn't cost the government anything. They have the right to make a phone call. To whom? To whoever they want. A family member, perhaps an attorney, a friend, whoever they want.
Experience tells us that when people can make a phone call to an attorney in such a situation because the INA, the Immigration and Naturalization Act, is so complicated, it can often straighten things out, and that saves the government money. Because they don't have to litigate, it saves the government money. So this bill will not cost the government any money. It will save it money.
It will also help people who must be helped--again, I stress, only those people who have a valid document to enter the United States and for some reason are detained at the border.
How long does this last? Eight hours, at most. That is what the bill says, 8 hours.
This bill is limited to a measure that Members on both sides of the aisle, everybody, should embrace. As I said before, this is not a bill about a right to counsel. It is simply a bill about fair process. It ensures that individuals seeking to enter the United States with facially valid documents--a visa, a green card, including U.S. citizens who may have a passport--are given an opportunity to call somebody, a family member, counsel, another interested party, whoever they want, if they are subject to prolonged inspection.
Admissibility decisions by Customs and Border Protection can have life-altering consequences. This bill will ensure that CBP has the relevant facts prior to making decisions, the relevant facts, and facts that don't cost the CBP anything to get. Well, they do, actually: the cost of a phone call. I take that back. It would cost the CBP the cost of a phone call, although not necessarily, because the person may have their cell phone on him. So, it won't even cost the cost of a telephone.
I urge my colleagues to vote in support of the Access to Counsel Act. It makes sense. It hurts nobody. It imposes no duty on the government. It imposes no cost on the government. But it does mean that people will not unnecessarily get caught up in bureaucracy. I urge my colleagues to vote in support of the Access to Counsel Act, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, as a senior member of the Committee on the Judiciary, I rise in strong and enthusiastic support of H.R. 1573, the ``Access to Counsel Act of 2021'', which would ensure that certain individuals who are subject to prolonged inspection by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) at ports of entry have the ability to communicate with and receive the assistance of counsel and other interested parties at no expense to the government.
The Access to Counsel Act does the following:
Allows individuals who already have legal status in the United States who are held in secondary inspection at airports or other points of entry for more than an hour with an opportunity to access legal counsel or an interested party, such as a relative or someone with a bona fide relationship, under certain circumstances.
Allows counsel or a covered interested party the ability to advocate on behalf of the individual by providing information or documentation in support of the individual.
Affirms the opportunity to access to counsel attaches no later than one hour after the secondary inspection process begins and as necessary throughout the process.
Invalidates any effort by CBP to persuade someone to relinquish their legal status (by executing a I-407 or Record of Abandonment of Lawful Permanent Resident Status) if that person has been denied access to counsel or voluntarily waives, in writing, the opportunity to seek advice from counsel.
In 2017, Juan Garcia Mosqueda, a decade-long legal permanent resident of the U.S., was detained at John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York City and sent back to his native Argentina by a CBP agent who told him that, ``lawyers had no jurisdiction at the borders.''
This statement, made in the weeks following implementation of the former president's 2017 travel ban, lays bare the vulnerable situation faced by people upon their arrival to the United States.
Behind closed doors without a friend or counsel, people are subjected to prolonged questioning, coercion, extended detention, mistreatment and summary expulsion.
Many lose valuable rights, and sometimes more, as CBP agents interpret and apply complex immigration rules to decide people's lives without the benefit of a knowledgeable advocate.
While many within the agency interpret and apply the law competently, the position does not require more than a high school degree, and CBP inspectors continue to act as judge, jury and expulsioner without so much as a whisper allowed during that decision making from an attorney representing the banished.
We are a country of laws, and we hold as a cherished tradition the concept of due process of law.
The need for this bill became apparent after the Trump Administration implemented the Muslim ban in early 2017, resulting in individuals being detained at airports, while others being barred from boarding flights and pulled off planes abroad.
In 2020, we saw additional instances of CBP officers unjustly detaining Iranian Americans for up to 12 hours at the northern border in Blaine, WA and detaining and deporting Iranian students who were attending U.S. universities and people from Iran traveling on valid visas.
Immigrants and civil rights activists have also raised concerns that CBP appears to target individuals for inspection based on racial profiling, and often holds U.S. citizens with proper documentation in secondary inspection without access to an attorney.
For example, three Black CBP officers recently filed a lawsuit against DHS, alleging CBP routinely targets and harasses Black travelers at the Blue Water bridge between Port Huron and Sarnia on the Canada-Michigan border.
A March 25, 2021 report by the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan examined CBP data on apprehensions at the Michigan-Canada border and corroborates these allegations.
The report found that between 2012 and 2019, over 96 percent of the 13,000 documented apprehensions involved people of color, and one-third involved U.S. citizens.
In another example, Tianna Spears, a Black U.S. citizen diplomat working at the U.S. consulate in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico said that she was targeted regularly for inspection over a four month period, despite crossing the border daily, possessing a diplomatic passport and Global Entry approval, and having registered her car in the SENTRI system.
