[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 38 (Thursday, March 6, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1664-S1669]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
IMMIGRATION
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, yesterday 12 Senators announced their
intention to file 15 bills that would deal with the broken immigration
system we have--15 responsible pieces of legislation that would be
effective, in discrete, separate ways, to close some of the loopholes
that are making our immigration system not work.
This is important. It is important for the Senate to undertake this.
I believe we should follow through, in the wake of last year's defeat
of the massive amnesty proposal, with what so many Members have
promised: real reform and real enforcement and border security first.
That was what we decided last summer, I think, by most observers. We
decided that amnesty before enforcement was backwards, and we needed
enforcement first. That is what we talked about, and that is what the
vote indicated when there was a massive defeat of that comprehensive
bill.
Now, the majority leader this morning, to my dismay, called that
discussion yesterday fanfare. He said he hoped the American people can
see what is going on here. Let's be frank about what is going on here.
The majority leader, by those words, indicates to me he has no
intention of moving forward with enforcement legislation. The leader of
the Democrats in the Senate has indicated he does not want to go
forward with it and that he is still in last year's and the year
before's philosophy that the way to handle immigration is to refuse to
pass anything that impacts positively enforcement until he is able to
force through a massive amnesty.
I will not go into the details of that discussion last year, but it
was honest and detailed and long. When the debate was over, the
American people and this Senate voted it down. We rejected it because
it will not work that way. We must have the enforcement first. There
are so many loopholes out there.
It is disappointing. That is, frankly, where we are. Fourteen of his
colleagues on the Democratic side voted to reject that plan. There were
only 46 votes for it. You needed 60 to pass it. The suggestion that we
are going to go back to a comprehensive plan such as that is not sound.
These bills that have been offered by a fine group of Senators are
excellent, responsible pieces of legislation. They help control some of
the problems we have. I am disappointed it looks as though we are going
to have to work hard to force an opportunity to even get votes on some
of these critically needed pieces of legislation.
Of the 15 bills that are in the package that was announced yesterday,
over half of them have had prior votes in the Senate.
[[Page S1665]]
Senator DeMint's fence completion bill, S. 2712, has been the subject
of four votes. The fence completion bill--and we voted on it, voted on
it, and it wins every time--but you look out here, and all we have is a
broken virtual fence that will not work, and very few miles of fence,
very little of the double border. It is not occurring.
Senator Domenici's bill, to keep the National Guard there longer, has
been voted on twice.
My bill requiring mandatory minimums for those who enter the country
illegally has been voted on twice. It is a pretty tough bill. Somebody
said we introduced a tough package. It would require 10 days detention
at a minimum if you come here illegally. How extreme is that? If you
come back a second time, a longer period. My legislation would also
establish new worksite enforcement measures. That has been voted on at
least twice in the Senate.
Various forms of the Chambliss-Isakson bill, creating effective
partnerships between law enforcement and the Federal Government in
State and local agencies, has received numerous votes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 5 minutes. There are a
number of other bills from Senator Vitter, Senator Inhofe, Senator
Lamar Alexander, Senator Arlen Specter--and I have his remarks, which I
will submit for the Record, and all of these things we voted on, many
of which passed and some of which were in last year's comprehensive
bill.
I see my colleague is here, Senator Elizabeth Dole, who is so
thoughtful on these issues and is a superb Senator and who has given a
lot of time and interest in trying to do this thing right. I know she
has a piece of legislation she would like to discuss.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina is recognized.
Mrs. DOLE. Madam President, in the time remaining in the 110th
Congress, there is still much that can be done to address critical
pieces of the massively complex immigration issue. As my good friend,
the Senator from Alabama, who made such kind comments, has related, we
are offering solutions to demonstrated problems--measures that have
bipartisan appeal and broad public support.
I have introduced legislation which would repeal President Bill
Clinton's Executive order requiring the Federal Government to provide
services in languages other than English. It is impractical and
fiscally irresponsible to provide services in the hundreds of languages
spoken in the United States at an estimated cost of up to $2 billion
annually. My bill would also help ensure that Federal funds to local
and State governments are not jeopardized because they provide English-
only services. Moreover, proficiency in English should be encouraged,
as it is required for citizenship and essential for maximizing
opportunities in this country.
