-9999

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. This 22-year-old American nursing student at Augusta University in Georgia, I am certain, would have made America a better place with her life and contribution to our country. But, instead, she was taken from us on February 22, 2024.

A suspect has been arrested and may, ultimately, be tried for this crime. That is as it should be. That is how we follow the law in the United States.

But when you look at the request before us, it gives me pause. We can all agree that noncitizens who are convicted of violent crimes should be detained and removed from the United States. Sadly, the measure before us does nothing to address this issue.

Under current law in the United States of America, noncitizens who enter the country illegally, violate the terms of their status, or have their visas revoked can be detained by officials from Immigration and Customs Enforcement--better known as ICE--as they should be. Current law also requires the detention of individuals with serious criminal convictions and those who have committed murder, rape, or any--any-- crime of violence or theft offense with a term of imprisonment of at least 1 year, as they should be.

The law also gives ICE the discretion to detain or release a noncitizen in any case where a noncitizen has been charged with a crime, as they should be. To make this decision, ICE must assess the individual circumstances of the case and ensure the Agency's limited resources are used effectively to focus on protecting our national security and public safety, as they should be.

Remember, the vast majority of Republicans, including the sponsors of this measure, recently blocked a national security supplemental bill that would have given ICE more funding to detain undocumented immigrants who might pose a threat to our country.

The sweeping approach in the bill before us would eliminate the Agency's discretion to prioritize the most dangerous individuals and require ICE to treat those arrested for shoplifting the same as those convicted of violent crimes. Let me repeat that--require ICE to treat those arrested for shoplifting the same as those convicted of violent crimes. This would overwhelm ICE's capacity and facilities and make our Nation less, not more, safe.

For example, this proposal before us would require ICE to detain every immigrant who is arrested for shoplifting, even if the charges are ultimately dropped and don't lead to a conviction. Remember, this bill does not require a charge or a 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 to that question.

This bill goes into another area which hasn't been discussed much-- which is hard to imagine--but this bill would grant State attorneys general the standing to sue Federal immigration authorities if a State disagrees with immigration enforcement decisions made by the Federal Government. I think, on its face, it is unconstitutional.

For example, this bill would give a State attorney general the standing to challenge the use of parole authority--for example, like Uniting for Ukraine, which allowed Ukrainians to flee Putin's war to come to the United States--if a State can prove it had an impact of $100 for the Federal Government to make that decision.

Laken Riley's murder was a tragedy. We must do everything we can to prevent crimes like this from happening. But this legislation would make our system less safe.

The reality is that most immigrants in the United States are law- abiding individuals who are seeking a better life in this country. Many studies have shown that immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than U.S. citizens.

Mr. President, you know personally from your own experience in Congress that it has been more than 30 years since we have seriously considered an immigration reform bill. We had a chance, didn't we, just a few weeks ago? There was a bipartisan group-- and the White House was part of it--that wanted to sit down and change the immigration and border security laws of the United States.

The Republican effort in this regard was led by James Lankford, a conservative, respected Republican from Oklahoma, and on our side, Senators Murphy and Sinema, who negotiated for weeks, week after week, to come up with a proposal. The notion was to finally address the border security of the United States in a comprehensive, bipartisan, realistic way. It was controversial. There were some parts of it that I didn't care for at all. But I thought this was a good-faith, bipartisan effort.

We were assured that because the Republican Senators had chosen Senator Lankford as their negotiator, that it at least would entertain some support on the Republican side. We called the measure on the floor, and it failed because the Republicans would not join the Democrats in engaging in this bipartisan effort.

The issues raised this morning by Senator Budd could have been resolved, perhaps, if we would have had that kind of bipartisan negotiation, but it didn't happen.

I had my concerns about the deal, but it certainly should have moved forward.

When it came to a vote, the vast majority of Republicans opposed it at the request of former President Donald Trump, who urged a ``no'' vote, who wanted the measure to stop and not be considered and moved forward and said:

Go ahead and blame me for it.

Well, I am blaming you for it, and I am blaming those who stepped away from this bipartisan opportunity.

Donald Trump has made clear that he does not want a solution to our challenges at the border; he wants an issue for the November election. So we stepped away from it--the only realistic chance to have a bipartisan solution.

I urge my colleagues to reject Donald Trump's advice. Let's get back to the table. Let's consider the issues raised by the Senator this morning and other issues that are important and make a bipartisan decision to move forward to solve this problem.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source