[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 90 (Thursday, May 23, 2024)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3868-S3871]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Unanimous Consent Request--S. 3933
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I will be making a unanimous consent
request here in a second, and Senator Britt will be joining me in that
endeavor.
We are going to have a vote at 2 o'clock about a bipartisan bill. I
applaud the effort to change our immigration laws and get control of an
out-of-control situation. Unfortunately, it doesn't matter what law is
on the books, if the administration is not going to enforce the ones
that already exist.
We had a vote in February on this bill. One of the problems I had the
entire time is that parole is being abused by this administration.
Since February until now, April, 77,800 people have been paroled in the
United States, and I believe that is an abuse of the statute that is on
the books. There were 1.3 million in fiscal year 2023. Over 1.2 million
were paroled by the CBP alone.
Now let's talk about the parole statute, if we have that. If we
don't, well, let me tell you what the law says.
It basically says you can be paroled for two reasons: a unique
humanitarian need or a special benefit to the country. The statute that
they are using to parole all of these people has limitations as to how
it can be used. On average, the statute in question during the Obama-
Trump years was used--about 6,000 people, on average, were paroled in
the United States using the statute that the Biden administration has
been abusing. In fiscal year 2019, it was 7,525; in fiscal year 2018,
6,466; in fiscal year 2015, during the Obama years, 4,598; in fiscal
year 2019, again, 7,500. In fiscal year 2022, the Biden administration
paroled 795,561 and, in fiscal year 2023, 1.2 million plus.
Why are they doing parole differently than Obama and Trump? They are
abusing the statute. Why are they just waiving so many people into the
country? That is for the voters to decide. I think they are just
basically abusing the statute because they don't want to turn anybody
around and send them back. So they just let people come into the
country in violation of the law.
Again, the parole statute in question is limited to two
circumstances: a unique benefit to the country or a special benefit to
the country. A unique humanitarian situation is that your mother is
dying. A special need to the country is you are a witness in a trial,
and we need to get you in for a limited situation. Parole is not
permanent status.
As for Laken Riley--and we will ask unanimous consent to vote on the
bill authored by Senator Britt--the man accused of murdering her and
who was indicted in Georgia, Mr. Ibarra, in September 2022, was
apprehended by the Border Patrol. He was released through parole. And
it took me forever to find this out, the reason for parole: The subject
was paroled due to detention capacity at the central processing center
in El Paso, TX. The reason for parole: The subject was paroled due to
detention capacity at the central processing center in El Paso, TX.
They had no room for the guy, and he is now being charged with
murdering this young woman in Georgia. He was arrested in 2024.
Senator Britt will tell us what her bill does here in a moment. She
is trying to find a way to make sure this never happens again. The two
crimes he was charged with should result in an immediate expulsion from
the country. That is what her bill does. But I want the country to know
that the man accused of killing this young lady in Georgia was released
into our country by the DHS--illegally, in my view. They violated the
statute. They gave him parole for a reason that doesn't exist in the
statute.
And you wonder why we don't want to pass another bill. The reason we
don't want to pass another bill is we don't trust you, the Biden
administration. Why create a new law that isn't going to be any more
effective than the current law?
From the time we had this debate until the end of April, did things
get better? No. There have been 77,800 people paroled from the original
debate until now. So, clearly, they haven't changed their idea or
policies regarding the abuse of parole. The average for Obama-Trump was
around 6,000 for the entire year using the parole statute in question.
This is 77,800 since February. So why are we skeptical? Because of the
way they do business in the Biden administration.
Secretary Mayorkas has all the power he needs to stop this. You will
never convince me that 77,800 people were individually screened. They
have a program to waive people through based on country, not individual
status. They promised me that an individual analysis was done on each
parolee. I asked him that, and he said yes. Well, we found one parolee
accused of murdering a young lady in Georgia who was not individually
analyzed and released based on the criteria of the statute. He was
released because they had no place to put him. So what we want to do
today is try to find a way to deal with the situation that led to the
murder of this young lady.
