Real ID Act of 2005

REAL ID ACT OF 2005 -- (House of Representatives - February 10, 2005)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment to strike section 101 of the bill relating to asylum seekers. Under the excuse of protecting national security, the asylum provisions in this bill make it much more difficult for legitimate victims to be granted asylum. The logic seems to be, if you keep out every asylum seeker, including legitimate victims, then the system cannot be abused.

Proponents of this section make inaccurate, dramatic claims about terrorists who abuse the asylum system to get into the country, but the cases they cite are mostly pre-1996 when the law was changed. Since that 1996 change, asylum seekers are jailed, put in custody until a finding of reasonable fear of persecution is made, so they cannot pose a threat while they are in custody.

Because current law already places the burden of proof on the asylum applicant and places the applicant in custody until he or she meets the initial burden of proof, a terrorist who wishes to enter the United States would most likely attempt to do so by a tourist visa or on fraudulent papers. They are not going to claim political asylum and then be put in jail until they can show a credible fear of persecution.

But this bill seeks to raise the bar when people finally do get into court. If we pass this bill in its current form, mothers, fathers, children with legitimate asylum claims will be sent back to their persecutors with no benefit to national security.

Current law provides that an asylum seeker must prove a reasonable fear of persecution by reason of race, color, creed, national origin, sex, or political opposition. The new provision in this bill would require proof that one of these factors, race, color, creed, political opposition, is the "central reason" for the legitimate fear.

This is an almost insurmountable burden of proof since the persecutors rarely stop to explain their motives while they are committing torture, rape, and murder. The judge would be forced to look into the minds of the persecutor and decide what weight to give to a particular motive in cases of mixed motives, which they are, in order to prove, the burden of proof, that this is the central reason. Not one of the major reasons, a central reason. This is an impossible burden of proof with no purpose other than to deny the asylum claim.

This section would deny a victim asylum based on an immaterial inconsistency or inaccuracy in a prior statement. So an applicant who, at the airport, perhaps without a decent understanding of English or a mistranslation, forgets or misspeaks the date of her high school graduation, or the date of her wedding or her grandchildren's births, even though the dates might not be significant in her culture, unlike in ours, would later be denied safe haven from persecution, even though they have nothing to do with the legitimacy or lack of legitimacy of her claim for asylum under the law. This would be a ridiculously harsh outcome for an absurdly innocent mistake.

There are other things that this section does. We did not have time to review it properly. It did not go before the committee. The provisions that were considered by the House last year was only a 2-page provision. This became a 10-page provision 2 days ago. No one has had a chance to properly look through it, but we do know that it does a lot of other very harsh things.

Mr. Chairman, asylum law is supposed to be about protecting individuals from serious abuses of human rights. It is not supposed to be about seizing on any possible basis to deny a claim or to return people to harm's way.

This section is not about protecting our borders; it is about xenophobia and sending victims back to their torturers. It is, Mr. Chairman, in the larger sense, un-American.

I urge my colleagues to stand with me in voting for the Nadler-Meek-Jackson-Lee amendment to strike these provisions and keep our law humane and American.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I grant myself the remainder of the time.

The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman has 30 seconds remaining.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New Jersey and other speakers have made excellent points, but I want to make one different point.

This amendment, rather this section which we are trying to eliminate, is not focused on terrorism. It does not focus on terrorism. It does not focus on terrorists. All it does is put up additional bars to all asylum seekers, legitimate victims or otherwise. It has nothing to do with terrorism, does not claim to focus on terrorism. Does not do anything to distinguish between a terrorist and a legitimate victim of persecution or anybody else.

It simply sets the bar for all claimants at an unrealistically high level and ought to be defeated, and the amendment therefore ought to be passed for that reason.

I yield back.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov