-9999
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, through the Chair, I want to thank the Senator from Oregon for his leadership in bringing this issue before us.
We have something in common. Both of our States are facing militarization from the Federal level of government. Not only in Chicago--the President argues that the city is unsafe. I watched this last Saturday as 100,000 people gathered for the No Kings rally and parade--a peaceful, nonviolent gathering of Americans expressing their constitutional feelings and right to express themselves in this Republic.
I know that you are facing the same threat in the State of Oregon, and recent court decisions seem to suggest that there is more time in the courtroom ahead.
I would just say to the Senator from Oregon, thank you for leading this conversation. There are so many aspects of this Presidency that you could address, and I would like you to address, if you will, this militarization issue.
We have carefully crafted in our existing laws prohibition against the use of military force for law enforcement. It makes sense on its face because these men and women--as good as they are--in the National Guard units around our country are not trained primarily in law enforcement. Theirs is a much different type of training.
Secondly, to overcome State and local sources of law enforcement is a major constitutional step, and yet this President has initiated it in my State of Illinois, in your State of Oregon, and in the State of California.
Would you address this aspect of your comments this morning.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DURBIN. If the Senator from Oregon would yield for another question.
Do you recall, as I do, how many times Candidate Trump and President Trump spoke before rallies supporting his cause and railed about the murderers, terrorists, rapists, criminally insane, and sexual predators who are coming across the border and threatening us?
And his argument was it was that fear of criminal activity by them that warranted this Federal intervention in many States, including our own.
I just wanted to give one example that is timely and tells a story. First, let me say that fewer than 30 percent of the people who are being detained by ICE--fewer than 30 percent--have any criminal conviction whatsoever. These people may be here out of status. For example, they came in on a student visa and stayed when they should have left, or came in here on a tourist visa and stayed when they should have left.
But to brand these people that are being detained on the streets of Chicago, for example, as criminals--violent criminals, as the President described them--is totally unfair.
I tell the story of a church that I visited just a few days ago in Chicago--Christ Lutheran Church on Wilson Avenue in the Albany section, which is a largely Hispanic section of the city of Chicago.
The pastor of that church Tom Terrell told me that after his service, a few days before, it ended at noon. And as parishioners were leaving-- they walk home in the neighborhood as they do every Sunday--ICE arrived in an unmarked truck and stopped this gathering of his parishioners and started questioning them and asking them for identification papers. This is becoming common in Chicago.
When others noticed it, they came to their front porches and out their front doors and started blowing whistles to let people know that ICE was in the neighborhood conducting this. ICE panicked, and as a result of it, threw down a tear gas canister in front of these people who had just come out of church and got in their unmarked vehicle and left.
This kind of activity is far beyond protecting us from the most dangerous criminals who might have come across the border in times past. It is intimidation in an effort to have people so afraid that they will either not participate in the economy, that they will not be going to church, and many of them are afraid to send their kids to school.
Where is this leading and why? I will tell you I think you shared what you said, the Senator from Oregon, my feelings that this is not the end of it. It is not a temporary thing. It is a long-term commitment by the President to militarize neighborhoods, particularly those in blue States and cities like Chicago.
What is the purpose? Not just to spread fear but when the election comes, which is another few months away, of course, but when the election comes, to discourage people from voting in those neighborhoods, if not disqualify them.
Does that sound like an outlandish idea, the President who will refuse to accept the fact that he lost an election? It doesn't to me, and it becomes a reality every time I come home.
This President argues that there are dangers in the streets of Chicago. Two weeks ago, the streets were overrun by 53,000 people that didn't live in Chicago. It is called the Chicago Marathon, and they had 53,000 participants. This was a calm, peaceful, quiet, and great and happy day in the history of Chicago.
And for him to characterize this as a criminal city and one that needs military occupation is totally unfair, and it doesn't reflect the reality. This past Saturday, as I mentioned, over 100,000 gathered without violent incident, a reminder that cities like that that are being besmirched by the President are still solid places to live--with their challenges and problems, of course--but beyond that, it certainly doesn't merit the military presence the President is suggesting.
So I would ask the Senator from Oregon: Do you feel that there is a long-term plan to this militarization by the Presidency?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from Oregon.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source