Secure the Border Act of 2023
Floor Speech
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the child deportation act. This cruel, inhumane, and unworkable bill was written in an extreme MAGA Republican echo chamber.
Considering H.R. 2 today under a closed rule is a cynical move on the part of Republicans to exploit the operational challenges associated with the lifting of title 42 public health restrictions.
Republicans have a short memory. Just in February, they voted to lift title 42 when they voted to lift the COVID-19 health emergency. It sets Customs and Border Protection up for failure by shifting all processing to ports of entry without providing any additional resources.
To make matters worse, it would bar CBP from leveraging technology to process migrants in an orderly way. H.R. 2 doesn't fund a single new officer at our ports of entry, where more than 90 percent of fentanyl is interdicted.
In committee, we tried to get an additional 1,700 officers to build greater capacity, but Republicans refused to do it.
Furthermore, this xenophobic bill would strip DHS funding from any community or religious organization that helps migrants. The language is so broad that an organization that places water in a remote area of the desert or provides a pregnant mother with a safe place to sleep would be ineligible for DHS funding. It is so broad that they may be refused homeland security grants to help protect their facilities.
Denying assistance to nonprofits is just plain shameful, particularly after what we saw in Brownsville this past weekend. There is reporting that a man who rammed his SUV into a crowd outside a migrant shelter, killing 8 and injuring at least 10 others, was fueled by invasion and alien rhetoric. My heart goes out to everyone hurt by this senseless act of violence.
The language in this bill is so far-reaching that it would force the American Red Cross to verify every person's immigration status before providing lifesaving services. Can you imagine if they had to say, ``Show your papers,'' before evacuating people? That is just inhumane.
Get this: H.R. 2 is so broadly written that it would actually impede detention and deportation.
Mr. Speaker, FOX News viewers who support deporting migrants should take a look at section 115(c) in division A. If enacted, it would prohibit DHS from contracting with any nongovernmental organization to transport or shelter ``inadmissible aliens.''
This language would prevent ICE from contracting with private companies to facilitate deportation or provide detention space because these companies are nongovernmental organizations. Yes, you heard that right. This bill is so poorly written that it could actually prevent ICE from deporting people.
Over the next 2 hours, Democrats will discuss many other problematic provisions of this extreme MAGA bill that Republicans cobbled together and that we learned yesterday would blow a $6.1 billion hole in the budget.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, the extreme MAGA Republican default on America act, which the last speaker voted for, would result in an across-the-board cut of 22 percent for the Department of Homeland Security, which would undermine border security.
Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, this bears an important, absolute, and imperative necessity of a little walk down memory lane. In actuality, the American people really want to uphold her values, the values that they have come to understand as a core of who we are.
The Homeland Security Committee traditionally, as the chairman and I have seen over the years, worked in a bipartisan manner. A little history is that just more than a decade ago, there was a bipartisan, comprehensive immigration bill led by the late John McCain.
Unfortunately, interestingly enough, the Senate moved, and the House simply imploded that dream, the dream that those who came to this country without anything and did not know they had come wrongly, if you will, young people, could be DACA recipients and ultimately work their way toward citizenship.
It was an effective asylum process, and we argued vigorously for legal immigration. People dutifully got in line, but consistently, as we refused to build on the comprehensive immigration structure, even though Democrats supported heavily enhancing the border--my bill some years ago provided enormous new equipment and technology.
One of our colleagues even explained, by the way, this new border wall that everyone wants to talk about is not a border wall because it is indented onto U.S. soil. Once you get over the wall, you are already eligible to apply for asylum.
Most of the people who come, come through legal points of entry, so why the cruelty of this bill?
I can be for legal immigration, and I can be for securing this Nation, and I don't have to take a sledgehammer and bloody the very fabric of this Nation.
It is interesting that we offered 43 Democratic amendments. None were accepted.
Is there something wrong with body cameras for our officers at the border? Not accepted.
Is there something wrong with refusing to separate 9-month-olds and 5-year-olds from their families, family unification, committing to not separating families? Is that something wrong?
I work with NGOs. I am in Texas. I am in Houston. We are getting some of those migrants in Houston, and there will be an NGO that will be dealing with individuals who are not statused.
What you want to have happen, as is happening in El Paso because of the overwhelming, is that you want no resources, people on the street, and, I am so sad and ashamed to say, the loss of individuals in Brownsville in what seemed to be a murderous rage. We cannot do this.
Mr. Speaker, I urge Republicans who support detaining and deporting more migrants to take a look at section 115(c) in division A.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, if enacted, it would prohibit DHS from contracting with any nongovernmental organization to transport or shelter ``inadmissible aliens.''
What is that? This language would prevent ICE from being able to contract with private companies that facilitate deportation or provide detention space because they are nongovernmental organizations.
Ironically, it seems that this child deportation act may actually undermine our friends on the other side's MAGA deportation agenda.
Why are we not more committed, Mr. Speaker, to coming together around the ideals of the Statue of Liberty? Bring us your forlorn, your worn, your desperate.
Yes, they are coming in droves, but the President has a plan. There will be more interaction with Guatemala. There will be processes in Mexico. There will be more officers at the border for those who are seeking asylum.
Why should we reject that? Why don't we come and find a way to stand up the infrastructure because a border wall that is $45 million per mile is not going to be the only solution.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to take this bill off the floor, go back to the drawing board, work with those of us in the Homeland Security Committee, with all the amendments we offered, and make a reasonable difference in the lives of Americans.
Mr. Speaker, might I put back on the table, because they are all in my office all the time, that the DACA recipients need a response. They are paramedics, doctors, lawyers, teachers. How dare we ignore the talent that is here that wants to be patriotic Americans.
I only ask for mercy. Take the bill back. Help our children. Make a difference. Honor the Statue of Liberty and protect the national border of this United States of America. We can do it, and it is not being done either by Texas or by the United States of America. We want to do it. The people in Houston want to be humanitarian, and they want to be safe.
Mr. Speaker, I am here today to reassert my opposition to H.R. 2-- Secure the Border Act of 2023.
I along with my colleagues have attempted to address many of the ills these bills purport by offering common sense amendments that Republicans have continued to refuse any meaningful consideration.
I would like to highlight some of my amendments that were offered in both the Judiciary Committee Markup and the Homeland Security Committee Markup for H.R. 2.
In addressing, H.R. 2, the Secure the Border Act of 2023, we need the American people to understand that this is an unfortunate patchwork of extreme anti-immigrant proposals that would only add to more chaos at the border.
It includes a variety of illogical measures that would shut down the U.S. asylum system and target families and children for the cruelest forms of treatment.
One measure would make overstaying a visa a crime--for the first time in our history.
I offered amendments to H.R. 2 along with many of my Democratic Colleagues both during Homeland Security Committee markup and for consideration by the House Rules Committee for inclusion for consideration during the of this bill--but all Democratic amendments were rejected by the Republican majority.
As a senior member of the House Committees on Homeland Security and Judiciary I have a well-established public record for working to address our Nation's most pressing immigration issues through sound government policies.
Immigration is not a criminal matter but categorized as a civil claim because seeking to travel, requesting refugee status, or attempting to make a better life in another country should not result in criminal prosecution.
There are nations who do seek to punish U.S. citizens who are traveling abroad through criminal prosecution with tragic consequences.
