Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act Of 2007

Floor Speech

COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM ACT OF 2007 -- (Senate - May 23, 2007)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, first of all, let me take a moment to acknowledge the senior Senator from Pennsylvania, the Senator from Arizona, the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, for their leadership and Herculean efforts on this legislation. In the spirit of praise I heard just a moment ago from the Senator from New Mexico on bringing judiciousness to this process, I rise in opposition to amendment No. 1166 offered by the very distinguished Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley. The amendment would eliminate judicial review of removal proceedings where revocation of a visa is the sole ground for removal. That may sound technical and complex, but the amendment is actually quite simple in the way it works. It means that if the State Department should wrongly decide to revoke a visa, whether through bureaucratic error or misjudgment, and then the Department of Homeland Security tries to remove you from the United States, you have no opportunity to have your case heard in Federal court; the case ends at the Board of Immigration Appeals.

It means a dissident lawfully admitted to the United States on a visitors visa could find himself giving a speech one day and then the very next day learn the Department of State revoked his visa based on false information provided by his home country. The dissident may even risk punishment upon return to his home country. But there will be no means to fight his removal in Federal court. The amendment means that when DHS invokes the ideological exclusion provision which allows the Government to exclude anyone from the country who endorses or espouses terrorism or persuades others to support terrorism, there is no judicial check to make sure that is, in fact, what is going on, and that great power is not being abused.

As U.S. district judge Paul Crotty wrote in an opinion last year, rejecting the Government's efforts to exclude a Swiss citizen who had a visa to teach religion, conflict, and peace-building at Notre Dame University.

While the Executive may exclude an alien for almost any reason, it cannot do so solely because the Executive disagrees with the content of the alien's speech and therefore wants to prevent the alien from sharing this speech with a willing American audience.

That is exactly the kind of case which would be barred by the amendment we are debating. What is the basis for this change? How can it be that review by a Federal court under these circumstances is such a serious burden to the Government that it must be eliminated? Are the courts clogged with these cases? Is it too much to require DHS to submit to a modicum of checks and balances before it exerts its power to expel someone under these circumstances? Judicial review of visa revocation is already severely limited--so severely limited, in fact, that the subject of this amendment is the only area remaining in which somebody can still seek judicial review of a removal order.

Too often, we are obliged to defend basic principles of American democracy--in other circumstances, the great writ of habeas corpus; here, the core principle of separation of powers and judicial review. We should not trample lightly on our founding principles.

I have said over and over that the cornerstone of any comprehensive immigration package must be strengthened security at our borders, enhanced workplace enforcement, and a sensible, practical solution for the 12 million people already living illegally in this country. But strong security means smart security, and smart security must include respect for the administration of justice, including our great American system of checks and balances, and a realization that sometimes the Government gets it wrong.

This amendment, by further limiting the authority of Federal courts to hear removal cases, goes too far. I ask my colleagues to oppose it.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source