Preventing Executive Overreach on Immigration Act of 2014

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, there is legal authority for the
President's immigration actions derived, in part, from his
constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.

In Heckler v. Chaney, the Supreme Court explained this duty does not
require the President to act against every technical violation of the
law. The Court said: ``An agency's decision not to prosecute or enforce, whether through civil or criminal process, is a decision generally committed to the agency's absolute discretion.''

Two years ago, the Supreme Court, in Arizona v. United States, struck
down most of Arizona's S.B. 1070 law. The Court said then the broad
discretion exercised by Federal immigration officials extends to
``whether it makes sense to pursue removal at all.'' The Court said
discretion in the enforcement of immigration law embraces immediate
human concerns and can turn on factors, including whether the alien has
children born in the United States, long ties to the community, or a
record of distinguished military service.

When we created the Department of Homeland Security in 2002, we
charged the Secretary with the duty to establish national immigration
enforcement policies and priorities. That is at 6 U.S. Code 202.

Congress delegated that authority to the executive branch, and they
are now using this authority. We enacted a law that permits the
issuance of employment authorization. They are now implementing that
part of the law.

This bill would block some portions of the President's recent action
to keep young people from facing deportation and to prevent parents of
U.S. citizen kids from being deported, but the bill harms others, too.
Immigrant victims of domestic violence who seek a green card through
the Violence Against Women Act are not protected from deportation while
they wait for a visa. With this bill, they would face deportation.

Victims of serious crimes approved for U visas get deferred action
while they wait for a visa. Under this bill, they would face
deportation. The exception in the bill is insufficient because victims
may assist law enforcement without appearing at trial.

Victims of severe forms of human trafficking eligible for
statutorily-capped T visas could also face deportation. The bill would
end the ability to parole in place the undocumented families of
American military personnel and veterans. Deporting the mothers of
American soldiers could be the result.

There is strong historical precedent for the President's actions.
Prior Presidents were not met with such obstructionism. President
Ronald Reagan created the family fairness program. Once expanded by
President George H.W. Bush, that program is expected to protect 1.5
million people. The reason was to keep families together, one of the
key motivations for the President's actions last month.

As some wrongly claim, the Reagan program was to carry out
congressional intent in the 1986 act. That is false. When the Senate
Judiciary Committee reported the bill, they said: ``It is the intent of
the committee that the families of legalized aliens will obtain no
special petitioning right by virtue of the legalization. They will be
required to wait in line in the same manner as immediate family members
of other new resident aliens.'' President Reagan decided otherwise.

Some wrongly argue the scope of the Reagan family fairness program
was smaller, that it was not intended to provide relief to 1.5 million
people, about 40 percent of the undocumented population at the time.
Again, that is false. The INS Commissioner then testified before
Congress that it covered 1.5 million people. An internal decision memo
at the time states:

Family fairness policy provides voluntary departure and
employment authorization to potentially millions of
individuals.

The draft processing plan at the time said:

Current estimates are that greater than 1 million IRCA-
eligible family members will file for this benefit.

Now, many Members on the other side of the aisle want to prevent the
President's actions from going into effect, but the President has
strong constitutional and statutory authority to take these actions.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. LOFGREN. He cannot change the law, and he has not done so. He
does have the authority to grant temporary relief to some. We need
broad reform, and to do that, we need to legislate.

It is shameful that the House has failed in its duty to legislate to
fix our broken immigration system. The Judiciary Committee has reported
out four bills. We have yet to see them on the floor.

I would like to enter into the Record the testimony by the
Commissioner before the Judiciary Committee in 1990, the draft
processing plan from 1990, and the decision memo from 1990 that prove
the elements of the Reagan fairness plan.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I, in my opening remarks, did note the
uncanny similarity between the action that President Reagan and the
first President Bush took and the action that President Obama has now
taken.

I would note that I used the official record as a source of
information instead of chat and articles, and I submitted for the
record the internal decision memorandum in the INS, dated February 8,
1990, indicating that 1.5 million, 40 percent of the undocumented
population, in contravention to the orders of Congress, were going to
be given deferred action.

The Commissioner of the INS testified that 40 percent of the
undocumented population were going to be given, in contradiction to the
Congress' explicit decision, were going to be given deferred action. I
also have the draft processing plan that says millions of people would
be given, in contravention to the act of Congress, deferred action.
They even have the amount of money that they were going to make off the
estimated filing fees.

I would recommend that people take a look at the documents, and they
will see that what President Reagan did is almost exactly the same as
what President Obama did--40 percent of the population.

I don't think that President Reagan could get the Republican
nomination today, but that does not diminish the validity of his action
at that time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source