Enter your email below to subscibe

Wednesday, July 18, 2012

A speech given by senator Charles Grassley a Republican from Iowa
 July 17, 2012 
Words are his highlights are mine.




Mr. President, last September, President Obama responded to amnesty proponents, denying that he had authority to unilaterally grant special status to individuals who may be eligible under the DREAM Act. The DREAM Act has been around the Senate for discussion for about a decade, and in different forms. It has been voted down several times by this body--mostly because the leader won't allow for an amendment process to improve the bill; otherwise, it probably could have been worked upon. A few months ago when asked by amnesty advocates to push the bill through Executive order,President Obama said this:


This notion that somehow I can just change the laws
unilaterally is just not true. The fact of the matter is
there are laws on the books that I have to enforce. And I
 think there's been a great disservice done to the cause
of getting the DREAM Act passed and getting comprehensive
immigration passed by perpetrating the notion that somehow,
 by myself, I can go and do these things. It's just not true.
We live in a democracy. You have to pass bills through the 
legislature, and then I can sign it.


  But 1 month ago, President Obama continued his ``we can't wait'' campaign and circumvented Congress, again, to significantly change the law all by himself. On June 15, he announced that the Department of Homeland Security would lay out a process by which immigrants who have come here illegally could apply for relief and remain in the United States without the fear of deportation. So what has changed in the last 9 months, when the President of the United States said last September that he could not unilaterally grant amnesty?
  Before I dive into the details of how poorly planned and implemented the directive of June 15 will be, I have to question the legal authority of the President to institute a plan of this magnitude.
  I, along with 19 other Senators, sent the President a letter and asked if he consulted with attorneys prior to the June 15 announcement about his legal authority to grant deferred action and work authorizations to a specific class of immigrants who have come here illegally. It is important that we get that question answered, because last September the President said he didn't have the legal authority to do it. We asked the President if he obtained a legal opinion from the Office of Legal Counsel or anyone else within his administration. To date, we have not received any documentation that discusses any authority whatsoever that he has to undertake this massive immigration directive.
  I know the Secretary of Homeland Security has discretion to determine who is put in removal proceedings. Prosecutorial discretion has been around for a long time, but it hasn't been abused to this extent. The President is claiming the Secretary will implement this directive using prosecutorial discretion. However, millions of immigrants coming here illegally will be instructed to report to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service and proactively apply. This is not being done on a case-by-case basis as they want to make it appear.
  The President's directive is an affront to our system of representative government and the legislative process, and it is an inappropriate use of executive power based upon what he said last September, that he didn't have the authority to do this. The President bypassed Congress because he couldn't lead on immigration reform, and he couldn't work in a bipartisan manner on an issue that involves undocumented young people.
  The President's directive runs contrary to the principle that American workers must come before foreign nationals. His policies only increase competition for American students and workers who struggle to find employment in today's economy. And that unemployment is 8.2 percent official, 11 or 12 percent unofficial.
    According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the unemployment rate among the age group 16 to 24 has been nearly 17 percent for the last year. According to a Gallup poll conducted in April of this year, 32 percent of the 18-to-29-year-olds in the U.S. workforce, if not unemployed, are underemployed. The President's plan to get people back to work is to grant immigrants who come here illegally a work authorization. He must be seriously out of touch if he doesn't think there is competition already for American workers.
  Now I wish to talk about how poorly this directive has been thought out. This is the implementation of a directive the President said he didn't have the authority to do in the first place. But if you are going to have an illegal directive, you ought to at least know it will work. It is my understanding the White House informed Homeland Security officials of this plan just days before it was announced on June 15. They were unprepared, and have since been scrambling to figure out how it will be carried out.
  U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service--the agency in charge of all immigration benefits, including work authorizations, visa applications, asylum petitions, and employment verifications for employers--will be the agency tasked with handling millions of new applications for deferred status and work permits. Agents in the field are confused as to how to do their jobs and fear retaliation if they don't do the right thing. So in essence, this White House is telling agents in the field to begin a practice called catch and release.
  Last Friday, Homeland Security officials briefed the Judiciary Committee on the directive. Staff of the Judiciary Committee were told that agents of the agency would be required to release immigrants who come here illegally if they fell into the criteria laid out. But what are the ramifications if an agent does not release them but instead uses his discretion to say the person was not eligible and puts them in removal proceedings?
    You will be astounded by the answer we got, because the Department of Homeland Security explained that such an agent would be subject to disciplinary action--disciplinary action if you are doing what your job is required to do. The agent's actions would be considered during their annual personnel review.
   So there will be no discretion for agents, and they will be forced to give deferred action to anyone who comes close to the criteria laid out, even despite their hesitation to do so, or face retaliation from bureaucratic higher-ups.
   It is as though Homeland Security forgot their mission which is:



To ensure a homeland that is safe, secure, and resilient
 against terrorism and other hazards where American interests, 
 aspirations, and way of life can thrive.



