Motion to Instruct Conferees on H.R. 240, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2015

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, a lot of discussion has been that, somehow, the President has acted unconstitutionally or unlawfully. Nothing could be further from the truth.

There is ample legal authority for what the President has done. Prosecutorial discretion is a long-established practice in every area of the law, both civil and criminal. When a law enforcement agency has only enough resources to go after a fraction of the individuals who it suspects of violating the relevant law, it has to make choices. There is no alternative.

In the case of immigration, not only do we recognize this, Congress has specifically directed the head of the Department to set priorities, enforcement priorities, for removal.

Now, in addition to that, the Supreme Court has recognized in many cases the need--and really the authority of the executive--to make these decisions. In the Arizona case, it said Federal officials, as an initial matter, must decide whether it makes sense to pursue removal at all.

Our own Congressional Research Service has found that no court appears to have invalidated a policy of nonenforcement founded upon prosecutorial discretion on the grounds that the policy violated the take care clause.

Deferred action is nothing more than a tentative revocable signal to a noncitizen that the government does not intend to initiate removal proceedings at this time. Not only is that tentative, but the statute at U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(B)(ii) authorizes the period of stay by the Department in such cases.

Congress has expressly recognized deferred action by name repeatedly. In addition to the statute, the formal regulations of the Justice Department and Homeland Security have also expressly recognized deferred action.

In the Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination case, Justice Scalia said, ``At each stage, the Executive has discretion to abandon the endeavor''--referring to the removal process--``and at the time IIRIA was enacted, the INS had been engaging in a regular practice (which has come to be known as 'deferred action') of exercising that discretion for humanitarian reasons or simply for its own convenience.''

The arguments that somehow this is unlawful are so far wrong because nothing in the recent executive actions conflicts with either the letter or the spirit of the Immigration and Nationality Act or any other Federal statute.

I would note that the court in Texas did not find the President's action unconstitutional. It suggested--and I think wrongly--that the Administrative Procedure Act applies to these actions. There is nothing in the history of the Administrative Procedure Act that suggests that is the case.

I would just suggest that the Republicans fund Homeland Security and let the process work through the courts.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source