I have worked on the issue of unlawfully detained U.S. citizens who are held in other countries for a host of reasons that come down to the politics of a country and not due to a defendable immigration policy.
The conduct of the previous Administration in the forced separation of I offered would have added a mens rea requirement such that to be criminally liable, a person must knowingly and willingly overstay their visa.
It is important to remember that an individual can make an honest mistake about when they need to depart the country, be physically incapable of departing the country, or unable to return because of circumstances beyond their control in their home country.
Yet this bill has no exceptions or flexibility when it comes to overstaying a nonimmigrant visa. It is also important to remember that if a person overstays their visa, they are already subject to removal. The addition of a criminal penalty is both cruel and unnecessary.
Our immigration system needs reforms, and we are absolutely interested in bold new ideas to fix it, but this is not one of them.
My first amendment for H.R. 2, was offered to require U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to provide Congress with a plan for implementing-- within one year--the use of body-worn cameras by its agents and officers who are engaged in border security or immigration enforcement activities. Any implementation of a plan for body-worn cameras would require additional congressional action.
Both CBP and ICE have already begun deploying body-worn cameras to their frontline officers and agents to provide greater transparency into interactions with the public.
In the event there are allegations of excessive force or other misconduct by an officer or agent, footage from body-worn cameras can enhance the agencies' ability to investigate.
Several studies on the effectiveness of body-worn cameras have found that police officers wearing cameras generate significantly fewer complaints and ``use of force'' reports relative to officers without cameras.
And savings from reduced complaints against officers, and the reduced time required to resolve such complaints, can result in substantial cost savings.
It is troubling that the underlying bill seems to seek cost savings at the expense of ensuring orderly and fair processing of asylum seekers; It would make more sense to save money by investigating complaints more quickly and preventing misconduct in the first place.
My second amendment for H.R. 2, was offered to clarify that the official policy of the United States as implemented by the agencies of the Department of Homeland Security shall be to keep families together and not remove children from parents or responsible adults unless the safety or welfare of the child is at risk.
The official policy of the Trump Administration was to separate children from their parents. No child--no matter where they are born-- should be separated from their family, particularly after surviving the harrowing journey to the U.S. border.
My amendment was offered to stand firm in our principles that should bar CBP from separating children from their families unless there is evidence that the child is being trafficked. It further directs the DHS, in coordination with the State Department and HHS and the Attorney General to provide quarterly reports to Congress on the status of efforts to reunify migrant families and prevent future family separations.
Never again should we allow families to be ripped apart.
These are common-sense amendments that have been repeatedly disregarded by my colleagues across the aisle who have instead chosen to put forward legislative attacks on our most vulnerable populations. Border security can be done in Bipartisan solutions.
It is time we stop the negativity and counterproductive efforts that are ripping apart our country, and to instead focus on coming together to work towards sensible and effective solutions that can work for the betterment and growth of our country and the security at the southern and northern border.
I urge my colleagues to vote no on this wrong minded legislation. Section 115(c)--Deportation & Detention
Mr. Speaker, I urge Republicans who support detaining and deporting more migrants to take a look at section 115(c) in Division A.
If enacted, it would prohibit DHS from contracting with any ``nongovernmental organization'' to transport or shelter QUOTE ``inadmissible aliens'' UNQUOTE.
This language would prevent ICE from being able to contract with private companies that facilitate deportations or provide detention space because they are nongovernmental organizations.
Ironically, it seems that the ``Child Deportation Act'' may actually undermine the extreme MAGA deportation agenda.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, Republicans want it both ways. First, they vote to reduce the number of Border Patrol agents in the field by 1,400 under their default in America act, and now all of a sudden, they want to do something different. So either you are for it or you are against it, but you can't have it both ways.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, the Congressional Budget Office says the child deportation act would ``decrease the population of the United States by about 600,000 people, mostly by reducing the number of unaccompanied children present in the country.''
Republicans claim to be concerned about exploitation and abuse of unaccompanied children, but their answer is to slam the door shut and deport them from the United States.
Mr. GOLDMAN of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2, which is a cruel and draconian bill that demonizes asylum seekers, harms unaccompanied migrant children, and defunds programs that support nonprofit organizations and local governments that are essential to the humane processing of asylum seekers coming to our shores hoping for a better life.
Just a brief response to the gentleman from Florida. Our law says that anyone crossing the border anywhere can apply for asylum. There is no such thing as lawful asylum and unlawful asylum. In fact, this is an area that we should address in a bipartisan way. We are in desperate need for comprehensive immigration reform. We need thoughtful and effective border security. We need more immigration judges to process asylum applicants. We need more visas for those to enter this country legally, and we need a pathway to citizenship that all of our ancestors have benefited from.
But this bill is the opposite of that. It was unilaterally written by House Republicans as a partisan messaging bill with no chance of becoming law. With this bill, Republicans are putting politics over people.
In our committee, Democrats offered more than 30 amendments to try to amend and improve this bill. Every single Republican voted ``no'' on every single amendment. One even expressed shock that Democrats would dare to try to change their bill.
Sadly, the Republicans rejected one of my amendments that would do more to address border security and fentanyl trafficking than anything else in this bill: An amendment to stop the massive flood of American guns to drug cartels in Mexico, those same cartels that the chairman from Tennessee says are in control of the border. These guns give the cartels their power, it fuels the violence, and facilitates their illegal trade.
Mexico has one gun shop, and it takes months of background checks to purchase a gun. But the latest estimates that we have here are that more than 500,000 American-made guns are exported to Mexico, including assault weapons of war, and many land in the hands of cartels to fuel their human and drug trafficking operation. There isn't a single mention of guns in H.R. 2, not one.
This bill is supposed to be about border security. Our border is broken, as one of my colleagues just said. How can we fix the border when the cartels are ruling it with American guns? Any serious attempt to secure our borders has to address the exportation of more than 500,000 American guns per year to Mexico.
Mr. GOLDMAN of New York. Mr. Speaker, just like the gun violence epidemic that is ravaging our country, Republicans refuse to address the source of the problem. We need comprehensive immigration reform, meaningful solutions to address our broken immigration system, and to live up to our American values. This bill is nothing of the sort. Instead, it turns a real crisis that needs serious solutions into a political messaging tool.
Mr. Speaker, therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, on March 15, Border Patrol Chief Ortiz told the Homeland Security Committee that ``cartels control an awful lot of the southern border south of the United States.''
Last time I checked, south of the United States meant Mexico and not five of the nine U.S. Border Patrol sectors.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, at some point you have to correct the Record. We had a debt ceiling budget vote several weeks ago. The Republican-approved debt ceiling budget would cut the DHS budget by 22 percent.
So you can't be for something, but you don't invest in what you say you are for.
I will step back a little further and say that if Republicans are really serious about border security, then they would have joined Democrats in passing last year's government funding bill. It provided more than $17 billion to Customs and Border Protection alone and a 17 percent increase in the Border Patrol budget, but unfortunately, Speaker McCarthy voted against that, too.
Democrats have been to the border. In April of this year, I took nine Members to the border. We talked to a lot of people. I have been on the committee quite a while. I have gone to the border a number of times to see, so one visit I didn't go to is not the end of the world. I was on the border before the Speaker was in Congress, so there is history here that we just need to make sure that we all understand.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, the extreme MAGA Republican default on America act, which the last Speaker voted for, would result in CBP not being able to seize nearly 900 pounds of fentanyl because of the draconian cuts to its budget.
