Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act Of 2007--Continued
Floor Speech
COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM ACT OF 2007--Continued -- (Senate - May 24, 2007)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I understand now, talking to the majority whip, there is no objection to the modification of my amendment, No. 1184.
As I was explaining, we checked with the legislative counsel last night and this morning we were told the problem was with the handwritten page, No. 224, that was added on the floor. So it is a matter of pagination. I appreciate the accommodation of my colleagues to allow that modification to go forward. Also, legislative counsel corrected a technical error in the text which this modification corrects.
I have two things I want to speak on, briefly. First, on my original amendment, No. 1184, as you recall, this is composed of two parts. The first part is what I would assume to be technical errors in the underlying bill. In the haste of writing the bill, I think there were some errors made that we pointed out in the amendment, errors that need to be corrected. I do not expect there will be a lot of controversy about that.
What is more controversial, what I want to address, is the second part. That has to do with excluding from the benefits under this bill individuals who have already come into our country in violation of our immigration laws, who have been detained, who have had due process, a trial, who have had their day in court and then, once they were ordered deported, rather than agree to show up and be deported, they simply went on the lam and went underground and melted into the great American landscape. A second category is people who have had their day in court, who have been deported but then who have reentered illegally. Under section 234 of the Immigration and Naturalization Act, both of those actions would constitute felonies. I think it would be a grave error for this bill to reward individuals who have committed that sort of open defiance of our laws. For, whatever you can say about other people
who have entered the country in violation of our immigration laws, certainly those who have had a day in court, who have been ordered by court to exit the country but who have gone on the lam, or those who have reentered after they were deported, represent a different type of lawbreaker. I do not believe we should reward those by conferring upon them a Z visa, outlined in the underlying bill.
The Senator from New Jersey, Senator Menendez, argued my amendment would amount to an unconstitutional ex post facto rule because of its retroactive application. This is a misreading of the bill. In order for any immigration provisions to have immediate effect, it is imperative that they apply to conduct and convictions that actually occurred before enactment. If prior conduct and convictions were not covered, you would have an immigration regime that essentially welcomes the following people--this is not how the U.S. immigration should operate. Consider an immigration regime where a known criminal gang member could not be removed unless the Department of Homeland Security can show he was a member after the statute was enacted, even if the DHS had videotaped evidence, or even a confession from last month, showing the alien involved in gang activities. Surely that could not be construed as unconstitutionally retroactive or ex post facto.
Another example would be an undisputed terrorist fundraiser who would not, unless we agree to this amendment, be barred from naturalization on terrorism grounds. Not only would the citizenship application of someone who has been engaged in terrorist activity not be barred for that reason, unless the terrorist activity occurred after the date of enactment, but this effective date could also be used to call into question the use by the Department of Homeland Security of existing discretionary authority to determine a terrorist did not possess good moral character. To create a regime that turns a blind eye to these known facts would be foolish and would not be in our country's national interest.
To avoid such perverse and unintended consequences, Congress has on many occasions enacted grounds of deportability and inadmissibility that are based on past conduct and criminal convictions. For example, section 5502 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act made aliens who committed acts of torture or extra judicial killings abroad a ground of inadmissibility and a ground of deportability. That provision applies to offenses committed before, on, or after the date of enactment.
The Holtzman amendment, enacted in 1978, rendered Nazi criminals excludable and deportable. It applied to individuals who ordered, advocated, assisted, or otherwise participated in persecution on behalf of Nazi Germany or its allies at least 33 years earlier, between the years of 1933 and 1945.
It is clear from past experience, as well as common sense, that the only actions we would be taking in this legislation would be to say to those who have had their day in court, who literally thumb their nose at our legal system and at our court system, you will not be rewarded with the benefits under this act; that you will be excluded. You have had your chance, you have blown it, you have defied the American legal system and, in fact, this is not the kind of acts from somebody we would expect to be a law-abiding citizen in the future.
I also want to speak briefly on an amendment Senator Menendez has offered. Ironically, I find myself in opposition to him on amendment No. 1184, the amendment I have offered, but I find there is a lot to like in his amendment. I want to explain why. This is what I would call the line-jumping amendment Senator Menendez has offered. I have heard the proponents explain that the underlying bill is not an amnesty because it does not allow anyone to jump in line. This is a fundamentally important concept. It is a matter of fundamental fairness and crucial to the integrity, not only of our immigration system, but to our entire legal system. It would be extremely unfair to allow someone who has not respected our laws to be able to obtain a green card as a legal permanent resident before someone who has respected our laws and waited in line for a chance to legally enter this country.
Please understand, I am not just talking about the fact that those who wait in line legally have to do so in their home country while someone who has entered our country in violation of our immigration laws and obtains Z status can wait in our country. That certainly is an issue, that those here are getting the advantage over those who are observing our laws.
I point to a story in today's USA Today, where the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Secretary Chertoff, admits there is ``a fundamental unfairness'' in allowing undocumented immigrants to stay in the country while those who have respected our laws wait patiently outside the country. Should we make what even Secretary Chertoff admits is ``a fundamental unfairness'' that much more unfair?
To the proponents' credit, they have attempted to craft a proposal that would not allow anyone who came here illegally obtain their green card until everyone who chose to follow the law gets their green card. But the problem with the bill is this: The compromise bill arbitrarily sets the cutoff date for being in line legally at May 1, 2005, while setting the date for the end of the line for those illegally here at January 1, 2007. I understand the reason why that was done. It was so there would not have to be added a huge number of additional green cards in order to clear the backlog of people who have been waiting patiently, legally, in line to clear before Z visa holders would get the benefits under the law.
But the problem is this: What this means is someone who chose to respect the law, chose not to enter illegally, and filed the proper immigration paperwork on, for example, June 1, 2005, is not considered to be ``in line'' under the terms of the bill, while someone who decided not to respect the laws and entered illegally on the very same date can obtain Z status and ultimately obtain citizenship.
Family groups such as Interfaith Immigration Coalition, Jewish Council for Public Affairs, the U.S. Conference of Bishops, and MALDEF, have written to my office to explain that those people who played by the rules and applied after May 1, 2005 will not be cleared as part of the family backlog pursuant to the terms of this bill and will lose their chance to immigrate under the current rules and be placed in line behind the Z visa applicants. Some of these family groups reported that more than 800,000 people who will have patiently waited in line will, in essence, be kicked out of the line.
I ask unanimous consent that the letters I just referred to from these organizations, the Conference of Catholic Bishops, Interfaith Immigration Coalition, Jewish Council for Public Affairs, and MALDEF, be printed in the Record following my remarks.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source