Immigration Reform

Floor Speech

MR. CORNYN. Now that cloture was invoked on the underlying Leahy amendment, I think it is very important the American people and Members of Congress look more closely at what actually is in the immigration bill we will be voting on during the course of this week and, presumably, if the majority leader has his way, will see pass this Chamber and head over to the House of Representatives.

It was three years ago when the Democratic House leader and the former head of that Chamber Nancy Pelosi famously said we would have to pass ObamaCare in order to find out what was in it. We have all said things we regret, and I bet if she had it to say over again, she would not have said it that way. Indeed, it seemed to strike such a responsive chord in people because the public realizes what we should acknowledge, which is when it comes to 2,700 pages of legislation passed through without adequate deliberation and an understanding of what is in it, purely on a partisan vote, we are bound to make mistakes.

Unfortunately, we know how ObamaCare turned out. We have now seen bipartisan votes to repeal certain portions of it such as the 1099 requirement. We have seen an overwhelming bipartisan vote that would suggest sooner or later we will repeal the medical device tax, which is a gross receipts tax on the people who are innovating and creating jobs right here in America and creating access to high-quality health care, which makes us second to none. We saw how it turned out with ObamaCare.

Now, once again, we are being urged to enact a massive piece of legislation before the American people are fully aware of what is in it. Indeed, some supporters of the immigration bill are hoping some of its more outrageous elements will go unnoticed. Well, that is not going to happen. We are going to be spending the next few days, until this bill passes this Chamber, to point out some of the more indefensible provisions in the underlying bill.

Today I wish to talk about what I think is arguably the most indefensible portion of the bill--the part that grants immediate legal status to immigrants with multiple drunk driving or domestic violence convictions.

As we know, in the underlying bill, those who apply for and qualify for registered provisional immigrant status can stay in the United States and work for up to 5 years, providing they meet the terms of that probationary status, and they can actually reapply for another 5 years and then eventually, after 10 years, they can qualify for legal permanent residency, which is the pathway to American citizenship as early as 3 years from that time. But under the provisions of this bill, immigrants who are out of status--undocumented immigrants--can get access to probationary status and get on a pathway to legal permanent residency and citizenship, even though they have committed multiple incidents of driving while intoxicated or domestic violence. Most Americans aren't aware of these provisions, but I can assure my colleagues everyone will suffer the consequences if this ill-considered provision becomes the law of the land.

In fiscal year 2011, Immigration and Customs Enforcement deported 36,000 individuals with DUI convictions; that is, driving under the influence convictions--nearly 36,000 people. That gives us an idea of how big this problem is and what the consequences are of turning a blind eye to this provision in the underlying bill and what impact it might have on the public.

Last week I shared a few stories from my State of Texas, including the story of the sheriff's deputy in Harris County named Dwayne Polk, who was killed last month by an illegal immigrant drunk driver who had previously been arrested for, No. 1, driving under the influence and, No. 2, carrying an illegal weapon. Today I wish to share two more stories.

In August 2011, an illegal immigrant drunk driver crashed his car in Brenham, TX, killing four other people, all of whom were under the age of 23 years old. We subsequently learned the driver of the car had been arrested just weeks before that deadly accident for--you guessed it--drunk driving. Yet because his initial offense was technically a class C misdemeanor, he was not taken into Federal custody and deported.

In March 2012, an illegal immigrant drunk driver crashed his vehicle into an apartment building in Houston, killing a 7-year-old boy and leaving a 4-year-old boy with severe burns on nearly half of his body. Not surprisingly, the drunk driver had been arrested for DUI once before in 2008, and in 2011, he had been charged with attacking his wife by punching her in the face.

We know drunk drivers and domestic abusers tend to be serial or repeat offenders. In other words, it is rare that people who have engaged in domestic violence only do it once and people who drive while intoxicated only do it once. By offering registered provisional immigrant status to illegal immigrants with multiple DUI convictions or domestic violence convictions, we are virtually guaranteeing more innocent people will lose their lives or become victims of violent crime. That is unconscionable and it is indefensible.

Last week I challenged any Member of this Chamber to come down to the floor and defend these provisions, and I repeat that challenge today. I don't think we will find any takers, because we cannot defend the indefensible, and granting legal status to drunk drivers and violent criminals is just that: an indefensible policy that will inevitably have tragic circumstances.

Provisions such as this one are one more reason why this bill is dead on arrival in the House of Representatives.

One final point. Many critics of my border security amendment called it a poison pill which, of course, was ridiculous because it used the same criteria used in the underlying framework written by the Gang of 8. But leave that aside. Here is what I would say to those critics: If we want to know what a real poison pill is, all we have to do is read through these provisions with regard to criminal justice in the Gang of 8 bill. We should not be supporting legislation that grants immediate legal status to drunk drivers and domestic abusers. I can understand why the American people are asked to extend an act of uncommon generosity for people who enter our country in order to work and provide for their families, but for those who have demonstrated their contempt for the rule of law and for the legal standards which govern all Americans, I don't think they deserve this sort of extraordinary treatment. I hope there is somebody who will come to the floor and explain why these provisions are in the bill.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source