Mr. ROBERT GARCIA of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this un-American and cruel bill.
Now, I immigrated to this country as a small child, and I love our country for all it has provided me and my family. Immigrants love this country. They dedicate their lives to working, and they make a community stronger.
This bill does not uphold our values as a nation. A bill that was true to those values would uplift and celebrate the contributions of immigrants. Real patriots know that love of country is actually about helping people.
Let's be crystal clear. We all want a safe and secure border, and the best way to achieve that is through comprehensive immigration reform and creating legal pathways for people who want to come here to work.
Sadly, this bill does not do that. Instead, it doubles down on a failed anti-immigrant agenda. This bill guts the fundamental right to seek asylum. It strips protections for unaccompanied children, and it wastes more money on Donald Trump's pointless border wall, a monument to hate which does nothing to protect us.
Now, in the Homeland Security Committee, I helped lead the fight against harmful provisions of this bill that target nonprofits who partner with our border agencies to care for our asylum seekers, but House Republicans are moving ahead with these disastrous policies that would require charities to check the immigration status of those who need care even in a crisis.
By defunding nonprofits, this cold-hearted bill would ignore what the Gospel teaches us. It ignores our brothers and sisters who are tired, poor, hungry, and sick; those who are most in need of help.
If this bill ever becomes law, it would cause chaos and suffering.
We need real immigration reform, and America is ready for that debate. Let's rise to the occasion and create an America that reflects kindness and centers on helping people. Being anti-immigrant is being anti-American.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, on February 1, the last speaker voted against the public health emergency that served as the legal basis for the use of title 42 at the southwest border.
My colleagues want to have it both ways, which is why, I guess, he supports H.R. 2, the child deportation act.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, if Republicans were serious about border security, they would have joined Democrats in passing last year's government funding bill, which paid for an increase of 300 Border Patrol agents, the first increase since the Obama administration.
Not only did the last speaker not support it, she voted to have 1,400 Border Patrol agents fewer in the field under the extreme MAGA Republican default on America act.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2 squeezes Customs and Border Patrol officers working at ports of entry by failing to provide resources to cover the increased workload that will result from the bill.
If Republicans were serious about border security, they would have joined Democrats in passing last year's government funding bill, which appropriated $60 million to hire an additional 125 CBP officers.
Clarke).
Ms. CLARKE of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member Thompson for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the GOP's extreme and punitive immigration legislation, H.R. 2, also known as the child deportation act.
This cruel legislation would force draconian restrictions and punishments on migrants and asylum seekers and set America's immigration priorities back years.
At the cost of $6.1 billion, this bill would eliminate the right to asylum in America, a process millions upon millions have enjoyed over the generations. Vulnerable, desperate people and families have long depended on these laws for their safety and future.
Moreover, it would affect the legal status of over 4 million people who would otherwise be granted parole or asylum.
Instead of fostering immigration that strengthens our economy and empowers its growth, Republicans would rather throw our economy into a tailspin.
So let's be clear: Any bill that would allow vulnerable migrant children to be inhumanely detained by Border Patrol for up to a month, to be ripped from their families and locked up from the world, is unacceptable. It is fundamentally un-American. ``Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. . . . `' I need not remind you, Mr. Speaker, what those words adorn nor what they represent.
To treat vulnerable people fleeing violence, famine, and persecution, who are looking for a better life in our Nation with such contempt, such vitriol, such callousness, is not leadership; it is cowardice.
Though I am the daughter of Jamaican immigrants and know the struggles and challenges immigrant communities confront every day, my unique perspective on this issue should be irrelevant.
Every American, no matter how long their families have called this country their own, should be outraged at a GOP that would codify migrant child abuse.
Make no mistake: Regardless of H.R. 2's fate, America's immigration system is massively broken.
The glaring inequities, blatant racism, vicious xenophobia, and civil rights violations immigrants face, particularly in immigrant communities of color, will persist beyond any one bill.
As the Federal Government ends its use of title 42 and Democrats work to increase investments in border safety and personnel, open more lawful pathways and begin to address root causes of migration--
Ms. CLARKE of New York. It is beyond time for Congress to pass immigration policy that reflects humane, equitable, and a 21st century immigration system.
We are a Nation of immigrants, founded by immigrants, so we must do better for immigrants. I will always stand against the limitless cruelty that has become synonymous with the MAGA movement and the cruelty they espouse.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2 does nothing to combat illicit narcotics like fentanyl. If Republicans were serious about border security, they would have joined Democrats in passing last year's government funding bill, which provided $70 million for intrusive inspection technology at ports of entry where most dangerous drugs are interdicted.
Salinas).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, while the imposition of a nationwide E-Verify on all businesses found in this bill is not part of the Homeland Security division, it still affects me as a Member of Congress from a rural part of the country.
I cannot overstate how damaging this language is to the agriculture labor in my district. Many of my rural Republican colleagues know this, too. To put it bluntly, if enacted, this bill will force American farmers to go out of business.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record letters of opposition against the child deportation act from the AFL-CIO; SEIU, Service Employees International Union; and the Agriculture Workforce Coalition. AFL-CIO, Washington, DC, May 8, 2023.
Dear Representative, I am writing on behalf of the AFL-CIO to urge you to oppose H.R. 2, the Secure the Border Act of 2023. This bill advances a divisive agenda that would increase risks to the lives and livelihoods of workers, children, and families. Rather than punitive, enforcement- only approaches, we urge Members to pursue meaningful reforms that expand rights and protections for all.
Successive waves of immigrants and refugees have always helped to build, serve and feed our nation. Today is no different. Far from posing a threat, newly arriving migrants can make valuable contributions to our society when afforded the proper supports to allow them to effectively integrate into our communities. The labor movement is committed to welcoming more refugees, asylum seekers and other forced migrants and helping them to integrate into the workforce with good union jobs.
H.R. 2 fails to provide the effective and humane policy solutions needed to address the flaws and injustices in our immigration system. This bill would implement unbalanced policies focused on deterrence, detention, and removal that violate key principles of human and worker rights. Among many concerns, the bill seeks to severely restrict asylum, reduce protections for children, limit relief options for the administration, erode due process, expend taxpayer resources on a border wall, strip funding for humanitarian programs, and promote detention and deportation of immigrants and families.
Any serious attempt to use immigration policy to lift wages and standards must start with a broad and inclusive pathway to citizenship, not the costly expansion of a flawed mechanisms that fail to ensure basic worker protections. Unfortunately, the workforce provisions in H.R. 2 move us further in the wrong direction. The bill would mandate the use of E-Verify, which has often been used by employers as a tool to bust unions and chill the exercise of workplace rights. It would also cause significant harm to the workforce by limiting the ability of asylum seekers to obtain work authorization and stripping rules that were designed to lift standards and wages for agricultural workers in the H-2A program.
As a nation, we must uphold our humanitarian obligations and insist on strong protections and rights for all workers, children and families, regardless of immigration status. Amidst escalating displacement and exploitation, we urge you to vote NO on the Secure the Border Act. Sincerely, William Samuel, Director, Government Affairs. ____ SEIU, Washington, DC, May 10, 2023.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the 2 million members of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), I urge you to vote no on H.R. 2, the Secure the Border Act of 2023.