The law has a loophole in it, I guess, for lack of a better word. I
am going to recognize Senator Britt now to tell us what her bill does,
because what do we know about the Georgia case? We know the man charged
with the murder of Ms. Riley was released into the United States under
parole, not based on statutory requirements but just because we were
full. If I were the Riley family, I would be pretty upset. They might
want to think about suing.
Right now, I would like to yield to Senator Britt from Alabama, who
has tried to find a solution to this problem.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mrs. BRITT. Mr. President, first, I would like to say thank you to my
colleague from South Carolina for his leadership on this critical
issue.
The Laken Riley Act is the bipartisan border bill that should be on
the Senate floor today. I am proud to be the lead Senate sponsor of
this critical legislation along with my colleague from North Carolina.
The Laken Riley Act passed the House of Representatives in an
overwhelmingly bipartisan fashion. The gentleman from Georgia, from
Congressional District 10, secured 37 Democratic votes for this bill on
the House floor, and here in the Senate, this bill is bipartisan and
has a cosponsor list of 47 Senators. I am confident that a bipartisan
majority of Senators supports the Laken Riley Act and would vote for it
today. The House already did its work in a bipartisan fashion on this
legislation, and now it is our turn here in the Senate. Frankly, it is
well past time.
We should send this bipartisan bill to the President's desk
immediately. If this bill had been the law of the land, Laken Riley
would still be alive today. Now this body has an opportunity and a
responsibility, in my opinion, to prevent this kind of unimaginable
tragedy from happening to more families across America.
The Laken Riley Act is straightforward. It says that ICE would be
required to detain and deport illegal aliens who commit theft offenses.
It would also allow States to seek an injunction against any action
taken by the Secretary of Homeland Security or
[[Page S3869]]
the Attorney General that violates immigration law to the detriment of
the State or its citizens.
My colleague from South Carolina has been at the forefront of
exposing the Biden administration's unprecedented abuse of immigration
parole, which is directly relevant to the Laken Riley case.
Under the Trump administration and the Obama administration, parole
was granted at our southern border, on average, to fewer than 6,000
people a year. However, under President Biden, grants of parole have
skyrocketed, and now we know that over 1.3 million people have been
paroled in the past year. One of those grants of parole went to Laken
Riley's alleged killer after he crossed the southern border illegally
in 2022. This abuse of parole continues to have devastating
consequences for families and communities in every corner of our
Nation.
President Biden could stop this abuse of parole today, if he wanted
to, but he doesn't, and he won't. The President refuses to reverse
course. It is past time to force his hand on that and pass the Laken
Riley Act. It will secure our homeland. It will help to safeguard our
streets. It will help to defend our families.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I will be making the unanimous consent
request in just a minute, as I am just about to wrap up.
I sent a letter yesterday to Secretary Mayorkas, wanting to know
about the two people who tried to get into the Marine base, Quantico.
Apparently, both of them were illegal, claiming to be Amazon
contractors but were not. There is a lot of mystery around this, and I
want a response to my letter.
Who are these people? What do we know about them? Have they any
affiliation with terrorist groups? What were they up to?
I think we need to know as a nation what went on, because I find it
very odd that two fighting-age illegal immigrants joined together to
try to falsely get into a Marine base. That sends shivers up my spine.
So I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record,
if I may.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
United States Senate,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC, May 21, 2024.
Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas,
U.S. Department of Homeland Security,
Washington, DC.
Dear Secretary Mayorkas: I am writing today to seek
information from your agency regarding the reported arrest of
two Jordanian nationals posing as delivery drivers while
attempting to infiltrate Marine Corps Base Quantico on May 3,
2024.
As soon as possible, please inform me and the committee on
the status of these two individuals. Please explain how they
came to the United States. Were they here illegally? Are
either of them on any terrorist watchlist?
Please provide the committee with the answers to these
questions and any other information relevant to their
background and intent, including copies of the complete and
most current alien files for each individual. This will allow
us to make an informed decision about how to address the
recurring threat posed to our national security by this kind
of incident, which is not isolated.
I would hope for and expect an immediate reply.
Sincerely,
Lindsey O. Graham,
Ranking Member,
Senate Judiciary Committee.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous
consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further
consideration of S. 3933 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate
consideration; further, that the bill be considered read a third time
and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and
laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, we all
agree that noncitizens who are convicted of violent crime should be
detained and removed from the United States--period. Sadly, the Laken
Riley Act does nothing to address violent crime.
Under current law--current existing law--noncitizens who enter the
country illegally, violate the terms of their status, or have their
visas revoked can be detained now, under the law, by officials of the
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, better known as ICE.
Current law also requires--requires--the detention of individuals
with serious criminal convictions--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 discretion beyond that to detain a noncitizen
in any case in which a noncitizen has been charged with a crime. To
make this decision, ICE assesses the individual's circumstances in the
case, ensuring the Agency's limited resources are used effectively to
protect national security and public safety.
The reality is that Congress has never appropriated nearly enough
money for ICE to detain every--every--undocumented immigrant who is
charged with a crime.
And, remember, the vast majority of Senators on the other side of the
aisle--including the sponsors of this measure--blocked the bipartisan
national security supplemental in February that would have given ICE
more funding to detain more undocumented immigrants who might pose a
threat to our country. They voted against it.
They will have another chance to vote to provide that additional
funding in just a short time today. I hope they will finally take this
opportunity. Vote for more ICE agents if you want more ICE enforcement
of existing laws that are serious on the books.
Here is the reality: The sweeping approach in this bill would
actually harm national security. Why? Because it would eliminate ICE's
discretion to prioritize dangerous individuals--certainly, people who
are being convicted of a violent crime or charged with a violent crime
or more serious offenders than, perhaps, those who are guilty of theft.
We don't know the circumstances in each case.
This proposal would, instead, require ICE to treat those arrested for
nonviolent crimes the same as individuals who are actually convicted of
violent crimes. With limited ICE agents, you have to make a choice:
What is the priority? Who is the most dangerous individual?
This proposal before us would overwhelm ICE facilities and make us
less--not more--safe.
For example, this law would require ICE to detain every immigrant who
is simply arrested for shoplifting--arrested--even if it quickly
becomes clear the person is innocent, because this bill does not
require a charge or conviction.
Tell me, does it make sense to treat a noncitizen arrested for
shoplifting the same as someone convicted of murder? I think we all
know the answer.
This bill would also grant State attorneys general the standing to
sue Federal immigration authorities if a State disagrees with
immigration enforcement decisions made by the Federal Government.
For example, this bill would give a State attorney general the
standing to challenge the use of the parole authority--like Uniting for
Ukraine, which allows Ukrainians fleeing Putin's war to temporarily
come to the United States--if the State can show harm of $100.
Let me tell you, they talk a lot about parole and how many--70,000 or
so in the last 6 months or so. Among those were the Ukrainian refugees.
They were brought to the United States from the war-torn zone because
of Vladimir Putin's invasion. And 36,000 of them came to Chicago. The
conditions of their coming to Chicago: a background check; secondly,
they had a sponsoring family so that they have someone who will help
them assimilate into the United States; and, third, they were given the
right to work.
We have had little or no publicity, negative publicity, about these
Ukrainians. We are a very proud Ukraine-American community. They are
absorbing these individuals who are the victims of the war in Ukraine.
These are part of the parole numbers that have just been alluded to.
In contrast, we have received 46,000 migrants sent by the Governor of
Texas on over 880 buses to Chicago without any warning, without any
preparation. That has been a difficult situation, and it has really put
a taxing strain on the governments in the area. But to argue that
parole for Ukrainian refugees is wrong--I disagree with that. It was a
humanitarian
[[Page S3870]]
gesture on the part of the United States, and it has worked well, at
least in our community. The situation with the Governor of Texas is a
sharp contrast in this circumstance.
