[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 23 (Tuesday, February 6, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S622-S624]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
IMMIGRATION
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I said I wanted to talk about the issue
our Democratic colleagues shut down the government over last month, and
that issue is immigration and the path forward on DACA. DACA, again, is
Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals. This is something President
Obama did unilaterally, circumventing Congress, assuring that in a new
administration, it would be called into question, not only in the
courts but also by the new administration.
President Trump, recognizing that the courts had effectively said
what President Obama tried to do was illegal, basically continued it
for a time to give Congress a chance to try to respond, and he has
given us a deadline of March 5. I heard my friend from Illinois blame
President Trump for trying to fix a problem that was caused by an
overreach by the previous administration. Don't take my word for it,
take the courts which struck down the DACA Program.
President Trump has continued it long enough to give Congress a
chance to fix it. That is the appropriate response. It is not helpful
just to engage in the blame game. We actually need to step up and not
just give speeches on the floor of the Senate; we need to actually
enter into a good-faith negotiation.
To date, President Trump has issued a reasonable framework that will
not only give protection to those who were brought here illegally by
their parents as children but also fixes other gaps in our broken
immigration system--border security, the diversity lottery visa, and
ensures that people who are waiting in line patiently can be unified
with their family by narrowing the scope of family-based immigration in
the future. That is prospective only. One proposal has been to plow
those additional green cards into accelerating the passage of people
who are patiently waiting in line--some as many as 10 and 20 years.
President Trump has done something President Obama never did. He has
offered 1.8 million young adults who are currently DACA recipients and
DACA-eligible an opportunity to get on a pathway to American
citizenship. That is three times more than the young adults who were
addressed by the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program that
President Obama did unilaterally. That is an incredibly generous offer.
What has the President requested in return or in addition? He said:
Secondly, I want to secure our borders, and I want to address legal
loopholes in the current law. That is important because we have to
protect our citizens and regain the public trust. One of the very
reasons this President was elected is because people are angry that the
Federal Government has failed them when it comes to securing our
borders and enforcing our laws. I believe the second pillar of what
President Trump has talked about, border security, is really a system
of physical infrastructure--fence, walls, barriers--but also technology
and personnel; that those
[[Page S623]]
are the three essential ingredients in border security. We have to
ensure that people don't flout the law and enter the country illegally.
We all know a porous border is an opportunity for drug traffickers,
human traffickers, and other criminals to exploit our porous border. As
I said, it is not one-dimensional, it is not just about a wall or a
fence or a barrier, it is about technology, personnel, and physical
infrastructure as well, and the President has acknowledged as much.
I have heard our colleagues across the aisle bridle at what the
President has requested in terms of not only a plan for border security
but also for the funding. He said he wants $25 billion to make sure the
Federal Government finally steps up and lives up to its responsibility
on the border. It wasn't that long ago when the Gang of 8--Senator
Durbin my friend from Illinois was one of the gang members--proposed
and the Senate passed a bill by 68 votes that provided $50 billion for
border security. It had other problems, but they were more than
generous in providing for border security. Today they chafe and resist
and refuse basically to negotiate on this item, when they voted for
double that amount in the so-called Gang of 8 bill just a few years
ago.
The President's third pillar relates to what is known as the
diversity lottery visa. Many, including the President, have questioned
whether it makes sense to just give out 50,000 green cards a year based
on a lottery--a game of chance. They have suggested and the President
has proposed that we use those green cards to reward skill and merit.
We ought to look at immigration as a way for us to attract the best
and brightest, the people who have skills, talents, education,
something to offer their new country when they come here. We don't have
to end the diversity part, but we can add to it the skills that would
help make our country better and allow these new citizens to contribute
in a substantial way to their adopted country.
