[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 180 (Tuesday, November 12, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6494-S6495]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                              Immigration

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I was honored today to attend the second 
hearing I have attended in the Supreme Court of the United States. If 
you stand right here on the floor of the Senate and look east through 
these glass doors, you can almost see the Supreme Court buildings 
directly across the street. The Supreme Court is, many times, the last 
stop when it comes to human rights and civil rights. After all the work 
that has been done by the Congress, by the President, many times, it is 
the Supreme Court that has the last word.
  In the case of Plessy v. Ferguson, when the Supreme Court held that 
segregation was constitutional, that last word was a disappointment. 
And Korematsu v. The United States, when the Supreme Court upheld the 
internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, that was another 
disappointment.
  But other times, the Supreme Court has risen to the challenge: The 
famous case of Brown vs. Board of Education, which finally struck down 
the concept of separate but equal; Obergefell vs. Hodges, where the 
Supreme Court recognized the right to marriage equality.
  Well, today, the Supreme Court faces another human rights issue 
involving another group. Just a few hours ago, the street between the 
Capitol and the Supreme Court was literally filled with thousands and 
thousands of demonstrators. The issue before the Court today was the 
fate of DACA, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.
  This measure, DACA, is one that I have worked on for many years--many 
years. Nineteen years ago, I introduced the DREAM Act. Before that, the 
term ``Dreamer'' was hardly ever applied in the conversation about 
immigration, but now, it has become standard and really defines this 
group of Americans, people living in America.
  In their case, they came to the United States, brought here by their 
parents, when they were children. They may have had legal entry into 
the United States, but at some point in their lives, they no longer 
were legal. They became undocumented, in the words of the law. Most of 
these young people never knew that status until they reached their 
teenage years and their parents finally told them the truth of their 
legal condition.
  They had no control over the decision of their parents to come to 
this country or file the necessary papers. Frankly, many of them were 
shocked to learn that they were undocumented. They went to school with 
our kids. They grew up in our communities.

[[Page S6495]]

They played on the sports teams. They probably attended the same 
churches and temples and synagogues as our own kids. They were just 
part of the group. But they knew--they privately knew they were not. 
They knew that they were one knock on the door away from being deported 
from the United States.
  It was because of one of these young people that I decided to 
introduce that DREAM Act legislation 19 years ago. Her name is Tereza 
Lee, brought to the United States at the age of 2 from Korea by her 
parents to Chicago. She grew up in a family that struggled to make ends 
meet. Her father wanted to be a minister, but never quite put that 
church together. Her mother worked in a dry-cleaning establishment to 
feed the family. She went to public schools, and as luck would have it, 
there was a program at one of these schools called the Merit Music 
program that gave her a chance to learn how to play the piano.
  She started playing, and she followed her father around to these 
churches. Then she took it seriously, and she became an amazing pianist 
to the point where, when she finished the public high school, she was 
offered an opportunity to go on for music education at the Manhattan 
Conservatory of Music. When she filled out her application and reached 
the point where they asked her nationality and citizenship, she asked 
her mom: What am I supposed to put on here? Her mom said: I am not 
sure. We better call Senator Durbin's office.
  They did, and we checked the law, and the law is very harsh. For 
Tereza Lee--who had lived 15 or 16 years in the United States, beat the 
odds by finishing high school and developing this great talent at the 
piano--the law told her that she had to leave the United States for 10 
years and apply to return. That is the law.
  It seemed unfair to me that a young woman, brought here at the age of 
2, should face that as her only legal choice, so I introduced the DREAM 
Act. It said, if you were brought here as a child, raised in the United 
States, went to school, and had no criminal record of significance, 
that you should be given a chance--the chance to make it in the United 
States to earn your way to legal status and citizenship.
  That is what the DREAM Act was all about. We passed it in the House 
and in the Senate, but never in the same Congress, so it is still not 
the law of the land. It was 8 years ago when I appealed to my former 
colleague in the Senate, Barack Obama, as President, to try to help, 
and he did.
  By Executive action, he created DACA, which said that young people 
like Tereza Lee could apply, go through a criminal background check, 
fill out the necessary forms, pay the filing fee, and be allowed to 
stay in the United States for 2 years at a time, renewable, not to be 
deported, and be able to legally work.
  After President Obama came up with DACA, over 780,000 young people 
came forward and became protected by DACA. It really changed their 
lives. For the first time in their lives, they had some government-
recognized status. They were no longer just undocumented. Then amazing 
things happened. They went on and pursued an education, a career, a 
life, a future. They started realizing their dreams. It was a good and 
positive thing all around.
  Then, President Trump came into office. Initially, he was very 
complimentary of Dreamers, saying positive things about them, but, 
unfortunately, over a period of time he changed his attitude about this 
issue. On September 5, 2017, President Trump announced he was going to 
end the DACA Program, end the protection for these young people.
  It was a sad day and a challenge for us to decide what to do, to try 
to pass legislation in the Congress that would protect these young 
people, and we rolled up our sleeves and put together several 
bipartisan measures in the Senate. President Trump rejected every 
single one of them. He wasn't going to have it. He was opposed to our 
enacting legislation that dealt with it.
  That repeal of DACA has created uncertainty for hundreds of 
thousands. A lawsuit was filed in an effort to try to protect them, and 
the courts said their protection would continue while the case was 
being argued. The case worked its way through the courts and ended up, 
this morning, at the U.S. Supreme Court across the street.
  I was proud to lead 172 current and former Members of Congress on a 
bipartisan amicus brief in support of DACA. Now it is clearly up to the 
Justices in the Supreme Court to follow the law and to reject what I 
consider to be President Trump's illegal repeal of DACA, but only 
Congress can provide a permanent solution for Dreamers.
  The U.S. House of Representatives has responded to President Trump's 
cruel decision to repeal DACA by passing the Dream and Promise Act on a 
strong bipartisan vote of 237 to 187. This legislation is based on the 
DREAM Act I originally introduced 19 years ago. This bipartisan 
legislation would give Dreamers a chance to earn their citizenship. The 
bill passed the House. It is here. It is now up to Senator Mitch 
McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, to call the Dream and 
Promise Act for a vote in the U.S. Senate.
  Mr. President, I want to make a unanimous consent request in relation 
to that measure and ask for a consent after we debate my UC request to 
complete my remarks. I see a Senator on the floor who I believe is here 
to object. I want to be courteous to her because she has been in the 
Chair for a while. Can I have a unanimous consent to return to the 
debate after I make my unanimous consent request?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.