SEIU opposes this bill in its entirety because it is built on a false and small-minded premise that immigrants are a menace to be feared, fought against, and punished. If we let unfounded fear guide our immigration policies, we will squander the powerful social and economic benefits that immigrants provide. Immigrants today, like those of the past, are a source of tremendous pride, productivity, and promise, who make our nation stronger.
Our laws should therefore be designed to promote their orderly integration and thus to maximize the benefits they provide. H.R. 2 takes the opposite approach. It offers no solution to the real global challenges that are uprooting an unprecedented number of persons worldwide, and it ranks among the most extreme and unworkable immigration bills that have ever received a vote in Congress.
Among its many harmful provisions, H.R. 2 would endanger children by mandating their incarceration with family members and eliminating legal protections for unaccompanied children. It would eliminate meaningful access to the asylum system for many persons fleeing persecution, and deny work authorization to individuals seeking asylum. It would criminalize visa overstays of as little as 10 days, no matter how innocent the explanation. It would expedite construction of Trump's worthless and expensive wall at any cost. It would make E- Verify mandatory for all businesses after a short phase-in, despite evidence that doing so would merely encourage the growth of the black-market underground economy and that it would impose a burden on small businesses. And it would limit federal partnerships with nonprofit and faith-based groups, and punish them financially for fulfilling their humanitarian mission. Instead of proposing solutions, H.R. 2 would actually encourage lawlessness by blocking lawful paths for migrants fleeing nations in crisis, and denying work authorization while applications are pending.
Like most Americans, SEIU is frustrated by the lack of progress towards the immigration reform that our nation desperately needs. Such reform would legalize undocumented immigrants, reform legal immigration pathways, and put balanced procedures in place at the border that ensure order and security as well as humane treatment. The toxic, divisive, and mean-spirited measures that make up H.R. 2 would not do any of that, and SEIU urges you to vote no on the bill. SEIU may include votes on this bill in our congressional scorecard. Sincerely, Rebecca Wasserman, Government Relations Director. ____ Agriculture Workforce Coalition, April 19, 2023. Hon. Jim Jordan, Chairman Hon. Jerrold Nadler, Ranking Member, House Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Jordan and Ranking Member Nadler: We, the Agriculture Workforce Coalition (AWC), are writing in opposition to the consideration of the Border Security and Enforcement Act of 2023 (H.R. 2640) without concurrent, meaningful legislation to address the labor crisis faced by America's farmers, ranchers and growers. As organizations serving as the unified voice of agriculture in the effort to ensure that America's farmers, ranchers and growers have access to a stable and secure workforce now and in the future, we believe that the reforms envisioned in H.R. 2640 relative to mandatory E-Verify, on their own, would cause agricultural production to fall by $60 billion dollars, and food prices to increase by 5-6 percent. This would be crushing to an already struggling and vulnerable industry.
Mandatory E-Verify without workable solutions for both the domestic workforce and our H-2A employers puts these American jobs, and the economies of communities across the country, in jeopardy. As we have repeatedly stated, agriculture faces unprecedented challenges from rapidly rising costs, many of which are imposed by the federal government, as well as competition from imported agricultural products typically produced at a lower cost. American agriculture relies heavily on foreign-born workers due to the extremely limited supply of domestic farm labor. Continued inaction by Congress in light of these realities will mean more fields lying fallow, more farmers losing their livelihoods and fewer of the foods we eat being grown in America.
The economic impacts of this will spread far beyond the farm gate as Americans working in industry sectors both upstream and downstream of the farm will see their jobs threatened. Studies have shown that each hired farm employee supports 2 to 3 full-time American jobs in the food processing, transportation, farm equipment, marketing, retail and other sectors.
The path forward is clear--Congress should pass a solution that addresses both our current agricultural workforce and modernizes our guest worker program to meet future needs. Only then can we support the implementation of a mandatory E- Verify policy. The AWC remains committed to working with the House Judiciary Committee members and others to develop legislation that addresses agriculture's labor needs. Sincerely,
American Farm Bureau Federation, AmericanHort, Florida Fruit & Vegetable Association, International Fresh Produce Association, National Council of Agricultural Employers, National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, National Farmers Union, National Milk Producers Federation, National Pork Producers Council, National Potato Council, USA Farmers, U.S. Apple Association, Western Growers Association.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the child deportation act provision requiring DHS to negotiate with El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras to return unaccompanied children will result in 550,000 children being deported back to the violence they fled from over a 10-year period.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2 is an anti-immigrant and un-Christian bill, just as legislation previously introduced by Representative Roy was. That is why nearly 150 community and religious groups oppose it.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record letters in opposition from 136 community and religious groups, including Bethany Christian Services, Catholic Charities, and Union for Reform Judaism, Sojourners, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, and the Jesuit Conference. May 8, 2023. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Vote Recommendation Opposing H.R. 2 Secure the Border Act of 2023
Dear Representative: The undersigned state, local, and national immigration, civil rights, public health, education, religious, labor, climate justice, and other organizations write to respectfully request that you VOTE NO on H.R. 2, the Secure the Border Act of 2023, set to receive a vote on the House floor on May 11. The bill would dismantle the asylum system and cause immeasurable harm to immigrant communities. The newly elected majority is driving an intentionally divisive agenda to amplify anti-immigrant animus without moral and effective policy solutions. We ask you to oppose this anti-immigrant bill that would:
1. Deport Unaccompanied Children. The bill would end Health & Human Services funding for legal representation of unaccompanied children in immigration proceedings, depriving children of the attorneys their safety depends upon. It would also provide only a cursory screening process for children at the border, risking children's summary return to human trafficking and other dangers. The bill subjects all unaccompanied children to an accelerated removal process worse than what currently exists, and allows for detention of unaccompanied children in jail-like border facilities for up to 30 days--ten times longer than permitted under current law.
2. End Asylum. The bill would effectively shut down our current asylum system by adding dozens of new restrictions on asylum, including eliminating the right to seek asylum for those who cross the border between ports of entry and barring asylum for those who transit through a third country. It would make it nearly impossible for migrants to seek asylum in the U.S. and significantly easier to deport asylum seekers, including families and children, into harm's way. This will only sow chaos at the border, rather than ameliorating it.
3. Restart `Remain in Mexico'. The bill would restart the failed and dangerous Remain in Mexico program for all migrants, including unaccompanied children who were previously exempted under the Trump administration. Seeking to unilaterally return asylum seekers to other countries without consulting the receiving country nor the migrant results in refoulement of the migrant to danger and problematic foreign policy implications.
4. Jail Immigrant Families. The bill would require family detention for any families attempting to enter the U.S. to seek asylum, as well as any families who previously entered the U.S. without visas. Like all immigration detention, family detention centers have a well-documented history of abusive conditions, including inadequate medical care and mental health deterioration for asylum seekers, survivors of trauma, and children.
5. Mandate E-Verify. The bill would require E-Verify for all employers in the U.S., severely damaging our economy, harming American workers, and resulting in billions of dollars in lost government revenue. National implementation of E-Verify raises concerns about efficiency, due process, and racial profiling and decreased employment among Latinos.