The fourth pillar addresses family unification. I say ``family
unification'' because I think the recently adopted alternative term of
``chain migration'' has become a pejorative and oversimplifies a very
complex area of the law. What the President has proposed is, in the
future, we allow people to immigrate to the country based on family
relationships, and we confine that to the nuclear family--mom, dad, and
the kids. One suggestion has been that the green cards we would save by
not allowing collateral family members to come in--married adult
children, aunts, uncles, cousins, and the like, based strictly on the
family relationship--we could plow those green cards back into the
backlog because there are people who have been playing by the rules and
waiting patiently in line, some for 10 or 20 years because of the caps
we put on country immigration. Why doesn't it make sense to let them
reunite with their family members even faster so they don't have to
wait so long? I think that makes an awful lot of sense. During the time
that backlog clears, there really wouldn't be any reduction in legal
immigration.
I don't know what the right number is for legal immigration. We
naturalize roughly about 1 million people a year. I support legal
immigration. I think it makes our country better, but I am not sure
exactly what the right number is, and I am not sure exactly what the
right formula is. A number of countries, such as Australia and Canada,
look at the skills and merit-based system, in addition to family
relationships. I think that makes a lot of sense to me.
While we are continuing to have this discussion about what should be
the long-term rate of legal immigration, it makes sense to plow these
additional green cards--that will not be used prospectively by
collateral family members based strictly on that family relationship--
back into the backlog and unify the families who have been waiting for
their loved one who has been waiting in line, waiting to immigrate
legally into the United States.
One thing I really appreciate about the President's proposal is, it
addresses shortcomings of the so-called Gang of 8 bill that was
considered back in 2013. This is where I differ again from my colleague
from Illinois. He celebrates the fact that they were able to get 68
votes in the Senate, but it didn't pass the House, and it never got to
the President. I am not sure that is a cause for celebration. What I
would actually like to see is us take the President's four pillars and
actually get a Presidential signature on a law that passes not only the
Senate but the House and that the President will sign. I thought that
was the goal, not just to go through some futile gesture or to pass one
branch of the legislature only to fail in the House.
The reason the Gang of 8 bill failed in the House was because it had
some serious problems. It had no real objective metrics to determine
where technology and infrastructure would be the most effective. It
didn't allow the Department of Homeland Security to achieve 24/7
situational awareness and 100 percent operational control of the
border. It didn't adequately address the personnel and infrastructure
improvements we know are desperately needed at our northern borders and
our ports of entry.
Finally, even though the Gang of 8 bill contains some provisions to
address criminal gangs, drunk drivers, and aggravated felons, it also
had generous waivers and still allowed some criminals to qualify for
legal status. That didn't make any sense to me then, and it makes no
sense to me now. Why would we allow people with criminal records to
immigrate into the United States?
Worse, the Gang of 8 bill didn't end catch-and-release of criminal
aliens, and it did nothing to deter the influx of people who are
exploiting a loophole in the law relating to unaccompanied minors. By
way of contrast, the new White House proposal addresses these concerns
in ways the flawed Gang of 8 bill did not, and I predict, if we embrace
the President's four pillars and pass a bill that reflects those
requirements, the House of Representatives could pass it, and the
President would sign it, which would actually then provide a pathway to
citizenship for 1.8 million young people.
I don't know how some of our friends can look these young people in
the face and say: We had the chance. You had the opportunity to receive
one of the greatest gifts a human being could possibly accept, and that
is a pathway to American citizenship, but we turned it down. Perhaps,
we miscalculated, and we figured that, maybe, we can get it through the
Senate but we can't get it through the House and we can't get a
Presidential signature. So we ended up emptyhanded, and you remain in
the same box you were in in the first place. How is that helping these
young people? It is not.
Well, the White House proposal closes loopholes in the current law
that are being exploited by criminal gangs and human traffickers. Let
me explain. Under the current law, if somebody is under 18 years of age
and shows up at the border, the Border Patrol processes them, and then
they are given to Health and Human Services. If they make a claim of
some immigration benefit, they are given a notice to appear before an
immigration judge, but the backlog there is so great that it could be
years down the road, and then they are placed with a sponsor.
Here is the problem. First of all, there is no adequate monitoring of
these individuals to make sure they actually show up for their court
hearing. Current law allows them to be placed with a sponsor that is
not legally present in the country in the first place. There are no
criminal background checks. So we don't know whether these
unaccompanied children are being placed with people who would abuse
them, traffic them, or recruit them into criminal gangs.
