Date: 2016-03-17
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H

How would DACA and DAPA impact domestic violence? DACA provided a sense of peace. knowing that this woman would not be deported. I would argue to my friends that whatever the vote is today. it is not the sense of the House. It is a divided House. and we are not supporting an amicus to turn back the Presidents constitutional authority. With that. I ask my colleagues to vote "no" on the underlying resolution. Mr. Speaker. I rise in strong opposition to both the rule governing debate of H. Res. 639. and the underlying resolution. which authorizes the Speaker to appear as Amicus Curiae on behalf of the House of Representatives in the matter of United States. et al. v. Texas. et al.. No. 15674. I oppose the resolution because it is nothing more than the Republican majoritys latest partisan attack on the President and another diversionary tactic to avoid addressing the challenge posed by the nations broken immigration system. Mr. Speaker. H. Res. 639. if adopted. would vest in the Speaker alone the power to file on behalf of the full House an amicus brief with the Supreme Court supporting the constitutionally untenable position of 26 Republicancontrolled states in the matter of United States. et al. v. Texas. et al.. No. 15674. Lying at the heart of the plaintiffs misguided and wholly partisan complaint is the specious claim that President Obama lacked the constitutional and statutory authority to take executive actions to implement Administration policy with regard to Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Deferred Action for Parents of American Citizens and Lawful Permanent Residents. the creation of (DAPA). This frivolous and partisan lawsuit seeks to have DACA and DAPA declared invalid and to permanently enjoin the Obama Administration from implementing these salutary policies. both of which are intended to keep lawabiding and peace loving immigrant families together. The purely partisan nature of the resolution before us is revealed by its text. which authorizes the Speaker to waste precious taxpayer funds and file on behalf of every Member of the House an amicus brief that no Member has seen in support of a position opposed by virtually every member of the Democratic Caucus. Mr. Speaker. let me briefly discuss why the executive actions taken by President Obama are reasonable. responsible. and within his constitutional authority. Pursuant to Article II. Section 3 of the Constitution. the President. the nations Chief Executive. "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." In addition to establishing the Presidents obligation to execute the law. the Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the "Take Care" Clause as ensuring presidential control over those who execute and enforce the law and the authority to decide how best to enforce the laws. See. e.g.. Arizona v. United States. Bowsher v. Synar. Buckley v. Valeo. Printz v. United States. Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB. Every law enforcement agency. including the agencies that enforce immigration laws. has "prosecutorial discretion"-the inherent power to decide whom to investigate. arrest. detain. charge. and prosecute. Thus. enforcement agencies. including the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). properly may exercise their discretion to devise and implement policies specific to the laws they are charged with enforcing. the population they serve. and the problems they face so that they can prioritize our nations resources to meet mission critical enforcement goals. Mr. Speaker. to see the utter lack of merit in the legal position to be supported by the amicus brief permitted by H. Res. 639. one need take note of the fact that deferred action has been utilized in our nation for decades by Administrations headed by presidents of both parties without controversy or challenge. In fact. as far back as 1976. INS and DHS leaders have issued at least 11 different memoranda providing guidance on the use of similar forms of prosecutorial discretion. Executive authority to take action is thus "fairly wide." and the federal governments discretion is extremely "broad" as the Supreme Court held in the recent case of Arizona v. United States. 132 S. Ct. 2492. 2499 (2012). an opinion written by Justice Kennedy and joined by Chief Justice Roberts: "Congress has specified which aliens may be removed from the United States and the procedures for doing so. Aliens may be removed if they were inadmissible at the time of entry. have been convicted of certain crimes. or meet other criteria set by federal law. Removal is a civil. not criminal. matter. A rincipal feature of the removal system is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials. Federal officials. as an initial matter. must decide whether it makes sense to pursue removal at all. If removal proceedings commence. aliens may seek asylum and other discretionary relief allowing them to remain in the country or at least to leave without formal removal." (emphasis added) (citations omitted). The Courts decision in Arizona v. United States. also strongly suggests that the executive branchs discretion in matters of deportation may be exercised on an individual basis. or it may be used to protect entire classes of individuals such as "[u]nauthorized workers trying to support their families" or