My other bill, the Safe Roads Enhancement Act of 2008, would amend
the Immigration and Nationality Act to make a drunk driving conviction
a deportable offense for illegal aliens. It also would classify a third
drunk driving conviction as an aggravated felony and therefore a
deportable offense for nationals of a foreign country.
In my State of North Carolina, there have been a number of fatal
automobile accidents caused by an intoxicated person who was in the
United States illegally. In several of these incidents, the illegal
alien has a record of DWI but has been caught and released. For
families, the pain of losing a loved one is compounded by the knowledge
that the person responsible for these fatalities was not even in this
country legally.
A tragic example occurred in Charlotte last spring when a man
attempted to cross the street and was struck and killed by a drunk
driver who then fled the scene. Fortunately, police were able to
apprehend the driver, an illegal alien with a previous DWI conviction,
before he could harm anyone else. Cases such as this are not isolated,
and they are not specific to North Carolina. Across our Nation, similar
senseless tragedies occur on roads and highways.
My bill would help ensure that undocumented aliens who have self-
identified themselves by drunk driving are removed. Likewise,
individuals who abuse their legal status in the United States by
repeatedly breaking drunk driving laws would lose their privilege of
living in our country. Sadly, as we have seen repeatedly, we sorely
need to strengthen immigration laws with regard to drunk driving
convictions.
Furthermore, our Government urgently needs to be laser-focused on
removing undocumented aliens who are self-identifying themselves by
committing other crimes, such as drug trafficking and gang-related
activities. Most of us can agree that criminal aliens who are obviously
here for the wrong reasons should be removed. If we are not safe in our
own communities and in our own homes, then what else is going to
matter?
I am very proud that as a result of my many months working with
Federal officials and sheriffs across our 100 North Carolina counties,
ours is the first State in the Nation to have a statewide partnership
plan for sheriffs to coordinate with ICE, part of the U.S. Department
of Homeland Security. This plan will ensure that all North Carolina
sheriffs can readily access, if they choose, the tools such as 287(g)
to identify and help process undocumented aliens who have self-
identified themselves by committing crimes.
This plan is being implemented by the steering committee of North
Carolina sheriffs and adopts a regional approach to ensure statewide
access to 287(g) databases and other resources to determine the
immigration status of apprehended individuals. The State is being
audited as we speak. I welcome the work of my colleagues from Georgia
for their bill that recognizes that local law enforcement officers are
on the front lines fighting crime in their communities, and it directs
additional resources for these types of Federal partnerships that can
help bring criminal alien problems under control.
The No. 1 lesson learned from the Senate's failed immigration bill is
that Americans simply don't have confidence their Government is serious
about securing our borders and enforcing our laws. Real action, real
results on this front are long overdue. People don't want promises
anymore, they want proof. We now have a chance to put the horse before
the cart and enact the border security and enforcement policies that
will bring about the political will and support to further address our
broken immigration system. I urge my colleagues' support of this
commonsense approach.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, I thank the Senator from North Carolina
and the Senator from Alabama for their leadership on this immigration
issue. Thanks for a few moments to speak on a bill that I will be
offering related to the immigration debate that is called the Complete
Fence Act.
Last year, I think we took on a noble task of trying to solve the
immigration problem with one grand bill, but what we have learned in
the Senate is that it is very difficult to focus on one issue and get a
bill through without a lot of add-ons for special interests. We are
certainly seeing it with the consumer product safety bill that we are
debating now.
The House passed a bill that was bipartisan and unanimous and was
supported by consumer groups as well as industry groups. It was a bill
that was ready for us to take and pass and send to the President. But
we in the Senate needed to add in a number of special interest
provisions that have nothing to do with consumer product safety. We
even discovered last night, as the bill was put into a managers'
amendment, they had added some new things that apply to one State and
things that have nothing to do--no germaneness--with consumer product
safety that we have to deal with.
Certainly, that is what we ran into on the immigration issue. So much
was added to the bill, it was like trying to swallow an apple when that
apple needs to be eaten with a number of different bites.
