CONYERS: Statement Of House Judiciary Markup Of H.R. 170, "Protect And Grow American Jobs Act"

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

H.R. 170, the “Protect and Grow American Jobs Act,” as introduced, would increase the wage level that H-1B dependent employers must pay to avoid jumping through certain hoops in the H-1B immigrant visa program.  These are employers who heavily rely on foreign workers and have 15 percent or more of their workforce on H-1B visas. 

I did not support a predecessor bill last Congress because I did not believe it went far enough to prevent abuses in the H-1B program that have led to the displacement of American workers. 

Academics, labor unions, and the high skilled workers they represent have long argued that the H-1B program is used by employers to replace U.S. workers with lower paid foreign H-1B workers and that the program is in need of fundamental reforms.

Today we will be considering a substitute amendment negotiated by Ms. Lofgren and Mr. Issa, that will improve the bill and serve as a first step in curbing abuse of the H-1B program.  Although this amendment does not fix the many problems in the H-1B program, it will reign in some of the most egregious abuses perpetrated by H-1B dependent employers.

The amendment increases the wages that must be paid by dependent employers to H-1B workers who will be placed with other employers.  By requiring that such workers receive at least the average wage in the relevant occupation and area of employment, the amendment prevents H-1B dependent companies from severely undercutting U.S. workers.

The amendment also provides the Department of Labor with the authority to conduct random audits to ensure compliance with these and other new requirements and establishes new norms in this temporary worker program. I hope these reforms will be expanded to the entire H-1B program and other temporary worker programs.

           

Going forward I believe several additional matters can be addressed.   The current H-1B law fails to protect workers’ rights and labor standards.  In fact, most H-1b employers do not even need to attest that they first tried to recruit an available, qualified U.S. worker or promise that they will not displace existing U.S. workers. In addition, current law also provides an economic incentive for employers to misuse the H-1B program as a way to cut labor costs because they can pay H-1B employees as low as the 17th percentile of an occupational wage in a given area.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on broader reforms to the H-1B program.  

I thank the Chairman and yield back the balance of my time.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS Statement For The Hearing On "Oversight Of The Executive Office For Immigration Review,: Before The Subcommittee On Immigration And Border Security

U.S. House Judiciary Democrats

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

Before we begin today’s hearing, I want to note the passing of Juan Osuna, who served as the Director of the Executive Office for Immigration Review and who testified before this Subcommittee in that capacity. 

Mr. Osuna was a model public servant who devoted the last 17 years of his extraordinary life to the Department of Justice.  He was a consummate professional known for his great leadership and ability to balance access to justice with court efficiency.  I am sure he is deeply missed by the Department and his colleagues.

Now, turning to the focus of today’s hearing, we have an important opportunity to consider the current challenges facing the Executive Office for Immigration Review, particularly under the current Administration.

To begin with, it appears that anti-immigrant ideology, rather than the rule of law, is guiding immigration court policies under the Trump Administration. 

After all, since the earliest days of his campaign, now-President Trump has shown troubling disregard for that rule.  He has attacked the judiciary; issued an unprecedented pardon of a sheriff convicted of criminal contempt of court; and fired the FBI Director during an ongoing investigation by that agency into his own campaign.

Unfortunately, the Executive Office for Immigration Review appears to have not escaped this broad erosion of rule of law principles based on the Administration’s policies that threaten judicial independence, due process, and fundamental fairness within our immigration courts.

First, media accounts report that the Trump Administration could impose numerical and time-based case quotas on Immigration Judges. 

All of us – Democratic and Republican alike – support commonsense measures for reducing immigration court backlogs.  But quotas are not the solution.  Their implementation would force already overstretched judges to hurry through lengthy dockets regardless of the circumstances of individual cases. 

Hearings would become lightning fast, fundamentally unfair, and devoid of due process. In short, a quota system would turn immigration courts into a forced march toward deportation.

Second, the Administration issued a memorandum effectively pressuring judges to deny motions for continuances, which often represent a vulnerable immigrant’s only chance for obtaining counsel essential to protecting his or her rights. 

           

Together with case quotas, this will force many respondents, even young children, to face Immigration and Customs Enforcement prosecutors without counsel, which all but ensures their unjust removal.

