Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2007 - Continued

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2007--Continued -- (Senate - July 11, 2006)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, this amendment is designed to end a decades-old, obsolete Federal court injunction designed to impede the Department of Homeland Security's use of expedited removal and enforcement of our immigration laws.

In 1988, a Federal court in Los Angeles issued a permanent, nationwide injunction that requires immigration authorities to afford detained Salvadorans a host of substantive and proposal rights--rights afforded to literally no other immigrant group.

Largely as a result of this 1988 Orantes injunction, Salvadorans have now become the single largest component of what is known as OTMs or ``other than Mexican'' immigrants.

Both the border tunnel amendment that Senator Feinstein has offered and my immigration injunction second-degree amendment deal with illegal immigration and are designed to deal with criminal activity. They go together well because they both close border vulnerabilities that are being exploited by gangs and smugglers.

The injunction amendment passed as an amendment in committee, and there has been little opposition. It is currently in the compromise bill endorsed by a majority of Senate Democrats.

The amendment requires courts to narrowly tailor injunctive relief orders against the Government in immigration cases and to take into account national security, border security, public safety, and immigration enforcement concerns.

Decades-old, obsolete Federal court injunctions continue to impede the Department of Homeland Security's efforts to enforce our immigration laws.

For example, if you look at June of 2005 through February of 2006, you can see why this specific injunction, which impedes the use of expedited removal when it comes to immigrants from El Salvador, is such a problem and why this amendment is necessary.

For example, in June of 2005 there were some 4,181 Brazilians subject to apprehension. At the same time, there were roughly the same number of El Salvadorans: 4,011. But because of the improvements in expedited removal and immigration law enforcement inso far as it relates to Brazilians--not subject to the Orantes injunction that impedes the use of this important procedure--we saw the number of Brazilians drop from 4,181 in June of 2005 to 72 in February of 2006.

During the same time period, because of the impediment created by the Orantes injunction, which prohibited the use of expedited removal when it came to Salvadorans who illegally immigrated into the United States, we saw, in June of 2005, 4,011 Salvadorans; and in February of 2006, that number has virtually not changed at all, to 3,906.

So, clearly, the impediment created by this Orantes injunction, that would be overturned and remedied by this amendment, creates an impediment for the Department of Homeland Security when it comes to enforcing our immigration laws.

This amendment, it is important to note, would not eliminate injunctive relief but would require that any injunction granted be narrowly tailored and to not unnecessarily impede on enforcement of our immigration laws.

Specifically, it would provide that injunctions must be narrowly tailored to precisely address the actual harm identified. It would require that injunctions do not extend forever and must end on a date certain. It provides that an injunction is suspended unless a court acts within 30 days of the date when the Government moves to vacate an injunction. And for any injunction in which the Government has already filed a motion to vacate--and which remains pending 10 days after enactment of this bill--that injunction is automatically stayed on that 10th day.

Mr. President, I conclude by saying, in my conversations with the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, he regards this amendment as important to providing the Department of Homeland Security the tools it needs in order to enforce our immigration laws and to make sure the use of expedited removal, which is so important in terms of the deterrence that it provides, be uniform across populations that would be affected.

So, as he told me, if this amendment passes, he would be able to end catch-and-release, which is a de facto policy of this Government, within a matter of months.

I would think this is an issue we can all support, and I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov