Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member, for the Markup of H.R. 4731, the ‘‘Refugee Program Integrity Restoration Act,”

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.

We are in the midst of a global refugee crisis.  There are currently more displaced people – approximately 60 million – than at any time since World War II. 

They are in refugee camps in Africa.  They are on boats, in trains, and traveling by foot from the Middle East to Europe.  And they are coming to our border from Central America.  These are the world's most vulnerable, many of them women and children.

Unfortunately, the Majority's answer to this crisis is H.R. 4731, a bill that would reduce refugee admissions to the United States by nearly one third, deem all refugees suspect, and effectively build walls around entire communities.

First, H.R. 4731 would impose an arbitrarily low cap on the number of refugees permitted to be resettled each year and would transfer the authority to establish the annual refugee admissions ceiling from the President to Congress.  Doing so, would tie the hands of the President, making it difficult – if not impossible – for him or her to utilize the refugee program to respond in a time of war or other crisis. 

As a result, those fleeing persecution will be turned away because we have reached an arbitrary level that is far below what is needed, what we can do, and what other countries - including Germany and Canada - are doing.

In addition, H.R. 4731 would erect new, costly and ineffective hurdles for those seeking to start a new life in America and would deem all refugees suspect.

It authorizes surveillance monitoring and additional security checks for all refugees without cause and for no other reason than having arrived legally through the refugee program.  It stigmatizes refugees as potential criminals.  It is simply un-American to treat those fleeing persecution, who want nothing more than to start a new life in safe and welcoming communities, as potential criminals.

Finally, this legislation would effectively wall off entire communities from refugee resettlement by empowering governors and local legislatures to block to block the resettlement of refugees.  We know that the U.S. refugee program relies on support from state and local governments, as well as faith-based and other non-governmental organizations.  Without them, it just doesn’t work.

In my home state, I opposed the governor when he tried to exclude Syrian refugees from being resettled in Michigan.  And I am pleased he has backtracked.

In closing, I would note that this is not a serious attempt to legislate.  A draft of H.R. 4731 was just made available to Members on Monday, there have been no legislative hearings or even the opportunity for input from the Administration or organizations that are best equipped to understand how such sweeping changes will affect refugees. 

Instead, I suspect this is just another political exercise to play on our worst fears – similar to the divisive and dangerous rhetoric being used by certain political candidates.

I have watched with dismay as the leading candidate for the Republican Presidential nomination talks of building a wall and closing our country to Muslims.  I know the Muslim community in and around my district.  These are hard-working, family-oriented people of faith.  Their dreams are the same as immigrants who came before them – safety and protection from oppression, educational opportunities for their children, and a better life for those willing to work for it. 

H.R. 4731 would have us turn our back on those in most need of refugee resettlement.  It is inconsistent with the letter and spirit of U.S. and international refugee law. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this mean spirited legislation and I yield back the balance of my time.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr. for the Executive Overreach Task Force Hearing on “Executive Overreach in Domestic Affairs Part I – Health Care and Immigration”

     

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.

Today’s Executive Overreach Task Force hearing examines whether President Obama has violated the U.S. Constitution with respect to his authority to enforce the Affordable Care Act and the immigration laws.  These are both issues that the full Committee has repeatedly considered in the past and it is clear to me that the President hasnot violated any constitutional limitations on the exercise of his executive authority as to either of these areas.

            To begin with, the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and expanded Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals immigration programs are clearly lawful exercises of executive discretion.

            Presidents from both parties, including George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan, routinely have used similar deferred deportation policies to promote family unity in our immigration system. 

            These programs are common sense solutions to our broken immigration system that has divided families for decades and subjected many to harsh immigration enforcement policies.  

            The Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and expanded Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals programs are not only appropriate, but perfectly lawful.

            Prominent legal scholars – including liberal professors such as Laurence Tribe and conservative professors such as Eric Posner – concur that these programs represent a lawful exercise of the President’s executive authority. 

            Moreover, Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy have previously held that the Executive Branch retains broad discretion in immigration proceedings and this is a “principal feature of the removal system.”

This discretion permits the Executive Branch, through the Department of Homeland Security to set priorities and, accordingly, the agency has chosen to focus its enforcement efforts on those with serious criminal convictions instead of focusing on hardworking immigrants who simply lack documentation. 

            Although oral argument before the Supreme Court in United States v. Texas is scheduled for next month, I fully expect the Court, in keeping with prior precedent, will uphold the Administration’s immigration programs. 

            And, we must note that the principal reason why these programs are necessary is because this Congress has repeatedly failed to take any action to fix our Nation’s broken immigration system.  

            Rather than addressing this problem, the Majority has chosen to focus only on legislative initiatives aimed at deporting Dreamers and the parents of U.S. citizen children as well as denying basic protections to children fleeing violence and persecution.

            I sincerely hope this Congress can move forward towards repairing our broken immigration system instead of blaming this President for taking lawful actions that were well within his Executive authority.

                       

            And, finally, with respect to the Affordable Care Act, the Majority in the House has on more than 60 occasions voted to repeal this law, but to no avail. So their assertion that it is an unconstitutional exercise of the President’s executive power should come as no surprise.

Specifically, the Act’s opponents claim that the Administration – by providing transitional relief to large employers that do not provide health insurance for their employees and by authorizing subsidies  – usurped Congress’ responsibilities under Article I of the Constitution and violated the Constitution’s Take Care Clause.

Yet, as Simon Lazarus, the Minority witness, has previously explained, the Administration’s actions in implementing Affordable Care Act’s complex statutory scheme were well within its statutory authority and we consonant with the President’s obligation to “faithfully” execute the law.

           

Clearly, we should be able to have legitimate policy differences without making unfounded accusations. There is substantial precedent supporting the President’s actions in health care and immigration.

            I thank the witnesses for appearing today and I look forward to hearing their testimony. 

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Reps. Conyers and Lofgren Applaud Implementation of the Visa Waiver Program Improvement Act of 2015

Reps. Conyers and Lofgren Applaud Implementation of the Visa Waiver Program Improvement Act of 2015

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today U.S. Representatives John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.), Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee, and Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), Ranking Member of the Immigration and Border Security Subcommittee released the following statements after the Departments of Homeland Security and State announced yesterday implementation of the Visa Waiver Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015: 

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.

Rep. Conyers: “Requiring all travelers under the Visa Waiver Program to have an unexpired, fraud-resistant e-passport is an important security measure.  I also support new requirements for Interpol screening of travelers and reporting on theft of passports.  These provisions are included in the new law and will help improve our security here at home.

“I did not support this legislation, however, precisely because it failed to include critical exceptions for humanitarian aid workers and journalists reporting on the war in Syria and the atrocities ISIS is committing in the Middle East.  It also codifies provisions that could result in discrimination against people simply because they are dual citizens based on ancestry, which could lead to our Visa Waiver Program partner nations placing new limits on travel by U.S. citizens to their countries.

“I am pleased to see that the Administration is taking a common sense approach to implementation through the exercise of the statutory waiver authority on a case-by-case basis when it is in the law enforcement or national security interest of the United States.  I am hopeful that further implementation announcements from the Administration will make clear that the United States will not discriminate against any travelers based solely on ancestry. Doing so would accomplish the national security goals of the new law, while also adhering to the letter and spirit of the statute.”

Rep. Lofgren: “We all agree that the first responsibility of government is to keep the American people safe.  That is why I joined in a bipartisan effort to craft compromise legislation that enhances security in the Visa Waiver Program and ensures that any vulnerabilities that could put the American people at risk are addressed.

“Yesterday’s announcement from the Administration recognizes that U.S. national security interests include statutory waivers for those who have spent time in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, or other designated countries to provide medical or humanitarian aid or as journalists or researchers and in the case of Iran for legitimate business travel.  This approach to implementation, along with the other provisions in the new law, makes us safer.  The bill, as drafted, explicitly permitted the Administration to implement the visa program in this way and Democrats would not have supported the measure without providing the ability of the Administration to implement the program in this sensible way.

“With respect to the legislation’s dual national provisions, we have received assurances from the Departments of Homeland Security and State that the United States will not allow other countries to dictate limitations on travel to the United States based solely on another country’s nationality laws and one’s parentage – or, in turn, have such limitations imposed on Americans traveling abroad. The legislation passed by the House never sanctioned discrimination against Americans based on heritage and I am pleased that the Obama Administration agrees and has made that point abundantly clear for all Americans.”

Background: Under the Act, certain travelers are no longer eligible to travel or be admitted to the United States under the Visa Waiver Program:

·         Nationals of VWP countries who have traveled to or been present in Iran, Iraq, Sudan, or Syria on or after March 1, 2011 (with limited exceptions for travel for diplomatic or military purposes in the service of a VWP country); and

·         Nationals of VWP countries who are also nationals of Iran, Iraq, Sudan, or Syria.

These individuals will still be able to apply for a visa using the regular immigration process at U.S. embassies or consulates.  For those who need a U.S. visa for urgent business, medical, or humanitarian travel to the United States, U.S. embassies and consulates stand ready to process applications on an expedited basis.

Under the new law, the Secretary of Homeland Security may waive these restrictions if he determines that such a waiver is in the law enforcement or national security interests of the United States. Such waivers will be granted only on a case-by-case basis.  Categories of travelers who may be eligible for a waiver include:

·         Individuals who traveled to Iran, Iraq, Sudan or Syria on behalf of international organizations, regional organizations, and sub-national governments on official duty;

·         Individuals who traveled to Iran, Iraq, Sudan or Syria on behalf of a humanitarian NGO on official duty;

·         Individuals who traveled to Iran, Iraq, Sudan or Syria as a journalist for reporting purposes;

·         Individuals who traveled to Iran for legitimate business-related purposes following the conclusion of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (July 14, 2015); and

·         Individuals who have traveled to Iraq for legitimate business-related purposes.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Reps. Conyers and Lofgren Applaud U.S. Supreme Court Decision to Review President Obama’s Executive Immigration Actions

WASHINGTON, D.C.– Today U.S. Representatives John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.), Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee, and Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), Ranking Member of the Immigration and Border Security Subcommittee, released the following statement after the U.S. Supreme Court announced that it will review of the Texas-led challenge (U.S. V. Texas, et al.) to the President's executive immigration actions −Deferred Action for Parental Accountability (DAPA) and expanded Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA):

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.