That is what we are trying to do with this series of immigration
bills which recognize that in order to have a real solution to the
immigration problem in the country, we need to build a platform for
reform one plank at a time. Even those who were pushing the
comprehensive bill now realize we need to begin with border control and
enforcement, the type of enforcement internally that the Senator from
North
[[Page S1666]]
Carolina was talking about: a worker verification program so employers
know who is legal and who is not. If we build this system that way, in
a way the American people can trust, we can get to the point where
America will trust us to develop new immigration policies, how to deal
with those who are already here, and how to accept immigrants in the
future who are needed for our economy.
But the very first step, as all of us have recognized, is to have
border control. This body has passed several times legislation that
would build a 700-mile fence along the border that would support our
Border Patrol in stopping illegal immigrants. It is not just an issue
of illegal immigrants themselves; it also involves drug trafficking, it
involves human trafficking, and it also involves security from
terrorists who might be smuggling weapons into this country. It is
essential that we control our borders.
In 2006, Congress passed the Secure Fence Act which required 700
miles of fencing, and this is metal fencing--this is not virtual
fencing; this is metal pedestrian fencing along the southwest border--
and a deadline for 370 miles of this to be completed by the end of this
year. At this point, only 167 miles of real metal fencing has been
completed, but we have been assured by the Department of Homeland
Security that they will meet their goal of 370 miles of fencing before
the end of this year.
The bill I am introducing would set a deadline for 2010 for all 700
miles of pedestrian metal fencing to be completed. This is essential to
move ahead with the immigration reform process so the American people
will know we are serious about protecting the border and having a
workable immigration system.
So I urge all of my colleagues to urge the Department of Homeland
Security and comfort the American people with the fact that we are
serious about completing this fence and to support the Complete Fence
Act of 2008.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I rise today in support of a piece of
legislation that my colleague from Georgia, Senator Isakson, and I have
filed. I compliment my friends and colleagues from South Carolina,
North Carolina, and Alabama for their leadership. I look forward to
supporting their commonsense measures toward doing what we said we were
going to do, which is secure the border.
The one thing we learned last year, as the Senator from North
Carolina alluded to earlier, during the immigration reform debate is
the American people don't have confidence in Congress that we are going
to do what we say we are going to do when it comes to border security.
There is good reason for that. Credibility on this issue is simply
lacking, both with the administration, as well as with Congress. Now we
have an opportunity to come back and take a commonsense approach from a
legislative perspective on truly securing the border. The legislation
Senator Isakson and I are introducing does this.
A lot of people have said: Senator, why don't you just enforce the
laws that are on the books today? Why don't you get local law
enforcement officials involved in helping secure the border and in
dealing with people who are here illegally?
Well, the fact is, local law enforcement officials have very little
power when it comes to dealing with folks who are in violation of a
Federal immigration law, particularly when it comes to being here
illegally. So what our particular piece of legislation does is, it puts
the tools in the hands of those folks who are going to have the primary
contact and are more likely to have the initial contact with folks who
are here illegally, and that is local law enforcement officials versus
someone from ICE or any other part of the Federal Government from a law
enforcement standpoint.
All of us remember that three of the 9/11 hijackers were stopped on
routine traffic stops by local law enforcement officials.
Unfortunately, those local law enforcement officials did not have the
means whereby they could check to determine whether those individuals
were in this country legally or illegally. If they would have had the
input--not access but the input--by the Federal Government into the
NCIC, which is the national identification tracking mechanism for
vehicles and drivers of vehicles that is used nationwide, then those
local law enforcement officials would have known and understood those
individuals were here illegally. And if they would have had the tools
otherwise given in this piece of legislation, they could have dealt
with and detained those individuals.
So what we seek to do with this commonsense piece of legislation is
to, first of all, clarify the authority that local governments have in
the normal course of carrying out their duties to help enforce our
immigration laws. Secondly, it will expand the National Crime
Information Centers Immigration Violators File to include those
individuals who are known to be here illegally, or known to be here
legally, so they can be cross-referenced in an instant and not have to
worry about getting incorrect information or making assumptions.
