|
Richard Durbin on ImmigrationDemocratic Sr Senator (IL) |
DURBIN: Yes. I can tell you what troubles me. The current immigration system in America is broken down. We've got to change it. I've been sitting for more than three months with a bipartisan group of senators talking about making America safer. The immigration reform bill will make this a stronger nation, not just at the border with Mexico, and will strengthen that, but also that we need to track the visas coming into the United States, the visitor visas, the student visas, so that we know not only when they arrive but when they leave. That is not working today.
Q: Why isn't it working?
DURBIN: It's hard to believe 12 years after 9/11 we're having this conversation, but there is not enough coordination between these different agencies so that we know someone should not have been re-admitted to the US. Our bill addresses that directly.
DURBIN: I believe that it's consistent with the position we should have marriage equality, and therefore, recognize marriages between people from the same gender. Now, this is a hot issue. It's a contentious issue. If we can find a way through this to protect that basic right of an individual and still pass immigration reform, that's what I want to achieve.
Q: What about DOMA?
DURBIN: The Supreme Court has taken up DOMA [overturning the Defense of Marriage Act, which would ensure equal immigration rights for gay couples]. And that decision on DOMA may preclude this whole conversation. They may help us reach the right place in this whole conversation.
The worst thing we can do is nothing. If we do nothing, leaving 11 million people in the shadows, not making our border safer, not having the information that comes from employment and these visa holders, we will be less safe in America. Immigration reform will make us safer.
Sen. CORNYN (R-TX): So much of [immigration reform] is regaining the public's confidence that the federal government is actually doing its job. So, until that confidence is restored on the basis of what the legislation provides, I would have difficulty supporting it.
Sen. DURBIN (D-IL): Our border with Mexico is the safest and strongest it's been in 40 years. We have invested billions of dollars into border enforcement. We're putting more money into border enforcement than we're putting into the FBI and the Secret Service and ATF and DEA combined. If we don't meet all the goals that we've set in years to come, we'll put more in more investment there.
Q: Is the 90% border apprehension rate a goal or a trigger?
DURBIN: Well, I think it's both. We're committed to it. Every Republican at the table said we've got to start with border security. I think we've kept the faith on that issue.
OFFICIAL CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: Grants States the option of covering certain categories of eligible pregnant women and child resident aliens, including targeted low-income children, under the Medicaid and SCHIP programs.
SPONSOR`S INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Sen. CLINTON: This legislation would allow States to use Federal funds to provide critical healthcare services to pregnant women and children. This bill is fundamentally about three things--fairness, fiscal relief, and financial savings.
I will start with fairness. All across America, legal immigrants work hard, pay taxes, and exercise their civic responsibilities. Yet, in 1996, Congress denied safety net services to legal immigrants who had been in the country for less than 5 years.
This legislation is also a matter of good fiscal policy. Today, 19 States use State funds to provide healthcare services to legal immigrants within the 5-year waiting period. At least 155,000 children and 60,000 adults are receiving these benefits. A total of 387,000 recent legal immigrants would be eligible to receive these services if their States opt to take advantage of the program.
And finally, this bill is about long-term healthcare cost savings. Covering uninsured children and pregnant women through Medicaid can reduce unnecessary hospitalization by 22%. Pregnant women who forgo prenatal care are more likely to develop complications during pregnancy, which results in higher costs for postpartum care. And women without access to prenatal care are four times more likely to deliver low birth weight infants and seven times more likely to deliver prematurely than women who receive prenatal care, according to the Institute of Medicine. All of these health outcomes are costly to society and to the individuals involved.
LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Referred to Senate Committee on Finance; never came to a vote.
OnTheIssues.org interprets the 2005-2006 USBC scores as follows:
U.S. Border Control, founded in 1988, is a non-profit, tax-exempt, citizen`s lobby. USBC is dedicated to ending illegal immigration by securing our nation`s borders and reforming our immigration policies. USBC [works with] Congressmen to stop amnesty; seal our borders against terrorism and illegal immigration; and, preserve our nation`s language, culture and American way of life for future generations.
Our organization accepts no financial support from any branch of government. All our support comes from concerned citizens who appreciate the work we are doing to seal our borders against drugs, disease, illegal migration and terrorism and wish to preserve our nation`s language, culture and heritage for the next generations.
This bill authorizes the Department of Justice (DOJ) to appoint or provide counsel at government expense to aliens in removal proceedings.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives: That the national emergency declared by the finding of the President on February 15, 2019, in Proclamation 9844 is hereby terminated.
Proclamation 9844 issued by the president on Feb. 15, 2019: Declares a state of national emergency at the southern border to address the issues of illegal immigration and criminal trafficking into the US: `The current situation at the southern border presents a border security and humanitarian crisis that threatens core national security interests and constitutes a national emergency. The southern border is a major entry point for criminals, gang members, and illicit narcotics. The problem of large-scale unlawful migration through the southern border is long-standing, and despite the executive branch`s exercise of existing statutory authorities, the situation has worsened in certain respects in recent years. Because of the gravity of the current emergency situation, it is necessary for the Armed Forces to provide additional support to address the crisis.`
Opposing the Proclamation (supporting the Resolution), ACLU press release, 2/15/2019 The ACLU issued the following statement upon filing a lawsuit: `By the president`s very own admission in the Rose Garden, there is no national emergency. He just grew impatient and frustrated with Congress, and decided to move along his promise for a border wall `faster.` This is a patently illegal power grab that hurts American communities and flouts the checks and balances that are hallmarks of our democracy.`
Legislative outcome Passed House 245-182-5 roll #94 on Feb. 26; pass Senate 59-41 roll #49 on March 14; Vetoed by Pres. Trump; veto override failed, 248-181-3 (2/3 required), roll #127 on March 26
The National Origin-Based Antidiscrimination for Nonimmigrants Act (NO BAN Act) imposes limitations on the President`s authority to suspend or restrict aliens from entering the US. It also prohibits religious discrimination in various immigration-related decisions, such as issuing a visa. The President may temporarily restrict the entry of any class of aliens after determining that the restriction would address specific and credible facts that threaten U.S. interests such as security or public safety.
GovTrack.us analysis (4/21/21): President Donald Trump instituted a travel ban on eight countries: Chad, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen. The Supreme Court upheld the travel ban 5-4 in the 2018 decision Trump v. Hawaii. Trump`s travel ban was popularly nicknamed `the Muslim ban` by its Democratic critics since most of the countries it applied to were majority Muslim, and because Trump as a 2016 candidate had indeed proposed a Muslim ban. Regardless, President Joe Biden rescinded the policy on his first day in office. Currently, federal law bans any person from being discriminated against when entering the U.S. on the basis of five characteristics: race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence. The NO BAN Act would add another category: religion.
Rep. Tom McClintock in OPPOSITION: President Trump invoked this authority against countries that were hotbeds of international terrorism and that were not cooperating with the US in providing basic information about travelers coming from these countries. The left called it a `Muslim ban.` What nonsense. Without this authority, the president would have been powerless to take simple, prudent precautions against terrorists and criminals from entering the US.
Legislative Outcome: Passed House 218-208-3 on April 21, 2021, rollcall #127; introduced in Senate with 42 co-sponsors but no further Senate action during 2021.