Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2015
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Chair, I yield myself 2 minutes.
This amendment is unnecessary and harmful. The memorandum issued by the Department of Homeland Security already makes people convicted of these crimes ineligible for deferred action and already makes them top priorities for deportation.
So, at best, this amendment is duplicative, but it does something else. In the memorandum there is this proviso:
In evaluating whether the offense is a significant misdemeanor involving domestic violence, careful consideration should be given to whether the convicted alien was also the victim of domestic violence. If so, this should be a mitigating factor.
This amendment leaves that out. And so that is why so many supporters of services to domestic violence victims are opposing this amendment. That includes the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the law enforcement officers group. They all oppose this amendment because they say it will make victims of domestic violence less able to seek help, less willing to call the police, and more likely to remain victims of domestic violence.
Let me make it clear. People who are convicted of aggravated felonies, which includes child molestation, child pornography, rape, or any crime of violence, are a top priority for deportation. They are excluded from relief under what the President did, as are significant misdemeanors, which includes convictions of domestic violence.
So this is really much simpler than it looks. This is trying to correct a problem that does not exist, but also creates a problem for domestic violence victims in the solution to a nonproblem.
Madam Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green) for a unanimous consent request.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. LOFGREN. I yield myself 2 minutes.
Madam Chair, this amendment is premised on a mistake in the understanding of how USCIS actually works. Here is a fact that some people may not know: the USCIS is funded not by the taxpayers, it is funded by the fees of the applicants.
The amendment seems to assume that, if you are out of status, somehow, somebody else is paying for you--the taxpayers or some other applicant. That is not the case. Each applicant pays enough money to cover the cost of processing his own fee, and it does not delay others.
What this amendment would do would not just deal with DACA applicants; it would impact people whom I don't think we want to delay in terms of the processing of their petitions. For example, people who are victims of torture can come to the United States and make a case--a plea--for political asylum. They file petitions to do that. This amendment would say that their petitions can't be heard.
There are people who are victims of domestic violence. We created a visa category that allows domestic violence victims to petition so that they can be free to leave their abusers. Those petitions could not be heard in a timely manner.
Victims of sex trafficking are eligible for a T visa. That is something we created in law. According to this amendment, people who apply--sex trafficking victims--would not be eligible to have their petitions processed in a timely manner.
Here is something else: most of the petitions that are adjudicated are family-based. If you have your American citizen daughter marry somebody from another country, she can petition so that her husband can become a legal resident of the United States. If that husband is out of status, that petition would not be petitioned.
I don't think we want to do what this amendment suggests we should do.
I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source