This piece of legislation expands the 287(g) program, which is a very
popular program with our law enforcement officials. Three of my
counties in Georgia are already utilizing this program. What it does
is, the Federal Government steps in with a county anywhere in the
country to provide the law enforcement officials in that county with
training and instructions as to how to deal with folks who are found to
be violating our immigration laws.
Lastly, it will compensate State and local entities for immigration-
enforcement-related expenses.
Madam President, common sense is what we are asking for here when it
comes to enforcing the border and providing our law enforcement
officials with the tools necessary to assist in making sure our borders
are secure.
With that, I look forward to working with my other colleagues on
their particular pieces of legislation as we move forward to make sure
we restore confidence with the American people when it comes to border
security, and we will be able to truly say we have secured the border,
and here is how we have done it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized
to speak for up to 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I rise today to join several of my
colleagues to continue to focus on the enormous problem facing our
country of illegal immigration. I am proud to not only rise with these
colleagues, some of whom have been on the floor this morning, but also
to actively work with them on important enforcement and other measures
that we can and must push forward this year to make significant
improvements, to take significant strides in moving forward to solve
the problem.
Yesterday, I announced, along with others, two things--first of all,
the formation of a brand-new caucus in the Senate, which I organized. I
am proud to say that now I believe the number is 12 Members have joined
the caucus. It is the Border Security and Enforcement First Caucus. The
purpose behind the group is exactly as the name implies: to push border
security and enforcement first as the key, necessary first step in
solving this enormous problem.
We have tried the other approach over and over for decades, and that
is the so-called comprehensive approach. All that has yielded is gaps
of time--3 to 5 years--and then there is a comprehensive approach that
was tried and completely rejected by the American people. That approach
has only led to failure because it doesn't jibe with what the American
people know is the right approach, which is taking this in steps and
starting with crucial enforcement, proving to them that Washington is
going to do what it has never done before--have the political will and
get real about enforcement.
Most recently, of course, the American people rejected that approach
last July when they chimed in and had the Senate view its will to kill
that last so-called comprehensive bill--a large amnesty bill with which
they disagreed vehemently. So this is a new approach that can lead to
progress, achievement, and success--enforcement first.
[[Page S1667]]
Also, yesterday a broad group of Senators introduced a package of
bills that moves us in that direction. I have two bills in that
package, which I will briefly mention.
The first bill would say that so-called sanctuary cities--local
jurisdictions that set as official policy that they are not going to
cooperate in any way with immigration enforcement and with our Federal
immigration enforcement officials--will not get COPS funding. Instead,
that COPS funding will go to the rest of the local jurisdictions in the
country who do work with us in immigration enforcement.
The second amendment simply says that matricula consular cards issued
by the Mexican Government to their citizens in this country--
oftentimes, their citizens who are here illegally cannot be accepted by
U.S. banks, to allow them to do things like open bank accounts and have
credit cards. That is clearly a vehicle that is used now by millions of
illegal aliens, allowing them to operate freely and effectively in this
country. It should end for many reasons, security reasons and for
enforcement reasons. My bill would do that.
Again, I am proud to join with a number of Senators in this important
push toward enforcement first and the formation of our new caucus, the
Border Security and Enforcement First Caucus, and in introducing this
important package of bills, which we can move and pass this year.
I urge all of my colleagues to reject and defy the conventional
wisdom that we cannot do significant things in a big election year. We
can and we must because we face significant challenges, and certainly
illegal immigration is near the top of that list.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey). Who yields time?
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for talking about
some of the legislation that was announced yesterday in a press
conference--15 pieces of legislation, offered by 12 Senators, that they
believe would help create a lawful system of immigration and that they
would like to discuss and debate and vote on this year.
My friend, the Democratic leader, said he didn't like it, apparently
because a number of those Senators gathered and announced at a press
conference their ideas. He called that ``great fanfare, a press
event,'' with a little bit of a sniff, I think. And then he said these
words: ``I hope the American public sees it for what it is.''
That kind of hurt my feelings. Can we not have a press conference to
announce legislation that is going to improve America and talk about
it? Is he suggesting that there is a nefarious plan afoot here? What is
it that he is not happy about?