Third, the Executive Office for Immigration Review has moved to strip children in immigration proceedings of other vital protections. 

           

In a callous break with prior policy, the agency’s Office of General Counsel issued an opinion concluding that Immigration Judges may revoke minors’ “Unaccompanied Alien Child” status and associated legal safeguards.  As with the first two measures, this will substantially increase removals of minors.

The common denominators among these three measures are clear: far less due process and fairness, far more deportations, which is anything but the rule of law.

Instead, these policies undermine that rule in the service of the President’s anti-immigrant ideology intended to drive immigrants out of the United States. 

Our task today must be to gain a greater understanding of how this Administration’s  Executive Office for Immigration Review policies concretely advance that agenda and how they serve to further his mass deportation plan.

I thank Acting Director James McHenry for his appearance before the Subcommittee and look forward to a substantive dialogue with him on these critical matters.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS & LOFGREN: Detention of 10-year-old Disabled Chid Unjust and Inhumane

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Following reports that a ten-year-old disabled child was taken into custody by Border Patrol agents immediately after emergency surgery at the Driscoll’s Children hospital in Corpus Christi, U.S. Representatives Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) and John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.) wrote to Acting Homeland Security Secretary Elaine Duke today raising concerns that the child’s detention is unjust, inhumane, and will create community-wide fear resulting in immigrants not seeking medical care, even for their children.

According to news reports, Rosamaria Hernandez was brought to the United States as a three-month-old baby. She suffers from cerebral palsy, and was detained after her ambulance crossed a Border Patrol checkpoint traveling from Laredo to Corpus Chirsti. Border Patrol agents followed her to the hospital and waited outside her hospital room.

U.S. Representatives Conyers & Lofgren Letter to DHS Acting Secretary Duke on Detention of Disabled Child R... by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS: Pass DREAM Act Now

The six-month delay in initiating this process does no justice for these DREAMers and the families who will be torn apart.

And the Trump Administration’s pretext for this action—DACA’s supposed unconstitutionality—simply doesn’t carry water. I stand with DREAMers & call on House Republicans' Leaders to pass the DREAMAct now.

#ProtectDREAMers

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS, CUMMINGS, GOMEZ & LOFGREN Seek Immediate Hearings On President's Decision To End DACA

Washington, D.C. (Sept. 7, 2017)—Democratic leaders on the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and the Committee on the Judiciary sent a letter, below, to their respective Chairmen, Reps. Trey Gowdy and Bob Goodlatte, requesting immediate congressional hearings on the impact of President Trump’s decision to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.

“This action is cruel and heartless, and it is now up to Congress to reverse it,” the Members wrote.  “We believe it is critical for the American people to hear public testimony regarding the President’s decision, including the resulting economic costs and social harm to the nation.”  

Last Congress, the Oversight Committee held 11 hearings on issues related to immigration, and the Judiciary Committee regularly holds hearings on immigration issues.  Yet no full Committee hearings on the President’s termination of DACA have been scheduled to date.

The letter was signed by Oversight Committee Ranking Member Elijah E. Cummings, Oversight Committee Member Jimmy Gomez, Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr., and Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security Ranking Member Zoe Lofgren.

Conyers, Cummings, Lofgren & Gomez Letter Requesting Oversight and Government Reform and Judiciary Hearings... by Beverly Tran on Scribd

CONYERS On Trump Ending DACA: congress Must Right This Wrong

Washington, D.C. – House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), today released the following statement after the Trump Administration announced it is terminating the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program:

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

“With Attorney General Sessions’ statement today, the Trump Administration has confirmed it is the most anti-immigrant Administration in generations. The anti-immigrant rhetoric of this Administration is not what our Nation is about and they are wrong as a matter of law and policy.

“The nearly 800,000 DACA recipients, who came to the United States as children, are as American as any of us.  They have become our teachers, doctors, neighbors, and family members.  Yet, Trump has set the stage for the mass deportation of as many as 1,400 young people a day.  

“The six-month delay in initiating this process does no justice for these DREAMers and the families who will be torn apart. The Trump Administration’s pretext for this action—DACA’s supposed unconstitutionality—doesn’t carry water.  As a recent letter from over 100 law professors attests, below, “there is no question that DACA…is a lawful exercise of prosecutorial discretion.”  Furthermore, Mr. Trump’s invocation of the rule of law strains credulity given his unprecedented pardon of Sheriff Joe Arpaio, convicted of criminal contempt of court after he defied a judicial order to cease his longstanding practice of racially profiling Latinos.