immigrants who originate from countries torn apart by internal conflicts: "Discretion in the enforcement of immigration law embraces immediate human concerns. Unauthorized workers trying to support their families. for example. likely pose less danger than alien smugglers or aliens who commit a serious crime. The equities of an individual case may turn on many factors. including whether the alien has children born in the United States. long ties to the community. or a record of distinguished military service. Some discretionary decisions involve policy choices that bear on this Nations international relations. Returning an alien to his own country may be deemed inappropriate even where he has committed a removable offense or fails to meet the criteria for admission. The foreign state may be mired in civil war. complicit in political persecution. or enduring conditions that create a real risk that the alien or his family will be harmed upon return. The dynamic nature of relations with other countries requires the Executive Branch to ensure that enforcement policies are consistent with this Nations foreign policy with respect to these and other realities." Exercising thoughtful discretion in the enforcement of the nations immigration law saves scarce taxpayer funds. optimizes limited resources. and produces results that are more humane and consistent with Americas reputation as the most compassionate nation on earth. Mr. Speaker. a DREAMER (an undocumented student) seeking to earn her college degree and aspiring to attend medical school to better herself and her new community is not a threat to the nations security. Law abiding but unauthorized immigrants doing honest work to support their families pose far less danger to society than human traffickers. drug smugglers. or those who have committed a serious crime. The President was correct in concluding that exercising his discretion regarding the implementation of DACA and DAPA policies enhances the safety of all members of the public. serves national security interests. and furthers the public interest in keeping families together. Mr. Speaker. according to numerous studies conducted by the Congressional Budget Office. Social Security Administration. and Council of Economic Advisors. the Presidents DACA and DAPA directives generate substantial economic benefits to our nation. For example. unfreezing DAPA and expanded DACA is estimated to increase GDP by $230 billion and create an average of 28.814 jobs per year over the next 10 years. That is a lot of jobs. Mr. Speaker. in exercising his broad discretion in the area of removal proceedings. President Obama has acted responsibly and reasonably in determining the circumstances in which it makes sense to pursue removal and when it does not. In exercising this broad discretion. President Obama not done anything that is novel or unprecedented. Let me cite a just a few examples of executive action taken by American presidents. both Republican and Democratic. on issues affecting immigrants over the past 35 years: 1. In 1987. President Ronald Reagan used executive action in 1987 to allow 200.000 Nicaraguans facing deportation to apply for relief from expulsion and work authorization. 2. In 1980. President Jimmy Carter exercised parole authority to allow Cubans to enter the U.S.. and about 123.000 "Mariel Cubans" were paroled into the U.S. by 1981. 3. In 1990. President George H.W. Bush issued an executive order that granted Deferred Enforced Departure (DED) to certain nationals of the Peoples Republic of China who were in the United States. 4. In 1992. the Bush administration granted DED to certain nationals of El Salvador. 5. In 1997. President Bill Clinton issued an executive order granting DED to certain Haitians who had arrived in the United States before Dec. 31. 1995. 6. In 2010. the Obama Administration began a policy of granting parole to the spouses. parents. and children of military members. Mr. Speaker. because of the Presidents leadership and visionary executive action. 594.000 undocumented immigrants in my home state of Texas are eligible for deferred action. If these immigrants are able to remain united with their families and receive a temporary work permit. it would lead to a $338 million increase in tax revenues. over five years. Finally. Mr. Speaker. let me note that the Presidents laudable executive actions are a welcome development but not a substitute for undertaking the comprehensive reform and modernization of the nations immigration laws supported by the American people. Only Congress can do that. Americas borders are dynamic. with constantly evolving security challenges. Border security must be undertaken in a manner that allows actors to use pragmatism and common sense. Comprehensive immigration reform is desperately needed to ensure that Lady Libertys lamp remains the symbol of a land that welcomes immigrants to a community of immigrants and does so in a manner that secures our borders and protects our homeland. Instead of wasting time debating divisive and mean spirited measures like H. Res. 639. we should instead seize the opportunity to pass legislation that secures our borders. preserves Americas character as the most open and welcoming country in the history of the world. and will yield hundreds of billions of dollars in economic growth. I urge all Members to join me in voting against H. Res. 639.