I just suggest that it was a revealing comment by the majority
leader, with his inside-the-beltway hat on. What was revealed by that
comment? He is suggesting that we should not bring it up because a lot
of people in the media and the ``masters of the universe,'' I call
them, who want to control all this immigration and make it do what they
want it to do--and they realize the American people do not agree with
them, but they want to do it anyway. So I think it was a revealing
comment when the majority leader said that something is afoot here.
What he is concerned about is that these bills might actually be
brought up, as Senator Vitter has announced, as a good piece of
legislation--may actually be brought up and, heavens, they might be
asked to vote on it with an election coming up; that it is unfair to
ask the U.S. Senate to vote on legislation that the American people
would like to see pass, that could help create lawfulness in the
immigration system, with an election coming up. He hopes the American
people ``see it for what it is.''
Well, if the fact that an election is coming up helps our colleagues
to be more alert to the real need for reform, the real need to end
unlawfulness in immigration, then so be it; maybe that is a good thing.
I don't see anything wrong with asking a Senator, who is paid by the
taxpayers of America a decent wage, a good wage, to vote on important
pieces of legislation that the public cares about.
I suppose the majority leader, who would oppose, apparently, the
legislation--or at least some of it--that we are talking about here
would prefer that we wait until early next year, after the election,
and he would have a better chance then of cobbling together the votes
to kill the reforms that are needed. Maybe that is what he has in his
mind. But we are entitled as Senators to have votes on bills.
Hopefully, we will move forward with some good legislation that will
work.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition today to discuss the
Accountability in Immigrant Repatriation Act of 2008, S. 2720.
This bill addresses the reality that aliens who have been ordered to
be removed from this country are often released back onto U.S. streets
due to the refusal of their home countries to repatriate them.
Moreover, many of these aliens are criminals who have served time in
our Federal, State, and local jails. As of February 11, 2008, eight
countries--such as Vietnam, Jamaica, China, India, and Ethiopia--are
refusing to repatriate a total of over 139,000 aliens. Over 18,000 of
them are convicted criminals who have been released back into U.S.
society. Secretary Chertoff testified this week that his counterparts
in Europe are facing similar problems repatriating dangerous aliens.
We must increase the pressure on foreign countries to take back the
aliens that have been ordered deported. The Supreme Court in two
cases--Zadvydas v. Davis and Clark v. Martinez--adopted a presumption
that it is only reasonable to continue to detain aliens ordered to be
deported for up to 6 months. So at the end of that time, if the home
country steadfastly refuses to repatriate, we are forced to release
them.
This is of obvious concern to the citizens of this country, who are
put at risk by criminal aliens who are released. In Pennsylvania, there
are 700 to 1,000 undocumented criminal aliens that could end up out on
our streets if their home countries refuse to take them back when we
try to deport them. The recidivism rate among this population is
extremely high. Studies show that the average criminal illegal alien
was rearrested an estimated six to eight times--most often for drug
crimes, robbery and assault, and, to a lesser degree, for murder and
sexual offenses. Moreover, not only does refusal to repatriate often
put convicted criminals with no right to be here out on the street, but
drawn-out repatriation negotiations divert scarce Federal resources
away from identifying and deporting other criminal aliens.
Therefore, this bill imposes sanctions on countries that refuse to
repatriate aliens who have been ordered deported. First, the bill
requires the Department of Homeland Security to report to Congress
every 90 days on the countries which refuse or inhibit repatriation.
The receipt of this report automatically triggers denial of foreign aid
as well as suspension of visa issuances to the listed non-cooperative
countries. This will send a clear signal to those countries unwilling
to take responsibility for their citizens that they will no longer
benefit from U.S. largess--in the form of money and visas.
It also grants standing to enforce the bill to victims of crimes
committed by nonrepatriated criminal aliens. Current law, which gives
the administration discretion to deny visas to uncooperative countries,
has been sorely underutilized. This bill eliminates such discretion.