“It is clear that the President eliminated DACA to advance his xenophobic agenda.  This repeal aligns with the interests not of the 78% of Americans opposed to deporting these young people, but of un-American anti-DACA white supremacist leaders like Richard Spencer.  Spencer has called himself a former “mentor” to close Trump advisor, Stephen Miller, who urged the President to end the program.

“It is particularly troubling that Mr. Trump would take this action while America continues to reel from the devastation of Hurricane Harvey, during which DACA recipient Alonso Guillen died while trying to rescue people from floodwaters in Texas, as well as the murder of Heather Heyer in Charlottesville, Virginia. Now should be a time for unity, not divisive measures like DACA rescission.

“President Trump has failed the conscience of the country and Congress must take decisive action to right this wrong.  I, along with my Democratic colleagues, support strong legislation that would provide DACA recipients with the legal status and path to citizenship that they deserve.  We will continue to combat cynical efforts to use these human beings as bargaining chips.

“Republican lawmakers face a simple choice—whether to stand with or against nearly 800,000 young people who are as American as they are.

“The nation is watching.”

Law Professors Letter To President Trump On Ending DACA 9-5-2017 by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS Weekly CBC Message To America: Understanding The Roots Of Crime & Poverty

Congressman John Conyers, Jr. addresses the deeply rooted issues of crime and persistent poverty in urban communities from a criminal justice perspective. Rep. Conyers serves as the Ranking Member on the House Judiciary Committee and serves as the Dean (longest serving Member) of the House of Representatives.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS Weekly CBC Message To America: Understanding The Roots Of Crime & Poverty

Congressman John Conyers, Jr. addresses the deeply rooted issues of crime and persistent poverty in urban communities from a criminal justice perspective. Rep. Conyers serves as the Ranking Member on the House Judiciary Committee and serves as the Dean (longest serving Member) of the House of Representatives.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS Floor Statement In Opposition Of H.R. 3003, "No Sanctuary for Criminals Act"

On June 29, 2017, the House considered and passed H.R. 3003, No Sanctuary for Criminals Act.

This bill will trample the rights of states and localities to determine what is in the best interest of their public safety and will conscript local law enforcement to enforce federal immigration law.

 The ultimate experts on community safety are communities themselves.

And hundreds of them have determined that as community trust increases, crime decreases.

This is because immigrants will come out of the shadows and report crimes to local law enforcement when they are not threatened with deportation.

 In fact, a recent study found that community trust jurisdictions are actually safer than their counterparts.

 Against this considered judgment, H.R. 3003 forces localities to abandon community trust principles and mandates the conscription of local officers into federal immigration enforcement.

 Some localities, of course, would rightfully resist this conscription.

As punishment, H.R. 3003 would rob them of vital law enforcement funding that they depend on to prevent crime, prosecute criminals, and boost community policing ranks.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS Floor Statement In Opposition Of H.R. 3004 "Kate's Law"

On June 29, 2017, the House considered and passed H.R. 3004, Kate's Law.

This bill is an anti-immigrant, enforcement-only proposal that represents yet another step in President Trump’s Mass Deportation plan.

This legislation significantly expands the federal government’s ability to prosecute individuals for illegal re-entry and attempted re-entry into the United States.

 My colleagues say this bill is about protecting us from criminals.

But don’t be fooled about the ultimate effect of this bill. It does far more than target immigrants with criminal histories.

 For the first time, this legislation would make it a felony for an individual who has been previously removed—or merely denied admission—to come to an official port of entry to ask to re-enter the country legally.

This is true even if the individual has no criminal history whatsoever.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS, LEAHY & LOFGREN Send Letter To Kushner Companies Asking About EB-5 VISAs And Conflicts Of Interest

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

WASHINGTON (THURSDAY, June 1, 2017) – Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Representative John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.), and Representative Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) on Thursday pressed the president of Kushner Companies for answers on the company’s use of EB-5 visas and its continued ties to Jared Kushner, President Trump’s top advisor and son-in-law.  At a time when Mr. Kushner is facing scrutiny over his contacts with Russian officials and his former company reportedly is facing financial trouble at its company headquarters and marquee building, there are mounting questions about Kushner Companies’ reliance on and recruitment of foreign investment through the EB-5 Immigrant Investor program.  Leahy has worked for years to reform the flawed EB-5 program, and he was joined by House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers (D-Mich.) and House Judiciary Immigration Subcommittee Ranking Member Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), who have worked for years to reform the EB-5 program in the House of Representatives.

The EB-5 program has recently been under scrutiny due to documented cases of fraud and concerns that it is not serving the disadvantaged communities that it was originally intended to benefit.  In the letter, Leahy, Conyers, and Lofgren ask about Kushner Companies’ lobbying efforts and about whether Kushner Companies’ practices, and those of its U.S. and Chinese partners, comply with EB-5 program rules and U.S. securities laws.  They also demand answers about Kushner Companies’ use of its relationship to the White House to recruit foreign investors.

Conyer, Leahy & Lofgren Letter To Kushner About EB-5 VISAS & Conflicts of Interest by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS Statement On Circuit Court Ruling To Block Trump's Muslim/Refugee Ban

Washington, D.C. – House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) released the following statement after the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a block on President Donald Trump's revised Muslim and refugee ban executive order:

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

“Today, yet another court has struck down Trump's un-American Muslim and refugee ban.  Even in its so-called revised form, the courts have not closed their eyes to the undeniable truth--that the ban was intended to harm Muslims and thus is in conflict with the First Amendment's prohibition on the establishment of religion.

“The second travel ban executive order, like the first, undoubtedly targets Muslims and is unconstitutional. I’m pleased that the judicial branch has been steadfast in their commitment to upholding the constitution.”

In April 2017, Ranking Member Conyers helped lead 165 Democratic Members of Congress in filing a brief as amici curiae in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the case of International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trumpto highlight the unlawfulness of Trump’s second travel ban executive order.

In their amicus brief, the Members wrote, “…despite the Second Order’s self-serving claims to the contrary, it delivers on President Trump’s repeated promises as a candidate to limit the entry of Muslims into the country.  In so doing, it flies in the face of one of our most deeply rooted constitutional values: that the government must not favor (or disfavor) any particular religion. As the Constitution’s text and history make clear, the Religion Clauses—both Article VI’s prohibition on the use of religious tests, and the First Amendment’s promise of “free exercise of religion” and prohibition on “laws respecting an establishment of religion”—prohibit a religious test that singles out a religion for discriminatory treatment under our immigration laws. . . . The best way to protect the security of the nation and to uphold foundational American values is to respect the Constitution’s fundamental protections and the laws passed by Congress.”

INTERNATIONAL REFUGEE ASSISTANCE PROJECT v TRUMP U.S. Fourth Circuit No. 17-1351 by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS, GOODLATTE, LEAHY, GRASSLEY Remain Committed to Good-Faith Talks to Reform Investor Visa Program Ahead of Expiration

EB-5 reforms needed to curb fraud, abuse, national security risks 

Washington, D.C. - Bipartisan, bicameral Judiciary Committee leaders today reaffirmed their commitment to reform the troubled EB-5 investor visa program ahead of its scheduled expiration on April 28, or to let the flawed program expire if reforms are not possible.  Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley and Senator Patrick Leahy, along with House Judiciary Ranking Member JohnConyers, Jr. and Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte reiterated requirements of any meaningful negotiation as they continue to search for a compromise on EB-5 reform.  The program has longstanding, well-documented fraud, abuse and national security concerns, and has drifted away from Congress’ original intent: spurring job creation in rural and economically depressed areas.

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

“Despite the well-documented and rampant abuse of the EB-5 Regional Center Program that we have exposed in recent years, we remain committed to working in good faith with our colleagues and industry stakeholders to bring about much needed reforms to this troubled program. However, as we have made clear time and time again, any reforms must contain genuine and sincere changes to allow rural and distressed urban areas, the very communities this program is supposed to benefit, to compete for investment dollars. In addition, any reforms must address the many national security and fraud concerns by containing – without loopholes – compliance measures, background checks, and transparency provisions,” the lawmakers said.