"We are very pleased that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear this case. We are confident the Court will see through the dubious legal and procedural arguments by lower courts and find the President's actions fully comport with U.S. immigration law and the Constitution. Permitting these programs to move forward will provide an important measure of certainty for millions of Americans and their immigrant families."  

"DAPA and expanded DACA are common-sense, lawful exercises of executive discretion, just like actions taken by prior presidents of both parties for decades, including Presidents Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush. "

“We are optimistic that the Supreme Court will issue its decision upholding these actions before the current term ends in June.  Hard working immigrant families have waited long enough for stability and the opportunity to come out of the shadows. Today’s Supreme Court moved us one step closer to the relief they so desperately need."

Background:

DAPA would allow certain immigrant parents of U.S. citizens and permanent residents to register with the government, undergo a background check, and work without fear of deportation.  Expanded DACA provides the same protections to those who were brought to the United States as children and are Americans in every way but on paper. Last April,  Reps. Lofgren led 184 members of the House of Representatives and 34 Senators on an amicus brief in support of the Supreme Court granting review citing that “the significance of this to Congress’s ability to ensure rational, effective, and efficient enforcement of federal law by executive agencies cannot be overstated.”

SCOTUS Amicus Brief of 181 Members of Congress in Support of Immigration Law for Children and Families

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Conyers and Lofgren Statement on Department of Justice Petition Seeking Supreme Court Review of Key Executive Actions

Petition for SCOTUS Review Falls on One Year Anniversary of Executive Immigration Actions

WASHINGTON– Today, U.S. Representatives John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.), Ranking Member on the House Judiciary Committee, and Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), Ranking Member on the Immigration and Border Security Subcommittee, issued the following statement marking the one-year anniversary of the President’s Executive Actions to fix our broken immigration system and after the Department of Justice filed a petition to seek review before the Supreme Court to overturn a Fifth Circuit Court order blocking two of the executive actions:

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.

“One year ago, President Obama took legal action to fix our broken immigration system.  Since then, eight of the ten immigration executive actions he announced have been, or are being, successfully implemented. Unfortunately, conservative judges temporarily blocked implementation of the Deferred Action for Parental Accountability (DAPA) program and expanded Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) – and in doing so, put on hold the dreams of millions of immigrant families nationwide.   

“Today the Department of Justice filed a petition for certiorari, seeking review of the lower court’s ruling before the Supreme Court. We are confident that the Supreme Court will rule in favor of these common sense reforms, which would provide relief from deportation for approximately 4 to 5 million parents of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents and an expanded number of DREAMers. Along with our Democratic colleagues in Congress, we will be filing an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in support of the President's actions.

“Like prior Presidents, including Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush, among others, who likewise exercised their constitutional authority to humanely enforce our immigration laws, President Obama’s actions are consistent with precedent and fall well within his legal authority. 

“Though his actions will ultimately be upheld in court, Congress must still act to pass comprehensive immigration reform and provide certainty to the hard-working, law-abiding immigrant community in America.”

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Fifth Circuit Ruling on Immigration Executive Actions Wrong on the Law and Wrong for our Country

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Representatives John Conyers, Jr.(D-Mich.), Ranking Member on the House Judiciary Committee, and Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), Ranking Member on the Immigration and Border Security Subcommittee, delivered the following statement today after the Fifth Circuit issued an opinion.  Monday evening upholding a Texas district court ruling against Department of Homeland Security immigration directives issued in November 2014:

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.

“We are disappointed – though not surprised – that the Fifth Circuit has sided against the President’s executive immigration action and the millions of immigrants it would have helped.  The opinion predictably parrots the dubious legal and procedural arguments embraced by the lower court.  

“While this decision is unfortunate and comes after months of delay, we are pleased the case can now move forward.  We laud the fast response by the Department of Justice to petition for Supreme Court review.  We respectfully request that the Supreme Court expeditiously grant certiorari and hear this case this term.  For the millions of families who live under the threat of deportation, time is of the essence.  

“We are confident that once the case has been heard, the Supreme Court will rule in favor of the President’s constitutional authority to humanely enforce our immigration laws – the same authority that was relied upon and exercised by Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush, among others.  

“These are immigrant families with U.S. citizen children who in many cases have been in our country for 10 years or longer.  DAPA would merely provide them temporary immigration relief and employment authorization, acknowledging that the vast majority of these parents are already working in the United States.

“Of course, an even better option would be for Republicans in Congress to stop catering to anti-immigration extremists and work in a bipartisan fashion to fix our broken immigration system by passing comprehensive immigration reform.”

Background:

The Fifth Circuit decision prevents implementation of the Deferred Action for Parental Accountability (DAPA) program, which provides temporary deportation relief for certain parents of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents, and expansion of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which provides similar relief for DREAMers.  Of the 10 immigration executive actions announced in November 2014, the other 8 have already been or are in the process of being implemented.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©