Section 243(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act directs the
State Department not to issue visas to nationals of countries
identified by the Attorney General--now the Secretary of Homeland
Security--as countries that deny or delay repatriation. Congressional
intent was clear, and the remedy was potent when applied against Guyana
several years ago. However, the Congressional Research Service has not
identified any other instance in which Homeland Security elected to
issue the triggering notification to the State Department.
[[Page S1668]]
On February 15, I wrote letters to the Secretaries of State and
Homeland Security as well as to the Attorney General to find out why
this authority is seemingly unutilized. On March 4, I reiterated my
concerns to Secretary Chertoff in person, when he testified before the
Appropriations Subcommittee. He committed to working with us to find
ways to extend the 6-month detention in appropriate cases rather than
simply releasing all deportable aliens. This is a welcome step--one
that will complement the bill I am introducing
Foreign relations are complex and there is a need to balance
competing interests; however, ensuring the public safety is a
Government's primary duty and must be its first priority. Also, we must
ensure that prolonged repatriation negotiations do not drain scarce
resources. It makes little sense to continue admitting persons if we
cannot be sure that their countries will take them back in the event
they are ordered removed from this country. Similarly, it makes little
sense to continue rewarding such countries with U.S. taxpayer dollars
in the form of foreign aid.
This bill addresses the problem by imposing sanctions on non-
repatriating countries that refuse to cooperate and take
responsibility. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this
bill.
I ask unanimous consent that the letters I referred to be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
U.S. Senate,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC, February 15, 2008.
Hon. Condoleezza Rice,
Secretary of State, Department of State,
Washington, DC.
Dear Secretary Rice: I am troubled that thousands of
deportable aliens who have been convicted of crimes in the
United States, sometimes violent crimes, remain in the United
States because their native countries refuse to repatriate
them. Moreover, most of these aliens are released back into
the population, as extended detention is untenable due to a
lack of resources and the Supreme Court's Zadvydas decision.
Many of these recalcitrant nations receive substantial U.S.
aid, and their citizens are regularly issued U.S. visas. The
Congress has already attempted to address this problem, in
section 243(d) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act, and
I am curious as to why it is not utilized to greater effect.
According to the statute, upon notification from the Attorney
General that a country denies or unreasonably delays
repatriation (such notification is now provided by the
Secretary of Homeland Security), the Secretary of State
``shall'' suspend visa issuances until notified by the
Attorney General that the country has accepted the alien.
This tactic is potent in theory, and was successful in
practice when applied against Guyana several years ago. While
I appreciate that foreign relations is a delicate affair
involving balancing numerous interests, surely public safety
in the United States is a priority of the highest order. Not
only does refusal to repatriate often put convicted criminals
with no right to be here back on the street, but drawn out
repatriation negotiations divert scarce federal resources
away from identifying and deporting other criminal aliens--as
many as 300,000 of whom were incarcerated in 2007 and will be
released rather than deported at the conclusion of their
sentences.
It seems incongruous for the United States to continue
admitting the citizens of an uncooperative country that
refuses to take back those who are convicted criminals. Why
then are we not more aggressive in our use of section 243(d)
to ensure prompt repatriation, particularly of criminal
undocumented aliens? I would appreciate your views on the
efficacy of this provision and any obstacles to its
utilization.
I look forward to your response and your thoughts on this
important issue. To aid the analysis, I would appreciate it
if you could include a list of the notifications you have
forwarded to the State Department pursuant to section 243(d)
in the last 5 years, any actions upon them (e.g., suspension
of non-immigrant visas), and whether they were ultimately
successful in securing repatriation.
Sincerely,
Arlen Specter.
____
U.S. Senate,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC, February 15, 2008,
Hon. Michael Chertoff,
Department of Homeland Security,
Washington, DC.
Dear Secretary. Chertoff: I am troubled that thousands of
deportable aliens who have been convicted of crimes in the
United States, sometimes violent crimes, remain in the United
States because their native countries refuse to repatriate
them. Moreover, most of these aliens are released back into
the population, as extended detention is untenable due to a
lack of resources and the Supreme Court's Zadvydas decision.