6. Gut Programs that Work: The bill would strip funding for the Alternative To Detention Case Management Pilot Program, Office of Immigration Detention Ombudsman, and the vital Shelter and Services Program, which has helped communities around the country receive reimbursement for costs related to humanitarian responses to migration. These programs have been effective at providing services crucial to preventing more deaths under CBP custody and immigrant detention and have reduced impacts on receiving communities.
7. Burden our Local Communities by Making it Impossible for Employers to Hire Asylum Seekers with Work Authorization. This bill eliminates work authorization for asylum seekers who cross between ports of entry and requires six month renewal periods for asylum-based employment authorization. Combined with USCIS processing time, this would effectively make it impossible for businesses, even in the face oflabor shortages, to employ asylum seekers. These provisions will exponentially increase the backlogs at users and make it even more difficult for USCIS to timely process applications. This runs counter to bipartisan efforts to improve the employment authorization process for asylum seekers and will create an unnecessary burden on local communities.
8. Undermine Essential Partnerships with Humanitarian Organizations. The bill would bar any and all DHS funding for NGOs, including faith-based NGOs, that provide shelter, transportation, food or legal assistance to vulnerable immigrants, including those who arrive on a visa and later become ``inadmissible.'' Congress should be investing more in non-profit organizations providing respite care, legal service providers, trauma-informed care and community-based service providers, not subjecting them to the punitive measures in this legislation. This measure would impact NGOs across the country that receive DHS funding, including organizations working with FEMA during an emergency-it's ``show me your papers'' for the Red Cross.
9. Resume Building Trump's Border Wall. The bill would restart the construction of the border wall, a harmful waste of taxpayer resources. It would allow DHS to exempt all border infrastructure construction, development, operation, and maintenance from any law except the Constitution, thereby reducing the rule of law at our borders. The bill would also restrict the ability for landowners, local communities and tribes to assert legal challenges opposing the construction of the wall, and thus pave the way for irreparable and unchecked harms to the borderlands. We have already seen the negative consequences from the Trump Administration era resulting in: bulldozed Native American burial sites; dynamited pristine mountain wilderness; segments of the wall being constructed in flood plains; and the unjust seizing of private ranches and farmlands.
10. Eliminate Parole Authority. The bill would decimate the parole power that presidents historically have used to parole individuals in response to humanitarian emergencies or in furtherance of foreign policy objectives. It also precludes the President's recent parole programs for Ukrainians, Afghans, Cubans, Haitians, Nicaragruans, and Venezuelans, and cuts work authorization for parolees.
11. Jail Any Person who Overstays a Visa. The bill would jail and penalize immigrants who have violated any condition of their visa or overstayed by 10 days or more, even for violations that occur due to circumstances beyond the individuals' control such as a medical emergency. This provision would even make it a crime for anyone on a visa to apply for asylum, given they would not have left once their visa expired. Congress should focus on solutions that regularize the status of long-term residents and fix our broken immigration system.
12. Balloon Border Agents. The bill would require Border Patrol to hire enough agents to reach 22,000 on board (currently there are roughly 19,500) and restrict Border Patrol agents from performing ``duties of processing coordinators.'' Processing coordinators currently perform duties such as transporting and processing migrants and carrying out mandatory welfare checks. With only around 1,000 processing coordinators currently in the field, this restriction would seriously hinder Border Patrol's efforts to fairly and efficiently process asylum seekers and carry out their law enforcement mission. CBP is overfunded with funding streams that push resources towards enforcement and wasteful surveillance, while humanitarian needs go underfunded.
We urge you to vote in ways that protect immigrants and VOTE NO against H.R. 2, the Secure the Border Act of 2023 in the upcoming floor vote. We must oppose racist, xenophobic, unconstructive proposals that add fuel to hate and present no constructive and moral solutions. Thank you for your time and attention. Sincerely,
National Organizations:
#WelcomeWithDignity Campaign, African Communities Together, Alianza Americas, America's Voice, American Civil Liberties Union, American Federation of Teachers, American Immigration Council, American Immigration Lawyers Association, American Psychological Association, American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), Asian Americans Advancing Justice
Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project (ASAP), Bend the Arc: Jewish Action, Bethany Christian Services, Bridges Faith Initiative, Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, Center for Law and Social Policy, Center for Popular Democracy (CPD), Center for Victims of Torture, Children's Defense Fund, Chispa LCV, Church World Service, Coalition on Human Needs, Communities United for Status & Protection (CUSP), Community Change Action, Detention Watch Network.
Esperanza United (formerly Casa de Esperanza: National Latin@ Network), Freedom for Immigrants, Freedom Network USA, Friends Committee on National Legislation, Futures Without Violence, Human Rights Campaign, Human Rights First, Human Rights Watch, ILRC, Immigration Equality Action Fund, Immigration Hub, Immigration Law & Justice Network, Indivisible, Jesuit Refugee Service/USA, Kino Border Initiative.
Latin America Working Group, Lawyers for Good Government, League of Conservation Voters, Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns, MoveOn, MPower Change Action Fund, National Council of Jewish Women, National Education Association, National Employment Law Project, National Immigrant Justice Center, National Immigration Law Center, National Immigration Project (NIPNLG), National Korean American Service & Education Consortium (NAKASEC), National Lawyers Guild San Francisco Bay Area Chapter, National Network for Arab American Communities (NNAAC).
National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights (NNIRR), National Partnership for New Americans, NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice, Nextgen America, Oxfam America, People's Action, Prevention Institute, RAICES, Reconstructing Judaism, Reconstructionist Rabbinical Association, Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, Save the Children, Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Sisters of Mercy of the Americas Justice Team, Sojourners, Southern Border Communities Coalition, T'ruah: The Rabbinic Call for Human Rights.
UnidosUS, Union for Reform Judaism, Unitarian Universalist Association, Unitarian Universalists for Social Justice, United Church of Christ Justice and Local Church Ministries, United We Dream, Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA), WE ACT for Environmental Justice, Witness at the Border, Women's Refugee Commission, Young Center for Immigrant Children's Rights.
State and Local Organizations:
ACLU People Power Fairfax, Adhikaar, Al Otro Lado, Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment (ACCE), Alliance San Diego, Americans for Immigrant Justice, Asian Americans Advancing Justice-Atlanta, AVAN Immigrant Services, Border Compassion Nonprofit, Border Patrol Victims Network, California Immigrant Policy Center, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation (CRLA Foundation), Carolina Jews for Justice, Central American Resource Center of Northern CA-- CARECEN SF, Chispa Arizona, CLUE-Clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice.
Coalicion de Derechos Humanos, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA), Diocesan Migrant and Refugee Svcs inc, Dorothy Day Catholic Worker, Washington DC, Fellowship Southwest, Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project, Florida Immigrant Coalition, Fresh Start Refugee Assistance Center, Houston Immigration Legal Services Collaborative, Immigrant Legal Advocacy Project, Interfaith Movement for Human Integrity, Jewish Alliance for Law and Social Action, Journey to Asylum, Just Neighbors Ministry, Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center, Louisiana Organization for Refugees and Immigrants.