   Once we overcome the question of legal authority and the reality that there was little thinking put into this plan before it was announced on June 15, we are left to oversee the details of the implementation plan. Homeland Security officials say they will have a process laid out by August 15. We have very little details, but Homeland Security officials did give some insight on Friday in this briefing to members of the Judiciary Committee staff. Here is what we learned.
    We know people under the age of 30, who entered before their 16th birthday, have been here for at least 5 years, and are currently in school may qualify for deferred action. We know there are caveats to the criteria. Some criminal offenses will be OK, and young people can finish their education after they are granted deferred action.
    We know individuals with final orders of removal will be eligible for deferred action. We know these people will not have to appear for an in-person interview to benefit from this directive of the President of June 15. We know they will be granted this special status for 2 years, and those who are denied will not be put into removal proceedings. We know this is not aimed at helping just youth since the age limit is 30. So who are we going to help over age 30, because we thought from the President's announcement, if people are over 30 years of age nobody is going to benefit. We know people under the age of 30 are not the only people going to be considered for relief. Secretary Napolitano said so herself. She told CNN's Wolf Blitzer the following:





   We have internally set it up so that the parents are not 
 referred for immigration enforcement if the young
 person comes in for deferred action

  I was not born yesterday. This administration is not going to give a benefit to immigrants here illegally and then force his or her parents to leave the country, which begs the question, What will they do if the young people are eligible and receive deferred action, but the parent is a criminal, a gang member, or a sex offender?
  Because this program has not been well thought out and because it is being rushed to benefit people by the end of the year, there is no doubt that fraud will be a problem. How will Federal officials who process the applications ensure that information provided by the individual is accurate? How will they verify that one truly entered the country before the age of 16 or is currently under the age of 30?
  Homeland Security officials act as though they are prepared to handle the influx of counterfeit documents that will be presented. The department officials are going to rely on their small fraud detection unit--who already happen to be very busy working every day on other types of immigration benefits--to determine if people are truly eligible. What will be the consequences for individuals who intentionally defraud the government? They need a fraud and abuse prevention plan. Without one they will likely legalize every single immigrant who came here illegally, who is already on U.S. soil.
  The administration will announce more details about this plan in the next few weeks. I am anxious to see if they plan to only provide deferred action to this population. Department officials refuse to elaborate on whether some of these individuals will be able to get advanced parole. That is a special status that allows an immigrant coming here illegally to adjust to permanent residence and then gain citizenship. This administration wants people to believe this is not amnesty and that these people will not have lawful status, but I am watching to see if they try to pull the wool over our eyes and provide a status that allows these people to adjust and remain here permanently.
  Finally, a major flaw in the President's plan is how this is going to be paid for. A massive amnesty program is going to cost a lot of money. So what are the taxpayers going to have to cough up out of their hard- earned dollars to pay for it? Department officials said on Friday that illegal immigrants may not be charged for their special status. The individual would be charged $380 if they choose to apply for a work authorization. They could not assure us that funding would not be redirected from other programs to this initiative.
  To reprogram funds within the Department, the Secretary must notify and gain consent of the majority and minority leaders on the Appropriations Committee. However, when pressed, Department officials could not assure us that they would not bypass the longstanding process and reprogram dollars on their own. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service will be forced to concentrate on this program, leaving employers, foreign workers, and legal immigrants without the service they need to work, visit, or remain in the United States.
  If the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service adjudication staff will be diverted from their normal duties to handle the millions of potential deferred action applications, this can only have a devastating impact on other programs within the Department. I fear this plan will bankrupt the agency that oversees immigration benefits and affect all legal immigration for years to come.
  I fear the President has overstepped his authority again. The President, time and again, has shown no leadership or refused to work with Congress on issues that directly impact the American people. And when it comes to the immigration issue he promised the people in the 2008 election, that in his first year in office he would have an immigration bill before Congress, he has not even presented an immigration bill yet. He insisted he was coming here to change Washington, but he changed it for the worse. He insisted he was going to make this the most transparent administration ever, but Congress and the American people are left in the dark.
   No matter where one stands on immigration, we should all be appalled at how this plan has been carried out. Whether it is legal or illegal is one thing. But when it is not thoroughly thought out, how it is going to be implemented, that is not how the chief executive of a major operation such as the U.S. Government ought to be acting.
   We should all be concerned that our votes are rendered meaningless as a result of the assumption of power on June 15 that the President said last September he did not have. Until we can end this plan, I encourage my colleagues to watch over its implementation for the future of our country. The integrity of our whole immigration system is hanging in the balance.
   This immigration system is very important because the United States has opened doors for more people than any other country in the world to come here legally. About 1 million people come here legally. So we are a welcoming nation. We are a nation built upon immigrants bringing new ideas to this country, making this a very not only colorful country but a dynamic society. We ought to leave it that way. But this change to our immigration system for people to come here legally jeopardizes a lot of people who want to abide by our laws and come here and make our country even richer.
I yield the floor.

No comments:

Post a Comment