[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 11 (Thursday, January 18, 2018)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E63-E64]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                  DACA

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                        HON. SHEILA JACKSON LEE

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, January 17, 2018

  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my strong and 
unwavering support of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals 
program (DACA) and unyielding opposition to the President's decision, 
announced by the Attorney General, to rescind a policy that liberated 
800,000 young persons--124,000 of them in Texas--from the shadows of 
life, welcomed them into the mainstream, and encouraged them to realize 
their potential and achieve the American Dream.
  At the heart of the Trump Administration's cruel and heartless and 
misguided decision to rescind DACA is the specious claim that President 
Obama lacked the constitutional and statutory authority to take 
executive actions to implement the DACA policy.
  That is why I offered an amendment to the Commerce, Justice, 
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2018, (Division C of Rules Committee 
Print 115-31) that would have prohibited the Administration from using 
appropriated funds to implement its decision to rescind DACA.
  Specifically, that Jackson Lee Amendment provided the following 
section at the end of Division E of the bill:

       Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to finalize, implement, administer, or enforce the 
     Memorandum of September 5, 2017, from the Acting Secretary of 
     Homeland Security pertaining to ``Rescission of the June 15, 
     2012 Memorandum Entitled ``Exercising Prosecutorial 
     Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United 
     States as Children.''

  Regrettably, this Jackson Lee Amendment was not made in order by the 
Rules Committee.
  There was no need for the President to make any decisions about DACA; 
there was no real deadline pending, no actual court case, no legal 
requirement.
  And in my congressional district, we are still mourning the loss of 
the heroic DREAMER, Alonso Guillen, who came to the U.S. from Mexico as 
a child, and died here when his boat capsized while he was rescuing 
survivors of the flooding caused by Hurricane Harvey in the Houston 
area.
  The President and Attorney General should not have created a crisis 
just because they appear not to like the ethnic groups from which most 
DREAMERS come.
  Not to mention the so-called President, who called ``shithole 
countries'' the places he finds undesirable, likely because of his 
racist ways.

[[Page E64]]

  There is no heart in ending DACA and leaving the fate of 800,000 
young persons in limbo and at the mercy of a Republican Congress that 
has passed no major legislation and has no guarantee that the President 
would even sign a bill if they do.
  Republicans in Congress need to bring H.R. 3440, the Dream Act of 
2017, to the floor right now and vote for it so it can pass both houses 
of Congress with a veto-proof majority.
  Mr. Speaker, now let me briefly discuss why the executive actions 
taken by President Obama are reasonable, responsible, and within his 
constitutional authority.
  Pursuant to Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution, the President, 
the nation's Chief Executive, ``shall take Care that the Laws be 
faithfully executed.''
  In addition to establishing the President's obligation to execute the 
law, the Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the ``Take Care'' 
Clause as ensuring presidential control over those who execute and 
enforce the law and the authority to decide how best to enforce the 
laws. See, e.g., Arizona v. United States; Bowsher v. Synar; Buckley v. 
Valeo; Printz v. United States; Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB.
  Every law enforcement agency, including the agencies that enforce 
immigration laws, has ``prosecutorial discretion''--the inherent power 
to decide whom to investigate, arrest, detain, charge, and prosecute.
  Thus, enforcement agencies, including the U.S. Department of Homeland 
Security (DHS), properly may exercise their discretion to devise and 
implement policies specific to the laws they are charged with 
enforcing, the population they serve, and the problems they face so 
that they can prioritize our nation's resources to meet mission 
critical enforcement goals.
  Mr. Speaker, deferred action has been utilized in our nation for 
decades by Administrations headed by presidents of both parties without 
controversy or challenge.
  In fact, as far back as 1976, INS and DHS leaders have issued at 
least 11 different memoranda providing guidance on the use of similar 
forms of prosecutorial discretion.
  Executive authority to take action is thus ``fairly wide,'' and the 
federal government's discretion is extremely ``broad'' as the Supreme 
Court held in the recent case of Arizona v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 
2492, 2499 (2012), an opinion written by Justice Kennedy and joined by 
Chief Justice Roberts:

       ``Congress has specified which aliens may be removed from 
     the United States and the procedures for doing so. Aliens may 
     be removed if they were inadmissible at the time of entry, 
     have been convicted of certain crimes, or meet other criteria 
     set by federal law. Removal is a civil, not criminal, matter. 
     A principal feature of the removal system is the broad 
     discretion exercised by immigration officials. Federal 
     officials, as an initial matter, must decide whether it 
     makes sense to pursue removal at all. If removal 
     proceedings commence, aliens may seek asylum and other 
     discretionary relief allowing them to remain in the 
     country or at least to leave without formal removal.'' 
     (emphasis added) (citations omitted).