Make the Road CT, Make the Road NV, Make the Road Pennsylvania, Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition, Michigan Immigrant Rights Center, Oasis Legal Services, Samaritans, SEIU CA, SEiU United Service Workers West, St. Mark's Presbyterian Church, St. Michael's University Church, Tennessee Justice for Our Neighbors, Texas Civil Rights Project, The Advocates for Human Rights, The Green Valley/Sahuarita Samaritans, The Resurrection Project, Tucson Samaritans, Wind of the Spirit Immigrant Resource Center. ____ Catholic Charities USA, May 8, 2023. Hon. Kevin McCarthy, Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Hakeem Jeffries, Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker McCarthy and Minority Leader Jeffries: As President of Catholic Charities USA (CCUSA), I wish to express our strong opposition to the Secure the Border Act of 2023 (H.R. 2). If adopted, this legislation would severely restrict vulnerable people's access to asylum, detain more families including children, undermine U.S. efforts to effectively manage immigration, and dismantle the public- private infrastructure currently in place to manage the humanitarian crisis at the southern border and its impact throughout the country.
The gospel calls us to provide shelter for those who are homeless, feed the hungry, and ``welcome the stranger.'' The work of Catholic Charities is humanitarian not political. While we do not oppose all the provisions in H.R. 2, several of them, if enacted, would severely hinder the government and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) from aiding migrants who need services, care, and assistance.
The proposed legislation would reverse many protections for migrants and restrict asylum access, including long-standing protections that promote the best interest and safety of unaccompanied children who arrive in the United States. H.R. 2 would defund Alternatives to Detention (ATD) programs that provide participants access to basic services such as housing, medical care, and legal representation. Additionally, H.R. 2 would prohibit funding to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for disbursement to faith-based organizations and other NGOs, effectively cancelling the cooperation of these organizations with federal, state, and local governments in receiving newcomers, combatting human trafficking, addressing homelessness, and responding to natural disasters and other emergencies. The end result would be the dismantling of a system to help migrants and local communities rather than its improvement to meet the challenges of the moment.
No one can deny our immigration system is broken. Moreover, the situation at the southern border is dire and needs a compassionate, humane, and orderly response. However, many of the provisions in H.R. 2 are contrary to these values and will threaten the lives of vulnerable persons seeking refuge, burden state and local communities, and disrupt our nation's ability to respond to disasters.
While we strongly oppose this legislation, we continue to call on Congress and the administration to work together to reform our immigration system and to support policies that are just, humane and well-coordinated. We look forward to continuing to work with you to find solutions that uphold human dignity and promote the common good. Sincerely, Sister Donna Markham, OP, PhD, President & CEO, Catholic Charities USA. ____ [From Sojourners, May 8, 2023] Safety and Compassion Can Exist Without Extreme Measures. Sojourners Urges Representatives to Vote no on H.R. 2., the Secure the Border Act of 2023
Washington, D.C.--In response to H.R. 2, the Secure the Border Act of 2023, Sojourners released the following statement:
On May 11, 2023, the U.S. House of Representatives is set to vote on H.R. 2, the Secure the Border Act of 2023. If passed, the bill will harm millions of migrants fleeing violence from their home countries by effectively dismantling the asylum system. The bill would also have a negative economic impact on local communities by denying work authorization to asylum seekers who traveled through a third country or who cross between ports of entry. Unaccompanied minors will be at risk of further danger as the bill seeks to end the Department of Health and Human Services' funding for legal representation.
At Sojourners we have long embraced a consistent ethic of life, seeking to protect the dignity and sanctity of life; our migrant family around the globe must be included in this commitment. Ending asylum will mean certain death for many of our most vulnerable siblings seeking protection; including women and children who have already faced a traumatic journey as they seek safety in the U.S. We urge representatives to oppose H.R. 2, the Secure the Border Act of 2023, as it is an assault on the inherent dignity and worth of human beings seeking refuge and it violates current U.S. immigration law and international treaties.
``We take the word of God seriously, so when Jesus' words in Matthew 25 tell us to `welcome the stranger,' we cannot sit idly by as Christians and allow injustice in our nation by ending asylum and denying welcome to our migrant family,'' said Rev. Adam Russell Taylor, President of Sojourners.
``As someone who has accompanied and become legal guardian of unaccompanied minors fleeing for their lives, the negative impact this bill will have would not only endanger the physical lives of migrants but also risk the soul of our nation--it is up to us as followers of Jesus to embody his teachings and speak up and take action against this inhumane bill,'' said Vanessa Martinez Soltero, Immigration Narrative and Power-Building Organizer at Sojourners.
``To seek asylum is a human right guaranteed by U.S. immigration laws and enshrined in the U.N. declaration of Human Rights and the Refugee Convention of 1951. Decades of humanitarian migration give witness to the horrors that people seeking asylum experience. The U.S. inspection protocols, thorough background checks, and rigorous screenings have consistently proven that safety and compassion can go hand in hand. Instead, leaders of the Republican Party are instilling fear and capitalizing on the end of Title 42, the health policy that prevented asylum seekers from presenting themselves at the border, to wield an anti-immigrant agenda through the introduction of H.R. 2.'' said Sandra Ovalle, Director of Campaigns and Mobilizing, Sojourners. ____ United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Committee on Migration, Washington DC, May 5, 2023.
Dear Representative: I write on behalf of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' (USCCB) Committee on Migration to express our strong opposition to H.R. 2, the ``Secure the Border Act of 2023.'' If enacted, this measure would fundamentally weaken our nation's decades-long commitment to humanitarian protection. Provisions of this bill would endanger unaccompanied children and inflict harm on other vulnerable persons, decimate access to asylum, mandate damaging detention and removal practices, restrict access to legal employment, limit--and potentially eliminate--federal partnerships with faith-based and other nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), undermine the rule of law, and more.
We do not question the good intentions of lawmakers who seek to enact legislation that would secure our nation's borders. Indeed, we join in the call to enact effective and humane border management as part of a framework of comprehensive immigration reforms. As stated previously, we also do not discount the challenges at our border with Mexico, nor the right of nations to maintain their borders. We have continuously acknowledged the right of sovereign states to impose certain juridical conditions on immigration for the sake of the common good, consistent with Catholic teaching. However, our faith also compels us to be ``vigilant advocate[s], defending against any unjust restriction [on] the natural right of individual persons to move freely within their own nation and from one nation to another'' and to call attention ``to the rights of migrants and their families and to respect for their human dignity, even in cases of non- legal immigration.''
Pope Francis has stated that ``safe, orderly, regular and sustainable migration is in the interest of all countries.'' Undoubtedly, effective border management is necessary to achieve that. However, H.R. 2 would not humanely secure our border with Mexico or help to alleviate increased migration throughout the Western Hemisphere.