“Just a few weeks ago, we were encouraged by a reasonable proposal offered by IIUSA, the nation’s largest EB-5 industry trade association, containing significant reforms to the program. The proposal was a good faith effort to address our concerns and provide long-term stability to the program, and could have served as a basis for reform negotiations.

“As we have in the past, we remain willing to work with our colleagues and industry groups to produce meaningful reform. This must include strong transparency and anti-fraud measures, meaningful investment differentials, adjustments of the investment amounts to appropriately account for inflation, adequate set asides for both rural and urban distressed areas, and an end to the program’s abusive gerrymandering practices.” 

In a recent letter, below, to congressional leadership, the lawmakers, along with Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein, stated that the program should expire absent these reforms.

U.S. House and Senate Judiciary Letter To Leadership On Reform Investor Visa Program 4-6-2017 by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS Cordially Invites You To Attend His Community Listening Panel, April 13, 2017

Congressman John Conyers, Jr., cordially invites you to attend his Community Listening Panel

Date: Thursday, April 13, 2017

Time: 7:00 pm

Location: UAW Local 600 Hall, 10550 Dix, Dearborn 48120

Featured speakers and experts will be in attendance to discuss issues that greatly affect our region such as Healthcare (HR 676) and Immigration.

For more information please call:

Detroit Office (313) 961-5670; or,

Westland Office (734) 675-4084

Congressman Conyers Listening Panel Flyer April 13, 2017 by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS: Democrats Push Trump Administration to Protect the Education of Undocumented Children

WASHINGTON – Today, John Conyers (MI-13), Reps. Bobby Scott (VA-03),  Bennie Thompson (MS-02), and Zoe Lofgren (CA-19), the Ranking Members of the Committees on Education and the Workforce, Judiciary, Homeland Security, and Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security, respectively, sent a letter, below, to Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly asking them to remind public schools that they are still required to educate undocumented children, despite recent changes to immigration policies. Dean of the U.S. House of Representatives John Conyers, Jr. “We write to express concern that recent changes in immigration enforcement policies are creating fear, anxiety and confusion in immigrant communities around the country,” the Members wrote. “In this environment of trepidation, it is important that we do all we can to minimize the impact these policies have on public school attendance and student learning. One way to address this concern is to ensure that school enrollment and attendance practices do not chill school participation based on the students’ or their parent’s immigration status.” “To assuage increasing apprehensions, we request that the Department of Homeland Security issue a statement making clear that, in spite of other changes in enforcement policy, the sensitive locations policy remains in full effect, at schools and other localities,” the letter reads. “Fear of immigration enforcement actions cannot be allowed to create a hostile learning environment for our children.” In the Plyler v. Doe decision, the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to deny any child, including an undocumented child, access to a public education.  A student’s immigration status was irrelevant to the student’s right to access a public elementary and secondary education.

Democrats Request Trump Administration to Protect the Education of Undocumented Children Letter 4-3-2017 by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS Statement At Judiciary Subcommittee Immigration Hearing

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

President Ronald Reagan once said: “Our nation is a nation of immigrants. More than any other country, our strength comes from our own immigrant heritage and our capacity to welcome those from other lands.”

That quote was uncontroversial among my Republican colleagues then and it should remain so now.  Affirmation of the moral and social worth of immigrants is not a partisan position. It is simply American.

As we begin today’s hearing, I urge my colleagues to use this forum to examine sensible, effective measures, rooted in fact and practice, for enforcing our laws, and keeping our communities safe.

One fact that we must consider is that studies have repeatedly shown that immigrants in the United States are less likely than native-born Americans to engage in crime.  The vast majority of immigrants in the United States are peaceful, law-abiding individuals who support their families and communities.

Another fact is that the southern border is more secure than ever. Apprehension rates at the southern border have plummeted since the 1980s. And apprehensions of Mexicans specifically have reached their lowest point in nearly half a century. This helps explain why most Americans don’t want Trump’s border wall, which could cost upwards of a staggering $20 billion to build and $750 million annually to maintain.

Notwithstanding these facts, and many more, the current Administration continues to vilify immigrants and attack the communities that have decided not to conscript their law enforcement into a mass deportation force.  In fact, yesterday, Attorney General Sessions threatened to withhold federal funds from such jurisdictions.  