She states that during these encounters, she was unable to contact counsel or State Department colleagues who could verify her identity.
After four months of regular apprehensions, she began to develop symptoms of PTSD, and was forced to transfer to a different post. She later resigned from the State Department.
Madam Speaker, we must ensure that people are treated fairly during the inspections process, and to do so at the very minimum requires that CBP permit representation of counsel when requested during inspections.
I urge all Members to vote for H.R. 1573 and send a powerful message that this House stands firmly behind America's well-earned and long established reputation of being the most welcoming nation on earth. [From Curbed, Mar. 2, 2017] Owner of NYC Design Gallery Detained at Airports, Denied Re-entry to U.S.
Juan Garcia Mosqueda, founder of New York art and design gallery Chamber and a decade-long legal permanent resident of the U.S., was detained last Friday at John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York City and was sent back to his native Argentina, ahead of his gallery's new show-- Domestic Appeal, Part III--which opens tonight.
In an open letter titled The Visible Wall released by Mosqueda on Tuesday, he called the experience ``dehumanizing and degrading,'' and detailed his 36-hours-long detainment, questioning, and return to Buenos Aires.
The reaction from the design community was swift and impassioned. Posting Mosqueda's open letter on Tuesday, Sight Unseen wrote: ``We are strongly against this administration's unfair and un-American targeting of immigrants--and not just those who are important design gallerists, but all those who seek to make a better life here.''
Designers, journalists, and other supporters took to Twitter to rally behind Mosqueda and decry his alleged treatment.
Of the response from the design community, Mosqueda said this in a statement emailed to Curbed:
Since issuing the letter . . . I have received tremendous support from not only the design community in New York but from people all over the world. I greatly appreciate everyone's kind words and concern following this unfortunate incident.
My reason for sharing my experience was to bring to light the situation currently facing immigrants from around the world and to encourage my American friends to contact your local congressmen and push for immigration reform. I am currently in the process of dealing with my reentry into the United States and for this reason I am not able to speak with media at this time. Thank you again for your support.
You can read Mosqueda's open letter in full below. The Visible Wall
Dear Friends: This past Friday, February 24, 2017, I was denied entry into the United States--the nation where I have been legally residing for the past ten years. The procedure was dehumanizing and degrading every step of the way.
After being escorted to the secondary inspection premises, I was brought down for interrogation where I was questioned under oath and threatened with the possibility of being barred from entering the country for five years.
The border patrol officer denied me the right to legal counseling, arrogantly claiming that lawyers had no jurisdiction at the borders. Shortly after my sworn statement was delivered to the chief officer in charge, they informed me that I was not permitted to come into the country and, therefore, would be forced onto the return flight to Buenos Aires later that evening.
During the following fourteen excruciatingly painful hours, I was prohibited from the use of any means of communication and had no access to any of my belongings, which were ferociously examined without any warrant whatsoever. I was deprived of food. I was frisked three times in order to go to the bathroom, where I had no privacy and was under the constant surveillance of an officer.
Finally, I was escorted by two armed officers directly onto the plane and denied my documents until I reached my destination, Buenos Aires.
This thirty-six hour nightmare is nothing but clear evidence of a deeply flawed immigration system in the United States, carried out by an administration that is more interested in expelling people than admitting them.
I was educated in America, worked at prestigious design entities, and, now, as you all know, own a gallery which employs Americans and non-Americans alike. Chamber supports architecture and design studios in the United States and abroad.
I own several properties in New York and have collaborated in numerous projects with architects, contractors, and construction workers to bring to life projects around the city. We have created a network within the creative industries that span all disciplines and media that help individuals sustain their practices and do what they love.
We proudly carry the New York flag to every fair that we do and every project we initiate across the globe. We self- publish books printed in the United States. And, needless to say, we pay considerable federal and state taxes that help fund many of the societal aspects that fuel the American engine.
Although I am not an American citizen, Chamber is an American product that I hope adds to the cultural landscape of the country. The gallery was conceived in alignment with the same idea of inclusion that was found in the streets of the Lower East Side (where I live and was denied access to) not so long ago: a melting pot of all nationalities and religions, importing ideas from abroad to a culturally embracing metropolis.
We have worked with over 200 artists and designers, from Tokyo to Los Angeles, from Amstetdam to Santiago, in our less than three years of existence and rely heavily on social mobility to get our message across and display the works that we want to show.
To my American friends, I urge you to contact your congressmen and push for immigration reform. Push for a system that does not alienate, intimidate, and bully foreigners but that, on the contrary, welcomes and encourages citizens from all countries to want to keep investing in and contributing to your wonderful country.
This coming Thursday, I will not be able to celebrate the opening of our newest show, Domestic Appeal, which my team and I worked hard to conceive, and will not be able to meet some of the incredible participants that are traveling to the United States to take pride in displaying their creations in one of the most culturally relevant cities on the planet.
Please come see it, have a glass of wine, and enjoy it on my behalf!
Hope to see you all very soon, Juan Garcia Mosqueda, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source