We understand that there may well be a number of provisions in this bill that you support. However, this legislation contains such a combination of harmful measures that we believe its passage, on the whole, is beyond justification. Such provisions include those that would: Endanger Unaccompanied Children
We are deeply concerned about the impact this bill would have on unaccompanied children (UC). The measure would override many of the fundamental protections put in place by the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 and the Flores Settlement Agreement. For example, it would eliminate protections for young children and children with intellectual disabilities by removing the requirement that Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officials ascertain whether a child is able to make an independent decision to withdraw his or her application for admission to the United States prior to possible removal. It would also subject every UC to expedited screening and, for those deemed eligible at that time, appearance before an immigration judge within 14 days, without any meaningful access to legal counsel or a child advocate. This is coupled with a provision that would abolish all existing government- funded legal representation programs for UC. Furthermore, the bill would eliminate the current requirement that UC be transferred to the custody of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) within 72 hours of being encountered by DHS, and those deemed ineligible for relief by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) could be detained indefinitely by DHS. Detention facilities operated by DHS are notoriously inadequate places for children to spend any length of time. Collectively, these and other changes made by the bill would intolerably alter how our country responds to these vulnerable children, many of whom suffer severe trauma before even reaching our border. Decimate Access to Asylum
As conveyed earlier in the 118th Congress, we oppose efforts to inhibit meaningful access to our nation's asylum process, which this bill would do in several ways. For instance, it would eliminate asylum as an option for anyone who enters the United States in between ports of entry with no exceptions for highly vulnerable individuals, including unaccompanied children. However, under this bill, even the ability to seek asylum at a port of entry could effectively be blocked in favor of ``operational control'' for any person without a visa, as well as those who transited a third country before seeking asylum in the United States. This is coupled with provisions that, among other things, bar asylum for anyone who makes a claim based on resistance to recruitment or coercion by criminal or terrorist organizations, effectively requiring that persecution be carried out by the state, even in situations where the state is unwilling or unable to intervene in persecution committed by non-state actors. Such limitations are inconsistent with international agreements acceded to by the United States and longstanding precedent. They also demonstrate a concerning disregard for the prominence and impunity enjoyed by criminal and terrorist organizations in many countries. Furthermore, the bill would require a fee of ``not less than $50'' for each asylum application filed without the possibility of a waiver. The right to seek asylum should never hinge entirely on one's ability to pay for it. It is already difficult to qualify for asylum under existing law, and further limiting asylum eligibility in these ways will merely increase obstacles to potential relief for those with bona fide claims. Mandate Damaging Detention and Removal Practices
As mentioned, the bill would subject unaccompanied children to indefinite detention by DHS. This would also be extended to families with children on a mandatory basis and seems to apply retroactively, meaning families already awaiting the completion of their immigration proceedings for any length of time before enactment of the bill would be required to be remanded to immigration detention. Moreover, suggesting a disregard for accountability and the wellbeing of persons placed in immigration detention, the bill would defund the Office of the Immigration Detention Ombudsman, curtailing oversight at the same time it maximizes detention for all individuals, families, and unaccompanied children. Likewise, the bill would eliminate funding for the Case Management Pilot Program, a more humane and cost-effective alternative to detention specifically designed to facilitate compliance with immigration proceedings, even for those ultimately deemed ineligible for relief in the United States. For asylum seekers who enter the United States from Canada or Mexico (whether at or between ports of entry) who cannot be detained or removed, the bill requires that they be returned to the contiguous country from which they arrived and remain there for the duration of their immigration proceedings. In seeking to revive an expanded version of the immoral and unlawful Migrant Protection Protocols, the bill dismisses the need for diplomatic negotiations and creates significant constitutional questions. Restrict Legal Employment Access
Eligibility for employment authorization is already limited under existing law for those seeking asylum. However, this bill would go even further by requiring that eligible asylum seekers (those whose cases have been pending for at least 180 days) reapply for employment authorization every six months. These applications to renew work authorization will compound the existing backlog for immigration benefits adjudicated by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), further delaying all manner of benefits under the agency's purview. Because USCIS processing times already exceed six months for many seeking employment authorization, it could be impossible for an asylum seeker to attain lawful employment at all under the terms of this bill, regardless of how long his or her case is pending. The measure would also prevent most people granted humanitarian parole from seeking employment authorization. These changes would only encourage asylum seekers and parolees to pursue employment without authorization or else leave them with no choice but to rely on social services, charity, and emergency care to meet their basic needs. Limit Federal Partnerships with NGOs
Multiple provisions of this bill target NGOs that partner with DHS to provide a myriad of services to citizens and noncitizens alike. Ostensibly, these provisions would prevent the disbursement of DHS funding to NGOs that ``facilitate or encourage unlawful activity, including unlawful entry,'' as well as those that ``provide, or facilitate the provision of, transportation, lodging, or immigration legal services to inadmissible aliens.'' In both cases, this language is overly broad, ambiguous, and unworkable. Given their vast expertise and the trust they've earned from American communities, many Catholic and other faith-based organizations have long partnered with DHS to provide a range of services, including disaster relief, assistance for lawful immigrants seeking to naturalize as U.S. citizens, humanitarian relief, services for victims of trafficking, and more. The phrase ``inadmissible aliens'' would be difficult, if not impossible, for NGOs to apply, since admissibility of noncitizens is not always readily apparent and, indeed, is often a matter to be adjudicated by the government. Contrary to the same subsection's heading, ``inadmissibility'' is also not an indicator of unlawful entry into, or unlawful presence in, the United States. As drafted, these provisions could even be interpreted to prevent schools, houses of worship, and other organizations from qualifying for the Nonprofit Security Grant Program amid a rise in violent attacks on those places. Equally concerning is that the same section of the bill would prevent any funds from being appropriated to DHS for the purpose of processing into the United States any persons arriving between ports of entry, calling into question DHS' ability to rescue persons encountered in the desert in life-threatening circumstances and process unaccompanied children, victims of trafficking, victims of torture, and others who-even under the bill's own terms-would warrant such processing. Diminish the Humanitarian Parole Authority
Humanitarian parole has been used by every administration, whether Republican or Democrat, since President Dwight D. Eisenhower, who directed the Attorney General to parole into the United States 15,000 Hungarian refugees fleeing the Hungarian Revolution of 1956. The use of parole has often been necessitated by emergencies emanating from war and other conflicts--situations in which such a streamlined mechanism proved vital to save lives. Even when Congress enacted the Refugee Act of 1980, largely due to dissatisfaction with the executive branch's use of parole, it chose to preserve this discretionary authority, acknowledging the need to ``avoid crippling the [United States'] ability to respond to [such] emergencies.'' This bill, however, would abandon that realistic understanding by severely limiting the use of parole in such situations. It would also restrict the use of parole for those seeking asylum, such that it would effectively be unavailable, furthering the unnecessary and inhumane use of detention. Expedite Border Wall Construction at Any Cost
We have long opposed the construction of a wall spanning the entire U.S.-Mexico border, especially with the dangers it poses to human life and the environment. However, this bill would establish unprecedented authorities to advance border wall construction, which include the ability of the Secretary of Homeland Security to waive ``all legal requirements necessary'' to ensure the wall's expeditious design, testing, construction, and maintenance. This is combined with a prohibition on consultation with local leaders and property owners, among others, that exceeds seven days, with the purpose of such consultation being to ``minimize the impact on natural resources, commerce, and sites of historical or cultural significance for the communities and residents'' (removing existing references to ``quality of life'') located near the border. The bill would effectively undermine constitutional property rights and further abrogate the rights of those living near the border by prioritizing federal land acquisition above such rights.
This is by no means an exhaustive explanation of the objectionable provisions contained within H.R. 2, given, for example, its criminalization of visa overstays for the first time in our country's history (even if inadvertent or based on a pending adjustment of status) and its E-Verify mandate for all employers, among other issues. Nevertheless, the provisions discussed underscore the extreme nature of this bill, its incompatibility with Catholic social teaching, and its inconsistency with our nation's broadly bipartisan commitment to humanitarian protection.