Let me be clear, Attorney General Sessions should not substitute his judgment for that of law enforcement in local jurisdictions, who know what is best to keep their communities safe. The Attorney General purports to place a high priority on fighting crime, but threatens to withhold much-needed Justice Department funding from the very agencies that are on the front lines in protecting all of us. 

Over 600 counties and cities have made the decision to resist the Administration’s efforts to conscript their local officers into a mass deportation force because experience and data show that local enforcement of federal immigration law often makes communities less safe. 

It breeds profiling, discrimination, and distrust. Immigrant victims and witnesses stop reporting crimes to authorities and criminals grow emboldened.  In fact, studies have shown that these sanctuary cities are actually safer and more prosperous than their non-sanctuary counterparts. 

Finally, under the guise of enforcing the law, we have already witnessed Donald Trump and his Administration follow through on divisive campaign rhetoric with actions that threaten our core American values and will do nothing to make us safer.

To cite just a few examples, in less than 90 days this administration has already:

·         Threatened an unconstitutional use of federal spending authority to strong arm local jurisdictions into enforcing federal immigration law,

·         Undermined the 4^th Amendment by pressuring cities into detaining immigrants without probable cause,

·         And has conducted indiscriminate raids of peaceful immigrant families in their homes, places of work, and even in their schools.

Such anti-immigrant measures not only raise serious constitutional concerns, they are contrary to our proud history as a nation of immigrants.

I thank our witnesses for their testimony today and I yield back the balance of my time.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS: Trump's ICE Detainer Report Shames Courageous Local Law Enforcement

Washington, D.C. – House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) today released the following statement after the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) issued its first Declined Detainer Outcome Report, below, which, according to ICE, highlights jurisdictions that choose not to cooperate with ICE detainers or requests for notification:

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

“The Trump administration took the bold step of publically shaming courageous, committed and hardworking local law enforcement agencies around the country.  The Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Declined Detainer Outcome Report (DDOR) condemns local governments and instead substitutes the anti-immigrant policies of the Trump administration for the judgment of police officers that are on the ground and in communities.  Local community trust policies are proven to keep communities safe, and they rely on the critical distinction between local police and immigration enforcement officers.   The Trump Administration has repeatedly promised to get the federal government out of people’s lives, but this report demonstrates that it intends to strong arm anyone that disagrees with its ideology, even at the expense of community safety and local police autonomy.”  

According to the Washington Post, Cody Wofsy, a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union’s Immigrants’ Rights Project said, “This is part of an overall strategy to try to scare jurisdictions into becoming deportation agents. And the truth is that jurisdictions have the legal right to refuse to become entangled with the federal immigration enforcement system.”

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Report 2017 by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS: Immigration at the crossroads

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

Two months into the Trump presidency, our nation stands on the verge of turning away from our historic role as a place of refuge and tolerance and, instead, heading down a path of xenophobia and paranoia.

The repackaged Muslim ban, issued by President Donald Trump this month and already blocked by two federal courts, is only the most immediate flash point, but the risks go much further.

Like the previous ban which was also stayed by the courts, the intent and effect of the revised executive order is the same: religious discrimination.

The ban circumscribes travel from six nations, totaling more than 180 million people that are all more than 90 percent Muslim.

It does this even though the Homeland Security Department’s own leaked memos conclude that citizenship is a poor threat indicator.

The executive order also ignores the fact that not a single individual from the six identified nations has killed an American on U.S. soil in the last 40 years.

Although receiving less media attention, the revised order also ends our nation’s traditional leadership providing refuge for persecuted individuals.

It does this by suspending the refugee program entirely for one third of a year, then cutting refugee admissions in half, and also paving the way for state and local governments to restrict refugee resettlement even further.

Other Trump executive orders issued since the inauguration also reverse longstanding policy and unfairly and inhumanely target immigrants.

On his fifth day in office, Trump issued decrees allowing the federal government to cut off federal funding to so-called “sanctuary cities,” estimated to cost Michigan nearly $2 million per year in urgently needed public safety funds.

Late last month, the Homeland Security Department issued two additional orders classifying virtually all undocumented individuals in America — not just violent felons — as enforcement priorities; and eviscerating their due process rights.