Laken Riley's murder, by any standard, was a tragedy. Every
description I have read about this young woman suggests she was an
amazing person, and the fact that she lost her life is terrible. There
are no excuses. We must do everything possible to prevent crimes like
this from happening. But this legislation before us makes our system
less orderly and less safe. It does nothing to help the situation, the
circumstances that affected her.
The reality is that most immigrants in the United States are law-
abiding individuals who are seeking a better life in our Nation.
Many studies have shown that immigrants are less likely to commit
crimes than natural-born U.S. citizens. But Donald Trump recently said
that undocumented immigrants were ``poisoning the blood of our
country''--a phrase that closely mirrors one used several times in
Hitler's ``Mein Kampf.'' He has also promised to round up and deport
every single undocumented immigrant in our country, including Dreamers
who grew up here.
When the bipartisan border supplemental came to a vote, the vast
majority of Republicans opposed it at the request of Donald Trump. Do
you know what he said publicly and clearly? ``Blame it on me'' if the
bill fails. I am blaming it on him.
The former President has made it clear he does not want a solution to
our challenges at the border--he wants a campaign issue for November.
I urge my colleagues to reject Donald Trump's advice, support the
actual solutions which will be before us in the next hour and a half.
I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, to my colleague from Illinois, Senator
Durbin, we do a lot of things together. I enjoy working with you. But,
here, we have a fundamental disagreement.
No. 1, you are entitled to your opinion but not your facts. There
were 77,800 people paroled in the U.S. since February who came from
Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela. That doesn't count the people
from Ukraine. They all showed up at the border. They were paroled in.
There is no way that two statutory requirements were applied to 77,800
people.
Why did they just wave them through? All I can tell you is that
parole has been abused. The average was 6,000 per year for Trump and
Biden during their Presidency. From April to now, it is 77,800--nothing
to do with Ukraine.
As to the people from Ukraine, I want to help them, but we have a
refugee law where you can apply for refugee status if you are in a war
zone or things are bad where you live. They are taking the parole
statute and just granting to anybody and everybody they choose to
grant. The bottom line is we are either a rule-of-law nation or we are
not.
This has nothing to do with ICE funding. We were not talking about
funding ICE here. This is a decision by the executive branch to abuse
the law on the books.
The tools available apparently are not being used by anybody.
Why does Senator Britt offer legislation? Because we have a real-
world example where the system failed. Let's make it stronger.
Why did this bill pass overwhelmingly in the House? Because it makes
sense.
If you learned nothing from the Laken Riley case, learn the
following: She is a victim. Her family is a victim of a broken
immigration system. Her family is a victim of willful disregard of the
law by the Biden administration.
The man accused of murdering this young lady was allowed to come into
the country on parole based on ``we have no place to put you,'' not the
statutory requirements to get paroled.
This is a big issue. We should learn from the death of this young
lady. We should change our parole system. We are not. That is why we
are not going to add a new law that won't be enforced.
Until you prove to me you are serious about following the law as
written, you are going to have a problem with us on this side of the
aisle and, hopefully, a few Democrats.
We should learn from the Laken Riley case and do what Senator Britt
encourages us to do, which is to change the law, to address the
situation so we have no other Laken Riley cases.
Apparently, the death of this young lady has taught us nothing as a
body. We have learned nothing from this case. We are doing nothing
different, and it breaks my heart.
It looks like the murder of this young lady should be a wake-up call
to a parole system broken and to fix this never-ending catch-and-
release--you are caught for crimes, and you are released before the Sun
goes down to commit more crimes. It needs to come to an end.
We will have a chance, as a democratic people, to vote in November.
If you think the system is working the way it is intended to work, and
you are OK with what is going on, vote for Biden. You are going to get
more of the same. If you think this is broken, it needs to change, you
ought to think about voting for somebody else.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I know there is another unanimous consent
request to be made, so I will be very brief.