  The Court's decision in Arizona v. United States, also strongly 
suggests that the executive branch's discretion in matters of 
deportation may be exercised on an individual basis, or it may be used 
to protect entire classes of individuals such as ``[u]nauthorized 
workers trying to support their families'' or immigrants who originate 
from countries torn apart by internal conflicts:

       ``Discretion in the enforcement of immigration law--
     embraces immediate human concerns. Unauthorized workers 
     trying to support their families, for example, likely pose 
     less danger than alien smugglers or aliens who commit a 
     serious crime. The equities of an individual case may turn on 
     many factors, including whether the alien has children born 
     in the United States, long ties to the community, or a record 
     of distinguished military service.
       Some discretionary decisions involve policy choices that 
     bear on this Nation's international relations. Returning an 
     alien to his own country may be deemed inappropriate even 
     where he has committed a removable offense or fails to meet 
     the criteria for admission. The foreign state may be mired in 
     civil war, complicit in political persecution, or enduring 
     conditions that create a real risk that the alien or his 
     family will be harmed upon return.
       The dynamic nature of relations with other countries 
     requires the Executive Branch to ensure that enforcement 
     policies are consistent with this Nation's foreign policy 
     with respect to these and other realities.''

  Exercising thoughtful discretion in the enforcement of the nation's 
immigration law saves scarce taxpayer funds, optimizes limited 
resources, and produces results that are more humane and consistent 
with America's reputation as the most compassionate nation on earth.
  Mr. Speaker, a DREAMER (an undocumented student) seeking to earn her 
college degree and aspiring to attend medical school to --better 
herself and her new community is not a threat to the nation's security.
  Law abiding but unauthorized immigrants doing honest work to support 
their families pose far less danger to society than human traffickers, 
drug smugglers, or those who have committed a serious crime.
  President Obama was correct in concluding that exercising his 
discretion regarding the implementation of DACA enhances-the safety of 
all members of the public, serves national security interests, and 
furthers the public interest in keeping families together.
  Mr. Speaker, according to numerous studies conducted by the 
Congressional Budget Office, Social Security Administration, and 
Council of Economic Advisors, the DACA generates substantial economic 
benefits to our nation.
  For example, unfreezing DAPA and expanded DACA is estimated to 
increase GDP by $230 billion and create an average of 28,814 jobs per 
year over the next 10 years.
  That is a lot of jobs.
  Mr. Speaker, in exercising his broad discretion in the area of 
removal proceedings, President Obama acted responsibly and reasonably 
in determining the circumstances in which it makes sense to pursue 
removal and when it does not.
  In exercising this broad discretion, President Obama did nothing was 
novel or unprecedented.
  Let me cite just a few examples of executive action taken by American 
presidents, both Republican and Democratic, on issues affecting 
immigrants over the past 35 years:
  In 1987, President Ronald Reagan used executive action in 1987 to 
allow 200,000 Nicaraguans facing deportation to apply for relief from 
expulsion and work authorization.
  In 1980, President Jimmy Carter exercised parole authority to allow 
Cubans to enter the U.S., and about 123,000 ``Mariel Cubans'' were 
paroled into the U.S. by 1981.
  In 1990, President George H.W. Bush issued an executive order that 
granted Deferred Enforced Departure
  (DED) to certain nationals of the People's Republic of China who were 
in the United States.
  In 1992, the Bush administration granted DED to certain nationals of 
El Salvador.
  In 1997, President Bill Clinton issued an executive order granting 
DED to certain Haitians who had arrived in the United States before 
Dec. 31, 1995.
  In 2010, the Obama Administration began a policy of granting parole 
to the spouses, parents, and children of military members.
  Mr. Speaker, because of President Obama's leadership and visionary 
executive action, 124,000 undocumented immigrants in my home state of 
Texas have received deferred action.
  Ninety-one percent of these immigrants are employed or in school and 
contribute $6.3 billion annually to the Texas economy and $460.3 
billion to the national economy.
  Mr. Speaker, let me note that DACA was and is a welcome development 
but not a substitute for undertaking the comprehensive reform and 
modernization of the nation's immigration laws supported by the 
American people.
  Only Congress can do that.
  America's borders are dynamic, with constantly evolving security 
challenges.
  Border security must be undertaken in a manner that allows actors to 
use pragmatism and common sense.
  Comprehensive immigration reform is desperately needed to ensure that 
Lady Liberty's lamp remains the symbol of a land that welcomes 
immigrants to a community of immigrants and does so in a manner that 
secures our borders and protects our homeland.
  Instead of wasting time scapegoating DREAMERS, we should instead 
seize the opportunity to pass legislation that secures our borders, 
preserves America's character as the most open and welcoming country in 
the history of the world, and will yield hundreds of billions of 
dollars in economic growth.

                          ____________________