We take this opportunity to reiterate that ``[n]o combination of legal pathways or harsh enforcement measures will suffice to meet the complex challenge of forced migration facing our country and hemisphere. Only through a long-term commitment to addressing root causes and promoting integral human development throughout the Americas, combined with an overhaul of our immigration system, will we be able to achieve the conditions necessary to sustainably reduce irregular migration.''
For these reasons, we urge you to oppose the passage of H.R. 2 and to support the drafting of bipartisan legislation that is more in keeping with our nation's rich tradition of welcome. We remain committed to working with you and the Administration to address the complex issue of migration, including the need for humane border management that respects the God-given dignity of migrants. Thank you for considering our views and for your work in service of the common good. Sincerely, Most Reverend Mark J. Seitz, Bishop of El Paso, Chairman, USCCB Committee on Migration. ____ Jesuit Conference, Office of Justice and Ecology, Washington, DC, May 9, 2023. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the Jesuit Conference Office of Justice and Ecology, I write to express our strong opposition to HR 2, the Secure the Border Act, which would drastically limit the ability to seek asylum in the U.S. The bill fails to treat our migrant brothers and sisters with the dignity we all share as beloved children of God.
Every day, our neighbors arrive at the border asking for help, many fleeing violence and persecution. Yet since the beginning of the pandemic, most of those arriving at our southern border have been expelled without even an opportunity to present their case for asylum.
HR 2 would drastically limit the ability to seek asylum in this country, require the detention of families, and make it much more likely that migrants seeking safety are deported into dangerous situations. Furthermore, it would cause chaos at the border and significantly undermine the ability of humanitarian organizations to provide essential services.
While the United States has a responsibility to protect its borders, it also has an obligation to provide protection to those fleeing violence and persecution in their own countries. This legislation falls well short of that obligation, violating central tenets of the Christian faith that call us to welcome the stranger and love our neighbors as ourselves.
As people of the Gospel, we ask you to oppose these efforts and help keep our country a place where those fleeing persecution can find safe haven. Sincerely, Rev. Ted Penton, SJ, Secretary of Justice and Ecology.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, Republicans claim that the Biden administration's policies have led to open borders, but nothing could be further from the truth.
President Biden has, with little help from Congress, worked to dissuade migrants from taking the dangerous journey northward. The Biden administration is surging resources to the border. Even as it ramps down title 42 removals, it is using title 8 authorities to promptly remove and bar reentry from certain crossers.
At the same time, the Biden administration is working to make the asylum process more orderly through the CBP One app.
It has also stood up a parole process for certain Venezuelan, Nicaraguan, Cuban, and Haitian migrants that in March were credited with a drop of 72 percent in the 7-day average from a high of 1,231 in January.
H.R. 2 would take those tools away from DHS.
Mr. Speaker, in the unlikely event that this cruel, extreme, and unworkable bill makes it to the President's desk, he has promised to veto it.
To quote the Statement of Administration Policy: ``H.R. 2 does nothing to address the root causes of migration, reduces humanitarian protections, and restricts unlawful pathways, which are critical alternatives to unlawful entry.'' It goes on to say: ``This bill would make things worse, not better.''
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the administration's statement. Statement of Administration Policy H.R. 2--SECURE THE BORDER ACT OF 2023--REP. DIAZ-BALART, R-FL, AND 15 COSPONSORS
The Administration strongly supports productive efforts to reform the Nation's immigration system but opposes H.R. 2, the Secure the Border Act of 2023, which makes elements of our immigration system worse. A successful border management strategy must include robust enforcement at the border of illegal crossings, deterrence to discourage illegal immigration, and legal pathways to ensure that those in need of protection are not turned away to face death or serious harm.
The Biden-Harris Administration's approach to border management is grounded in this strategy--expanding legal pathways while increasing consequences for illegal pathways, which helps maintain safe, orderly, and humane border processing. However, the Administration is limited in what it can achieve by an outdated statutory framework and inadequate resources, particularly in this time of unprecedented global movement. H.R. 2 does nothing to address the root causes of migration, reduces humanitarian protections, and restricts lawful pathways, which are critical alternatives to unlawful entry.
The bill would cut off nearly all access to humanitarian protections in ways that are inconsistent with our Nation's values and international obligations. In addition, the bill would make processing less efficient by prohibiting the use of the CBP One mobile application to process noncitizens and restricting DHS's parole authority, such that successful programs, like ``Uniting for Ukraine,'' would be prohibited. The bill would also reduce authorized funding for essential programs including the Shelter and Services Program that provides a critical source of funds for state and local governments and reduces pressure at the border.
While we welcome Congress' engagement on meaningful steps to address immigration and the challenges at the border, this bill would make things worse, not better. Because this bill does very little to actually increase border security while doing a great deal to trample on the Nation's core values and international obligations, it should be rejected.
If the President were presented with H.R. 2, he would veto it.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, it is remarkable that Republicans are getting behind the child deportation act, a bill that would blow a $6.1 billion hole in our Federal budget at the same time that they are feigning concern about the Federal deficit.
Today, the other side has said a lot about how the Biden administration is handling the ending of title 42, but remarkably, not one of them acknowledged that they voted to lift it in February.
Enactment of H.R. 2 would do nothing to keep fentanyl out of our communities or protect unaccompanied children.
Just for the record, in our section of the bill, fentanyl is not even mentioned. I would hope at some point the other two discussions tomorrow might talk a little more directly about fentanyl if it is in there. It is not in our section at this point.
For the record, the information that we have about 90 percent of the fentanyl coming into the country comes from the Chief of the Border Patrol. It is his information. We can only take him at his word.
Those five ports of entry that the chair talked about, that was not what he said. He said it was in Mexico, not in the U.S., in terms of being controlled by the cartels. I think we all will admit the cartels do not control the border within the boundaries of the United States. It is a play on words, but at least we can be accurate with that.
In terms of how we determine who comes, who is captured, and how the fentanyl is collected, I suggest that you talk to the FBI, Homeland Security Investigations, or DEA. They are the persons who interview the people who are caught at our ports of entry.
More importantly, most of the people who we catch at our ports of entry are American citizens. They are not, for the most part, immigrants or aliens, or whatever you want to call them, trying to come into this country illegally. They are American citizens.
In terms of guns, the cartels are a violent operation. There is no question about it. We need to do everything that we can to stop them. We can't keep American guns from going to Mexico unless we come up with an enhanced policy to do that.
We have to acknowledge that the majority of the guns that the cartels are using are coming from the United States. As the record will reflect, there is only one gun store in the entire country of Mexico. It takes months for an individual to even get cleared to buy a gun. We just want the record to reflect the truth.
Enactment of H.R. 2, as I said, would do nothing to keep fentanyl out of our communities or protect unaccompanied children. What it will do is penalize communities and religious organizations that care for vulnerable people.
Section 115(b) is so broad that a nonprofit hospital that admits an undocumented migrant would be deemed as facilitating unlawful activities. Cartels and smugglers are champing at the bit to see this bill enacted into law.
H.R. 2 would create conditions where desperate people will be left with few options but to try to enter the U.S. illegally between ports of entry. It would be a boon for smugglers' illicit business.
We should be coming together to enact sensible border and immigration policies that support our communities and economy. We can do better than the child deportation act.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this extreme MAGA bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source