Violence Against Women By Illegal Aliens Act

Floor Speech

Mr. Speaker, here we are again debating a bill that is another attempt by the majority to scapegoat and fearmonger about immigrants. This legislation purports to add new grounds of inadmissibility and deportability for sexual offenses, adds a new ground of inadmissibility for domestic violence and other related offensives, and expands the current grounds for deportability for domestic violence.

Sexual offenses and domestic violence are serious crimes, and if this bill fixed some gap in current law, I would have no problem supporting this legislation, but that is not the case here.

In reality, the redundancies in this bill all but ensure that no additional dangerous individuals would face immigration consequences if it were to become law. Instead, the overly broad definition and lack of any waiver authority in this bill would result in extremely harsh and unintended consequences, including the removal of survivors of domestic violence.

Let's be very clear: All serious sexual offenses are already grounds for deportability and inadmissibility. For example, an individual is rendered deportable if they are convicted of an aggravated felony, which includes rape, sexual abuse of a minor, or a crime of violence, which is defined as any ``offense that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person.''

Individuals who are convicted, or admit committing the act, of a crime involving moral turpitude, or a CIMT, are already subject to inadmissibility. Crimes in which there is intent to cause bodily harm have long been considered CIMTs. As such, people who are convicted or admit committing an act of any crime where there is an intent to cause bodily harm like sexual assaults are already inadmissible.

Where this bill has serious problems is in the sections relating to domestic violence. Under current law, people are rendered deportable if they are convicted of domestic violence and other related crimes and can be deemed inadmissible if they commit the acts or are convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude, where the domestic violence or related offense has intent to cause bodily harm. The crime of domestic violence is already well covered by current law.

However, this bill attempts to significantly expand the definition of domestic violence to include the Violence Against Women Act definition that is used for grants and funding. This is a much broader definition that was never meant to be used in criminal law. We know that because the definition explicitly says it covers conduct ``that may or may not constitute criminal behavior.''

The definition for domestic violence under Federal criminal law focuses on physical force. This broader VAWA-based definition sweeps in a wider range of behaviors that domestic violence organizations say will implicate survivors who have used violence in self-defense or who were accused by their abusers and were either unable to defend themselves or pled guilty to avoid having to go through the court process.

The bill would also make it less likely that immigrant communities will report incidents of domestic violence.

We recently celebrated the 30th anniversary of the passage of VAWA, and we should continue our work to combat domestic violence, but this legislation would actually set back our efforts to protect survivors.

That is why over 200 national and local groups, as part of the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence, the experts in the field, oppose this legislation. I think we ought to listen to them. We need to work together to solve our immigration problems, but this bill takes us in the wrong direction.

It attempts to fearmonger and demonize immigrants, just like the disgusting and absurd comments by former President Trump and many of his colleagues related to Haitians eating pets in Springfield, Ohio, a claim that has been thoroughly debunked, including by the Republican mayor of Springfield and Republican Governor DeWine of Ohio. Those comments have led to Springfield City Hall and several of its schools being evacuated and closed and multiple hospitals being locked down due to bomb threats.

My Republican colleagues may think that their words and lack of care have no impact, but sadly, we have seen that they can set off a deadly chain reaction.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I must say I find the gentlewoman's references to the Harris or the Biden-Harris war on women ironic coming from the Representative of a political party, the Republican Party, whose abortion policies have caused countless women to die, to bleed out while the doctors wait to operate, fearing felonies because of the anti-abortion laws in various States.

I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal), a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, this bill does not close any gaps in the law, does not fix any of the myriad problems with our immigration system or the southern border, and would actually harm the very people it purports to protect.

It is another excuse for the Republican majority to play politics with immigration without doing any of the hard work involved in finding bipartisan solutions.

I urge Members to oppose this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source