-9999

Floor Speech

The Border Patrol union--the organization that represents law enforcement officers--supported that bill for a number of reasons. It would have surged resources to the southern border to make sure that we properly administered our border and made sure that the only people who are coming to this country have legitimate asylum claims. It would invest in technology to make those Border Patrol officers' jobs easier. It would have granted new hiring authorities to make sure that we can get people down to the border faster rather than just redeploying agents from the northern border to the southern border.

But it is likely that they supported that bill for an additional reason. Under current law, if you are coming to this country to apply for asylum, if you have a criminal history in the United States during a prior visit or in your home country, that question is not relevant under existing law until you go before an asylum judge, before you go before an immigration judge to make your asylum claim.

Senator Lankford, myself, and Senator Sinema thought that didn't make sense. We thought that that question of your prior criminal history should be relevant the minute that you show up at the border; that you don't get into the United States to make your claim of asylum if you have a criminal history.

That was part of the bipartisan border bill. That would have protected the country. That would have protected our law enforcement officers. But my Republican colleagues turned down the opportunity to pass bipartisan legislation that would prevent individuals with criminal records from coming into the country and applying for asylum because under current law--law that the President is bound to administer and enforce--those questions are not brought into the process until that asylum claim is being heard by a judge.

And so it is just another example of the ways in which the bipartisan border bill--the bill that Republicans asked for, demanded Democrats negotiate--would have made this country safer, would have created a more efficient and more secure border. And I am still furious--and heartbroken--that Republicans decided to keep the border a mess because it helps their Presidential candidate politically instead of trying to solve the problem.

As for this specific measure, as I said last time I came to the floor to object, it is already, under current law, a deportable offense if you commit a crime of violence. It is already, under current law, a deportable offense if you commit and are convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude. And, further, noncitizens who are convicted of any aggravated felony, including misdemeanor offenses, are deportable as well.

So this bill is seeking to solve a problem that doesn't exist because current law says, if you commit an assault on a law enforcement officer, you are going to be deported.

So why are we debating this bill if current law already says you can be deported for assaulting a police officer?

I don't know the answer, but what I know is that there is a broader effort underfoot by former President Trump and my Republican colleagues to try to make Americans believe that there is a specific unique threat posed to you by immigrants; that you should fear people that are coming to this country to seek a better life or to flee terror or torture. It is a familiar trope because it was used against my forefathers when they came here from Ireland. It was used against those who came to the United States from prior generations: You should fear the Irish. You should fear the Italians. You should fear the Chinese. Today, it is that you should fear those coming from Central or South America.

But it is just not the truth. I know it is hard to hear for some folks who believe everything they watch on FOX News, but individuals who are first-generation immigrants to this country are less likely to be convicted of violent crimes than individuals who are born in this country.

In 2020, the Trump DOJ sought to prove that false. They actually commissioned research to examine the rate of crime between noncitizens and citizens because they couldn't believe the data because FOX News said that we should fear immigrants.

Here is one of the papers that was commissioned by the Trump DOJ:

[W]e find that undocumented immigrants had substantially lower crime rates than native-born citizens . . . across a range of felony offenses. Relative to undocumented immigrants, US-born citizens are over 2 times more likely to be arrested for violent crimes, 2.5 times more likely to be arrested for drug crimes, and over 4 times more likely to be arrested for property crimes.

These are quotes directly from a Trump-funded Department of Justice report.

I don't disagree with my colleague from North Carolina. Of course, if someone commits an assault against a law enforcement officer, they should be deported from this country. If somebody commits an assault against a community member, regardless of their occupation, they should be deported from this country. That is what the existing law says: If you are convicted of a felony or a misdemeanor assault--any crime of moral turpitude--you are deported.

And so, to me, this is duplicative at best and, at worst, an effort to just try to reinforce this very dangerous mythology that this country has something to fear from immigrants who are coming to this country to flee economic desperation and violence and terror and torture.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source