[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 40 (Wednesday, March 6, 2024)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2226-S2227]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 160

  Ms. ERNST. Madam President, today I rise to tell a preventable, 
horrific story: 22-year-old Laken Riley, a nursing student, was killed 
by an illegal immigrant. This bright, young woman had her whole life 
ahead of her. She represented what our country needs more of, a life 
dedicated to caring for others.
  Like all Iowans, my heart goes out to her family and her friends who 
continue to grieve this tragic loss.
  The reality is, Laken's heartbreaking story did not have to happen. 
In 2022, Jose Antonio Ibarra illegally crossed over the border into El 
Paso and claimed asylum. Instead of being detained while he was 
processed, he was released into our country, never to be heard from 
again; that is, folks, until he was arrested in New York City for 
endangering a child. Was he held to face trial for this crime in New 
York City? Nope. Nope.

  Was he deported for this crime or even for coming here illegally? 
Nope.
  New York officials released him so quickly that ICE couldn't even try 
to lodge a detainer, even if they wanted to. Meanwhile, Ibarra made his 
way to Georgia, where he disfigured and killed an innocent young girl 
who was simply out for a jog.
  This could have been avoided, but Biden's failure to enforce the laws 
at our border allowed it to happen. How many young Americans must die? 
How many families must be ripped apart for this administration to wake 
up and take border security seriously?
  For more than 8 years, I have warned against the dangers of letting 
illegal immigrants, who have already broken our laws--again, those who 
have broken our laws--roam the country and continue their lawlessness. 
I have repeatedly called on this body to step up and protect innocent 
Americans from criminals who are here in our country illegally and pass 
my bill, Sarah's Law.
  Eight years ago, Iowans Michelle and Scott Root woke up to every 
parent's worst nightmare, their daughter Sarah--right here, beautiful 
Sarah Root--was killed by a drunk driver. Sarah, a 21-year-old from 
Council Bluffs, had just graduated from Bellevue University in Nebraska 
with a 4.0 GPA and a bachelor's degree in criminal investigations. She 
was headed home after celebrating her important life milestone with 
family and friends. She had her entire life ahead of her. But while she 
was stopped at a traffic light, Sarah was struck and killed by Edwin 
Mejia, an illegal immigrant.
  His blood alcohol level was three times over the legal limit. One 
would think her killer would clearly meet Immigration and Customs 
Enforcement's ``enforcement priorities.'' But no--nope. Citing the 
Obama administration's November 2014 memo on immigration enforcement 
priorities, ICE declined--declined--to take custody of Mejia, despite 
his repeated driving offenses and history of skipping court dates.
  Before the Root family could even lay their daughter to rest, Mejia 
posted a $5,000 bond--5,000 bucks. He was released, and, just like in 
the past, folks, he disappeared never to be seen again.
  Now, here we are, folks. We are over 8 years later. Sarah's killer is 
still at large, after that 5,000 bucks, and able to carelessly harm 
others. To rub salt in the wound, the Biden administration has removed 
Mejia from ICE's Most Wanted list.
  No big deal, right?
  No parent should have to endure the pain of losing a child, like the 
Root family did--and I know them personally--but, unfortunately, the 
Riley family is experiencing this same heartbreak. A loophole in our 
law means Sarah's killer escaped justice, but, today, we can do 
something to ensure no other family has to go through the pain Sarah's 
parents have felt every day for 8 long years.
  My bill, named in Sarah's honor, would close the alarming loophole 
that let Sarah's killer go free. It would just require ICE to detain--
just to detain--otherwise deportable illegal immigrants charged with 
killing or seriously injuring another person.
  Is that too much to ask? To detain someone who has killed another 
American?
  It also requires ICE to inform victims and family members of critical 
information pertaining to the investigation. Right now, family members 
are left in the dark. Had Sarah's Law been enacted at the time of her 
death, law enforcement would have detained her killer instead of 
allowing him to flee from justice. The Root family would have been kept 
up-to-date on his status and Federal immigration authorities' efforts 
to remove him from the country.
  Simply put, this should be an easy one, folks. Sarah and Laken's 
deaths are both tragic and, unfortunately, are doomed to be repeated, 
thanks to this administration's broken and ill-informed policies.
  Those who come here illegally and harm our citizens should, without 
question, be a priority for removal. It is just common sense, folks.
  Otherwise deportable illegal immigrants who commit violent crimes--
they commit them here. They should face justice. We can no longer 
prioritize illegal immigrants over public safety. We must pass Sarah's 
Law to send this message loud and clear--for Sarah's family, for 
Laken's family, and for the countless American families that Sarah's 
Law would protect.
  Madam President, as if in legislative session and not withstanding 
rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be 
discharged from further consideration of S. 160 and the Senate proceed 
to its immediate consideration; further, that the bill be considered 
read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be 
considered made and laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The majority whip.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, as chairman of the Senate Judiciary 
Committee and reserving the right to object, I want to make it clear 
that we can all agree: Noncitizens who are convicted of committing 
violent crime should be detained and removed from the United States, 
period.
  Under current law--under current law--any noncitizen who entered the 
country illegally, violated the terms of their status, or had their 
visa revoked, can be ordered detained by ICE officials. Current law--
current law--also requires the detention of individuals with serious 
criminal convictions and those who have committed murder, rape, or any 
crime of violence or theft offense with a term of imprisonment of at 
least 1 year.
  The law also gives ICE the discretion to detain or release a 
noncitizen in cases where a noncitizen has merely been charged but not 
convicted.
  This bill that we are considering now from the Senator from Iowa 
would require ICE to detain any individual charged with a crime that 
resulted in death or serious bodily injury of another person, pending 
their criminal case, no matter what the circumstances or the nature of 
the crime, and no exceptions.