Many of these recalcitrant nations receive substantial U.S.
aid, and their citizens are regularly issued U.S. visas. The
Congress has already attempted to address this problem, in
section 243(d) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act, and
I am curious as to why it is not utilized to greater effect.
According to the statute, upon notification from the Attorney
General that a country denies or unreasonably delays
repatriation (such notification is now provided by the
Secretary of Homeland Security), the Secretary of State
``shall'' suspend visa issuances until notified by the
Attorney General that the country has accepted the alien.
This tactic is potent in theory, and was successful in
practice when applied against Guyana several years ago. While
I appreciate that foreign relations is a delicate affair
involving balancing numerous interests, surely public safety
in the United States is a priority of the highest order. Not
only does refusal to repatriate often put convicted criminals
with no right to be here back on the street, but drawn out
repatriation negotiations divert scarce federal resources
away from identifying and deporting other criminal aliens--as
many as 300,000 of whom were incarcerated in 2007 and will be
released rather than deported at the conclusion of their
sentences.
It seems incongruous for the United States to continue
admitting the citizens of an uncooperative country that
refuses to take back those who are convicted criminals. Why
then are we not more aggressive in our use of section 243(d)
to ensure prompt repatriation, particularly of criminal
undocumented aliens? I would appreciate your views on the
efficacy of this provision and any obstacles to its
utilization.
In a related development, this week, DHS noticed a proposed
rule to prohibit H-2A visas for nationals of countries which
refuse to repatriate. This is a welcome step, but why did DHS
not instead dispense with time-consuming rulemaking, which
ultimately will provide only limited leverage, and simply
notify the State Department immediately of the non-
cooperating countries?
I look forward to your response and your thoughts on this
important issue. To aid the analysis, I would appreciate it
if you could include a list of the notifications you have
forwarded to the State Department pursuant to section 243(d)
in the last 5 years, any actions upon them (e.g., suspension
of non-immigrant visas), and whether they were ultimately
successful in securing repatriation.
Sincerely,
Arlen specter.
____
U.S. Senate,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC, February 15, 2008.
Hon. Michael B. Mukasey,
Attorney General, Department of Justice,
Washington, DC.
Dear Attorney General: I am troubled that thousands of
deportable aliens who have been convicted of crimes in the
United States, sometimes violent crimes, remain in the United
States because their native countries refuse to repatriate
them. Moreover, most of these aliens are released back into
the population, as extended detention is untenable due to a
lack of resources and the Supreme Court's Zadvydas decision.
Many of these recalcitrant nations receive substantial U.S.
aid, and their citizens are regularly issued U.S. visas. The
Congress has already attempted to address this problem, in
section 243(d) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act, and
I am curious as to why it is not utilized to greater effect.
According to the statute, upon notification from the Attorney
General that a country denies or unreasonably delays
repatriation (such notification is now provided by the
Secretary of Homeland Security), the Secretary of State
``shall'' suspend visa issuances until notified by the
Attorney General that the country has accepted the alien.
This tactic is potent in theory, and was successful in
practice when applied against Guyana several years ago. While
I appreciate that foreign relations is a delicate affair
involving balancing numerous interests, surely public safety
in the United States is a priority of the highest order. Not
only does refusal to repatriate often put convicted criminals
with no right to be here back on the street, but drawn out
repatriation negotiations divert scarce federal resources
away from identifying and deporting other criminal aliens--as
many as 300,000 of whom were incarcerated in 2007 and will be
released rather than deported at the conclusion of their
sentences.
It seems incongruous for the United States to continue
admitting the citizens of an uncooperative country that
refuses to take back those who are convicted criminals. Why
then are we not more aggressive in our use of section 243(d)
to ensure prompt repatriation, particularly of criminal
undocumented aliens? I would appreciate your views on the
efficacy of this provision and any obstacles to its
utilization.
I look forward to your response and your thoughts on this
important issue. To aid the analysis, I would appreciate it
if you could include a list of the notifications that were
received pursuant to section 243(d) in the last 5 years, any
actions upon them (e.g., suspension of non-immigrant visas),
and whether they were ultimately successful in securing
repatriation.
Sincerely,
Arlen Specter.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
[[Page S1669]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________