In 2017 alone, the Department of Homeland Security apprehended 41,000
unaccompanied minors across the southern border, and 37 percent were
between the ages of 15 and 16, and another 32 percent were 17 years
old. So we are not talking about young children. We are talking about,
by and large, grown young men. As I mentioned earlier, this number has
increased significantly, with more than 11,000 unaccompanied minors
being apprehended in the last 4 months alone.
They have figured this out. The transnational criminal organizations
that traffic in human beings, drugs, weapons, and anything else that is
worth a buck have figured this out. They have a loophole in the U.S.
law that allows them to charge a fee to
[[Page S624]]
bring in these young men, who may or may not be a member of MS-13, one
of the most violent criminal gangs in Central America. Now they are
unfortunately in the United States, and there is no way for the U.S.
Government to keep them out even if they are gang members, under
current law.
Well, I don't know how our colleagues who refuse to take up this
issue and address it justify it. I just can't understand it. In my
opinion, we have a real problem that our colleagues either don't want
to fix or they are deliberately ignoring. We can't solve these problems
by just putting our head in the sand and hoping that the problem goes
away. It will not. This is just one example of a loophole, which a
border security bill that I introduced months ago, called the Building
America's Trust Act, would fix.
So if our colleagues are serious about coming up with a solution to
our immigration problems and providing a lifeline to these young adults
who are DACA recipients and, indeed, everyone who is DACA-eligible,
they need to work with us. They need to recognize the reality that
President Trump has laid out a pathway for that to happen, but they
can't just cherry-pick and pick the parts they like and ignore the rest
and expect that we are going to get an outcome.
Again, the basic failure in the Gang of 8 bill was that they got 68
votes in the Senate, including $50 billion for border security, but
they couldn't get it through the House and couldn't get it to the
President for signature. I don't know how to sugar-coat it, but that is
failure. That is not success. Success is to get a bill through both
Houses and to get the President to sign it. President Trump has given
all of us a map, a pathway for how to do that. To my knowledge, there
has never been a counteroffer that addresses the four pillars that the
President has proposed.
Again, I think the people with the most to lose out of this
proposition, in addition to the great American people, are these young
adults who would benefit from the stability and predictability and a
path forward and would receive a gift, as I said, that would be the
greatest gift that any human being could possibly aspire to, which is
the gift of American citizenship, eventually. But it is going to be
squandered. The President's generous offer will be squandered because
our colleagues don't like his proposal, but they are unwilling to come
up with a counteroffer so that we can actually have a negotiation. The
President, I am sure, would welcome that counteroffer, and we would
too.
We welcome an opportunity to actually get a result here, to make a
law and not just go through a political exercise that is destined to
end in failure and then become a political issue in the next election.
That is not what we should be about here.
So I hope that reality will set in. President Trump has offered a
proposal. Our colleagues on the other side, who don't like the
proposal, have not offered a counteroffer that meets the four pillars.
They don't even want to pay attention to the last two--the diversity
visa issue or the so-called family unification, sometimes called chain
migration. They want to act like that doesn't exist, and I just don't
get it.
I come from a State of 28 million people, with 38 percent, roughly,
of Hispanic origin. We have a 1,200-mile common border with Mexico.
Texas taxpayers pay for the border security that the Federal Government
fails to fund and facilitate. I want to see a solution. I am happy to
vote in favor of a pathway to citizenship for 1.8 million people, but I
can't go back home and look my constituents in the face unless I tell
them that this is the last time we are going to have to do this because
we fixed the underlying problem--border insecurity, gaps that are
exploited by criminal gang members and the transnational criminal
organizations that traffic in them, and these other issues that the
President has put on the table.
So I hope reality does set in because I really would like to get a
bill that we could pass in the House and the Senate and get to the
President for his signature and move on to these other important
issues: How do we fund our military? How do we fund the community
health centers? How do we provide some predictability to the rest of
America that is being held hostage to this issue?
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Young). The Senator from West Virginia.
____________________