Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act Of 2007

Floor Speech

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I know we are all anxious to proceed. No one is more anxious than I to proceed with the hearing of amendments and debate. I think colleagues will, when they hear what this amendment is about--and I apologize that, due to the legislative counsel being backed up drafting amendments, we have only recently been able to distribute the amendment text, but I think as I describe this amendment, my colleagues will share my concern with two problems that are in the underlying bill.

First, this amendment would do two things: The amendment would provide technical corrections to what I can only assume are drafting oversights in the underlying bill as well as close loopholes in the current law. These technical corrections include closing loopholes that fail to permanently bar from the United States and prohibit awarding of any immigration benefits to the following categories of individuals: No. 1, persons associated with terrorist organizations; No. 2, violent gang members; No. 3, sex offenders; No. 4, alien smugglers who use firearms; and, No. 5, repeat drunk drivers.

The question I put to my colleagues is whether Congress should permanently bar from the United States and from receiving any immigration benefit the persons in the categories I have just described and others who are dangerous to our society. I sincerely hope none of my colleagues would answer this question in the negative.

Let me point out a couple of examples of what I will call the technical fixes that are sorely needed. Current law prohibits U.S. citizens convicted of sex crimes against minors from bringing a relative into the country. This bill, however, does not specifically prohibit aliens who

would be removed from the country because they are sex offenders and fail to register as such from entering the United States and getting legal status, such as lawful permanent residence status.

This, as I say, is what I believe to be an oversight. Perhaps in the haste in which the bill was drafted it has been left out, but it needs to be fixed, obviously.

The bill also retains a loophole under current law that would allow an alien who has been repeatedly convicted of driving while intoxicated to remain in the United States and get legal status, such as a Z status or a green card.

The bill also retains the loophole in current law that allows an alien who belongs to a terrorist organization, or perhaps even committed terrorist acts
and has not yet been removed from the United States, to get legal status.

Now, lest my colleagues think I am exaggerating, let me provide a real-world example of this loophole. Last year, Mohammed El Shorbagi pleaded guilty to providing material support to Hamas. His act of providing material support to Hamas would not have barred him from establishing good moral character under current law because it is not one of those grounds specifically included in the list of acts that prevent an alien from establishing ``good moral character'' under our immigration laws.

Now, I would hope these what I would call technical fixes are the kinds of commonsense solutions my colleagues would support. We have to ensure those aliens who have committed crimes, such as failure to register as a sex offender, or alien smuggling while using a firearm, are permanently barred and ineligible for benefits. We must also ensure those aliens who have committed acts or who engage in conduct in association with a terrorist organization, or perhaps have even committed terrorist acts themselves, are rendered permanently ineligible for any legal status and are barred from our country.

Finally--and this is not a technical fix; this, I believe, is a conscious decision on the part of the bill drafters to omit this category of individuals--my amendment would close the loophole in this bill that allows legalization of those illegal aliens who have already had their day in court and violated court-ordered deportations. These are known as absconders and, in fact, have committed a felony, if found guilty of their failure to deport once ordered deported, or if they have been deported and simply reentered the country.

Unlike the first half of my amendment, this is not a technical correction. In other words, the decision to legalize this population of illegal aliens was no drafting oversight.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CORNYN. I thank the Chair.

Madam President, I have discussed what I would call technical corrections or oversights that have been left out of this bill, in haste, perhaps, because I know that following the negotiations that went on for several weeks leading up to the announcement of an agreement by a bipartisan group of Senators on Friday, there was a lot of effort made to try to then turn that agreement into bill text. It wasn't until roughly midnight, I believe on Saturday night, that an original, or I should say a rough draft for discussion purposes was created; and then, if I am not mistaken, it was the night before last, about 9 o'clock, when this original amendment was laid down, this substitute amendment, which actually reflects bill text, that we could then go to legislative counsel to try and craft our amendments to be addressed.

Before I talk a little bit more about the second part of my amendment, which I think was consciously omitted from the bill, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Senator DeMint of South Carolina be added as original cosponsors to my amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, the second part of my amendment has, I think it is fair to say, a substantial impact on the underlying bill, but one I hope my colleagues will agree is necessary and important to adopt.