I have always taken Senator Graham's concerns about parole at face
value. In fact, the last 30 days of the negotiations over the
bipartisan border bill were dedicated to this question of reforming
parole.
In fact, the bill we are going to vote on in a matter of minutes
involves the most significant, most serious reform of parole likely in
the history of the country.
We entered that conversation at the urging of Senator Graham. He was
intimately involved in the negotiations over the reform of parole.
The reforms are significant: an elimination of 236(a) parole, the
parole that is used between the borders; a substitution for that
process with a new rigorous examination of every individual who is
arriving credentialed for asylum; major reforms to the humanitarian
parole program to make sure that it is truly used only for humanitarian
purposes.
So the irony of the complaints that are being made about the overuse
of parole is that the bipartisan border bill--negotiated with Senator
Graham--involves the most significant reforms to parole, the most
significant restrictions to the President's parole authority, that
anyone here in this Senate has likely ever negotiated.
That is why it is regrettable that we are debating unanimous consent
agreements instead of coming together to vote on a proposal that
addresses many of the concerns raised by my colleagues.
Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator from Connecticut yield for a question?
Mr. MURPHY. I would yield.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Would the Senator from Connecticut yield for a question?
Mr. MURPHY. I would.
Mr. DURBIN. What intervening event prohibited or stopped this
bipartisan measure from passing on the floor of the Senate?
Mr. MURPHY. Thank you for the question, Senator Durbin.
As I mentioned, we negotiated this bill in good faith. We negotiated
it with the appointed representatives by the Republican conference.
Senator Graham was amongst those in those conversations.
We thought we had achieved a product that could get the broad support
of the Republican conference because they ticked off to us their
priorities.
And they were legitimate priorities. We heard them loud and clear.
They said: We want to reform the asylum system. We want to raise the
standard for a credible fear. We want more detention beds. We want to
reform parole. We want to give the President a new authority to shut
down the border at times of emergency.
Obviously, Democrats came to that conversation with priorities as
well. We wanted to expand the number of family visas and work visas. We
wanted to make sure that immigrants can exercise their legal rights.
We achieved a compromise, an old-fashioned compromise.
[[Page S3871]]
The night we released that bill, Senator Durbin, I thought that we
were on a path to passage. But it was President Trump who intervened
and said, plain and clear, as Senator McConnell has admitted: I want
nothing to pass before the election. He said I want nothing to pass
before the election, because President Trump's team decided that it
would be better for the border to be a mess to help his political
prospects instead of solving the problem.
I hear Senator Graham when he says: Well, we don't trust the Biden
administration. Well, we didn't trust the Trump administration. That is
a road to nowhere.
If we don't pass reform legislation when the other party's President
is in power, we will never do the business of the people. We had a
chance to do that until the intervention of President Trump.
I wish--I wish--that instead of choosing his political prospects this
November, we were choosing to secure the border in a bipartisan way.
Mr. DURBIN. At 2 o'clock this afternoon, we are going to have a vote
on that bipartisan measure. It will be an opportunity for those who
have amendments to come forward with those amendments after we pass it;
is that not correct?
Mr. MURPHY. That is correct. And, of course, this is a motion to just
proceed to debate.
So this isn't final passage. If Members think there are imperfections
in this bill, if they want additional restrictions on parole authority,
they could vote to proceed, and then we could get into a process by
which we could try to solve any remaining differences that have arisen
since the announcement of the bipartisan bill with Republican
leadership with their designated negotiator.
I wish we could just get onto this bill so we could try to sort this
out instead of allowing this issue to become a perpetual political
football, as seems to be the interest of many of my Republican
colleagues.
Mr. DURBIN. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, I have found this conversation so
interesting.
I will remind my colleagues that H.R. 2, a border security bill,
actually did come to the Senate, and it has been here since May 15 of
2023--an actual border security bill--and the fact that the provisions
in front of us are not border security provisions are things that are
of concern.