[[Page S2227]]

  As just one example, a victim of trafficking or domestic violence who 
defended themselves against an abuser would have to be detained under 
the law.
  Most immigrants in the United States are law-abiding individuals who 
are seeking a better life. Studies have shown that immigrants have no 
impact on crime rates, and immigrants are less likely to commit crimes 
than ordinary U.S. citizens. But the sweeping approach in this bill 
would deprive immigrants of the due process that everyone is afforded 
to prove that they are innocent of a crime.
  And I agree with many of my colleagues that we need a more orderly 
system to process recent arrivals at the border and assure that bad 
actors are detained, if they have serious criminal convictions.
  Recently, a bipartisan group of Senators and the White House began 
negotiating a change in our immigration laws and a tough border deal. 
It was written by the Republican's designated negotiator, Senator James 
Lankford of Oklahoma, along with two other Senators--one, an 
independent from Arizona, and the other, a Democrat from Connecticut. 
The bill that they wrote to make our border safer and to deal with 
immigration was endorsed by the National Border Patrol Council, which 
represents the men and women on the border who are risking their lives 
every day to keep us safe.
  I had personal concerns about this bill, but I wanted to move it 
forward. And yet, when it came to a vote, the vast majority of Senators 
on the other side of the aisle opposed it, at the request of Donald 
Trump, who tanked the border agreement for his own cynical reasons.
  What were those reasons? One House Republican said:

       Let me tell you, I'm not willing to do too damn much right 
     now to help a Democrat and to help Joe Biden's approval 
     rating.

  President Trump himself was crystal clear. He said: ``Blame it on 
me'' if the bill fails.
  That bill was our vehicle and opportunity to work on a bipartisan 
basis, to change many of the provisions in immigration law, to make 
America safer, and to make our borders secure and more effective.
  Some extremists have said the quiet part out loud: Donald Trump 
doesn't want a solution to our challenges at the border; he wants a 
political issue for November.
  It is time that my Republican colleagues and Democratic colleagues 
stop talking about the border in one-off responses to it and start 
legislating, rather than vilifying all immigrants based upon a few bad 
actors.
  It is a tragedy what happened to these two young women. There is no 
excuse for it, and those responsible should be held accountable.
  I urge my colleagues to do the best that we can to come up with an 
immigration reform that resolves not only this serious issue but all of 
the other issues we are haunted with on a regular basis.
  I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  The Senator from Iowa.
  Ms. ERNST. Madam President, I am very sad that we are on the floor 
today and that Sarah's Law has been objected to. We have been down this 
road before, many times over, through the years since Sarah Root's 
death.
  Now, I do understand that ICE has discretion, and that is what we are 
discussing today. It is the fact that ICE had discretion and chose to 
allow Edwin Mejia to post bond of $5,000 to disappear into the night. 
Before Sarah was even laid to rest, Edwin Mejia was long gone, and he 
has yet to face justice for Sarah's family.
  In July 2020, a Mexican national was drunk-driving in Texas and 
struck and killed a Chicago resident and two retired U.S. Army 
officers. All were part of a pro-law enforcement motorcycle club. The 
Mexican national was out on bond and awaiting trial for allegedly 
striking a man with his truck in 2018, biting the victim's back, and 
biting off a portion of his ear. If Sarah's Law had been on the books, 
he would have been detained in 2018 to await trial.
  In June 2011, a Chicago resident was killed in a drunk-driving 
accident. The driver, a Mexican national, was driving with a blood 
alcohol level four times over the legal limit. He struck and killed a 
Chicago resident, dragged the victim's body 300 feet, and then 
attempted to run away on foot. He was bailed out--again, bailed out, 
not held. He bailed out and fled to Mexico. He was extradited back to 
the United States in 2022.
  If Sarah's Law had been on the books, he would have been detained and 
not been able to flee to Mexico.
  In March 2021, a Mexican national shot and killed his next-door 
neighbor in Chicago. He then injured the three officers attempting to 
arrest him. The Mexican national was arrested in 2011 for driving with 
an open container. In 2015, he was arrested again for aggravated 
assault. In 2012, he attempted to lie his way into a visa reserved for 
victims of criminal activity. And he also twice unsuccessfully applied 
for the DACA Program in 2014 and 2015.
  If Sarah's Law had been on the books, he would likely have been 
detained after the aggravated assault in 2015, and, again, we would 
have another innocent who was killed still alive today.
  So these are just a handful of examples of where Sarah's Law would 
have made a difference.
  I do understand that there is an objection to the discretionary part 
of this bill, and the example that was given is of those who are being 
trafficked for sex-type operations. Sex trafficking is very real. 
Because I have worked in this space of domestic violence and violence 
against women, I do and have heard from those who have been sex-
trafficked that sometimes the only way to break away from those who are 
trafficking them is actually to be arrested and pulled away from those 
johns or those sex traffickers. So maybe to put them in an area of 
safety would be the right thing to do.
  So I appreciate having been heard. I will continue to work on behalf 
of the Root family, on behalf of the Riley family, and others who have 
lost loved ones to those who should not be here in our country.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cortez Masto). The Senator from South 
Carolina.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, I believe we have 15 minutes, and just 
for the order of battle here, I would like to recognize Senators 
Grassley, Cornyn, and Hawley to make some brief remarks. I will make 
some brief remarks, and we will make a unanimous consent for the bills 
that I have indicated we are trying to call up.
  With that, I would turn it over to Senator Grassley.