My amendment would close the loophole in this bill that allows legalization of those illegal aliens who have already violated court-ordered deportations. They are sometimes known as absconders because they literally have absconded from the law, but they are, in fact, under section 243 of the Immigration and Naturalization Act felons by virtue of their having absconded either after they have been ordered deported--they have simply gone on the lam and been fugitives from justice--or they have left the country pursuant to their order of deportation and then reentered the country illegally. They are, under section 243 of the Immigration and Naturalization Act, felons if found guilty of those offenses.

Unlike the first half of my amendment, this is not, as I said, a technical correction. In other words, the decision to legalize this population was no drafting oversight. It was a conscious part of the negotiated package that is now represented by the substitute amendment pending before the Members of the Senate. The drafters of this bill have made a conscious decision that Congress will allow exceptions for individuals who are illegally in the United States, in defiance of a court order, as well as those who have previously been deported from the United States pursuant to a court order and have again reentered illegally.

It is important to note that Congress has determined that each of these crimes is a felony. The laws, as I said, are already on the books. These acts of defiance of our legal system are not actions which would signal an individual's likelihood of future compliance with the laws of the land. I don't think Congress should be in the business of allowing exceptions to a class of individuals who can reasonably be dubbed as fugitive aliens.

In fact, it was Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff who said during our negotiations that illegal aliens who have defied our court system after having been given full due process of law do not deserve to be rewarded with legalization. Unfortunately, the drafters of this bill, in an effort to accommodate certain advocacy groups, have ignored Secretary Chertoff's commonsense observation, what is being peddled as ``discretion'' by way of a ``waiver.''

We can't guarantee the American people that future Presidents will appoint, nor the Senate confirm, Secretaries of Homeland Security with the good sense and judgment of Secretary Chertoff. Thus, I think we need to eliminate any discretion in allowing these individuals to remain in the country and obtain the benefits of this legalization. I submit that discretion is something Congress gives away to a bureaucracy when Members don't have the intestinal fortitude to create a bright-line rule.

This bright-line rule would affect roughly 700,000 absconders who are still in the United States. The underlying bill would allow them a path to legal status and perhaps even to citizenship. My amendment would say these people have had their opportunity to have their day in court and do not deserve the benefits that this underlying bill would give to other persons who have not similarly defied our U.S. legal system and, indeed, have committed, perhaps, felonies.

I ask my colleagues this. What is the message we send about the rule of law in America when Congress would not even categorically prohibit rewarding those illegal aliens who have defied lawful orders? What is the message we are sending to immigrants who are lawfully waiting outside the country when we reward those who have not simply violated our laws by entering illegally but who have also thumbed their noses at our legal system, after having been ordered or actually been removed?

I urge my colleagues to reject the policy in this bill that would reward felony conduct with legal status. I hope my colleagues will support me in that effort.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I appreciate the concerns of my distinguished colleague. It is a fair point; this is more than a technical amendment. He may not have heard my entire earlier statement. I indicated that some aspects of my amendment were what I thought were technical, but there was a second part that was far from technical, it was very substantive, and I knew it would be controversial because we discussed it during the course of the negotiations in which the distinguished Senator from New Jersey participated, as did I, and it was, the best I can tell, consciously omitted from the draft. So my effort here is to insert it by way of amendment. I do believe it deserves full and fair consideration. People need to understand what the impact of it will be.

Indeed, this whole subject matter has a lot of ramifications and a lot of moving parts, and that is the reason I am so glad we have not only this week but also a second week after the recess which the majority leader has scheduled to conclude the debate and vote on the bill.

I certainly understand the Senator's concerns, and I would welcome the debate that will ensue, but I can understand why he would object to a vote tonight. We have actually talked with the bill managers and suggested that perhaps, if unanimous consent can be obtained, this amendment would be set aside temporarily and perhaps other amendments can be laid down and even voted on tonight but that we can wait until tomorrow, perhaps, to schedule a vote on this after everyone has had a chance to digest it and consider its ramifications.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source