-9999

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. 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 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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Would the Senator from Connecticut yield for a question?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. What intervening event prohibited or stopped this bipartisan measure from passing on the floor of the Senate?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source