This subjects millions upon millions of law abiding immigrants to the risk of deportation.

As a direct result, immigrant homes are already being broken into by federal agents and immigrant families have already been torn apart, with many more to come.

In one case, a father was arrested after dropping of his daughter at school, sending fear and shockwaves throughout the school and the community.

There are even more dangerous immigration orders still being considered by the Trump administration.

One such order would designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a “foreign terrorist organization.”

This would subject non-violent, law-abiding Muslims across the world to Draconian penalties, including denial of entry to the U.S. or deportation, as well as criminal penalties.

Another potential order would overhaul a federal program designed to counter all violent ideologies to only focus on “radical Islamic extremism.”

A third pending proposal would separate women and children crossing the border together, which could negatively impact more than 50,000 people a year.

 Because of our openness and diversity, southeast Michigan is ground zero in the Trump administration’s war against immigration and Islam.

It is also clear that this is a battle Trump will not give up easily.

If we are going to avoid the path of fear mongering and division, we will need to rely on all of our institutional checks and balances to counter these dangerous, counterproductive policies.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS Statement for the Hearing on “Bringing Justice Closer to the People: Examining Ideas for Restructuring the 9th Circuit” Before the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet

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

Today’s hearing provides an important opportunity to examine whether the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is able to adequately perform its duties as it is currently structured.

The hearing takes on added importance in the wake of a series of decisions in the 9th Circuit and elsewhere overturning President Trump’s Muslim/Refugee ban.  Instead of coming to terms with the legal flaws with his own executive order, President Trump has chosen to attack the 9th Circuit, which has said is “in chaos” and “frankly in turmoil.”   Last night, after learning of the Hawaii court’s decision again rejecting his ban he said “people are screaming to break up the Ninth Circuit … You have to see how many times they have been overturned with their terrible decisions.”

Of course, none of what the President has charged about the 9th Circuit is true.  The Ninth circuit is as well organized as any in the country.  Of the very few Ninth Circuit cases the Supreme Court takes up, a significant portion are overturned, but that’s true for every circuit, several of which are overturned at a higher rate than the Ninth Circuit.  And overall less than 1/10 of 1% of Ninth Circuit decisions are overturned by the Supreme Court.

The reality is, this is not a new debate President Trump has brought us to.  It is one that we have had for decades.  Although I will not speculate about why there continues to be such interest by some of my Republican colleagues to divide the Ninth Circuit, there are several points we should keep in mind.

To begin with, splitting the Ninth Circuit would not “bring justice closer to the people.”  Instead, it would likely result in further delay, reduced access to justice, and wasted taxpayer dollars.

If the Ninth Circuit were divided there would not be sufficient judicial resources, particularly with respect to addressing the significant caseload demands of the district and bankruptcy courts.

Although legislative proposals introduced this Congress take differing approaches to dividing the Ninth Circuit and creating a new Twelfth Circuit, inevitably all of these have one common problem.  Such restructuring would result in a significant financial cost to American taxpayers because millions of dollars would be needed to construct a new Circuit headquarters and for other costs.

Another concern I have is that splitting the Ninth Circuit would do little to improve judicial efficiency.

And, none of the legislative proposals would actually resolve the heavy caseload problem because a clear majority of the Ninth Circuit cases come from California. 

Any circuit that includes all of California will still have the largest number of judges and appeals and it would still serve the largest population. 

Finally, I am particularly skeptical of any legislative proposal ostensibly intended to assist certain entities when, in fact, those very same entities oppose or question the need for such legislative “fix.” 

Dividing the Ninth Circuit is opposed by a majority of the judges in that Circuit as well as by the bar, including the American Bar Association. 

In fact, the White Commission, which Congress established to study this issue, concluded in 1998 that splitting the Circuit was impractical and unnecessary.

So for these reasons, I am opposed to dividing the Ninth Circuit. 

Nevertheless, I thank the Chairman for holding this hearing and look forward to the testimony from today’s esteemed witnesses.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS Statement for the Hearing on, “The Department of Homeland Security’s Proposed Regulations Reforming the Investor Visa Program”

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

Thank you Chairman Goodlatte. Last Congress, I had the honor of working with you, Chairman Grassley, and Senator Leahy in an effort to reform the EB-5 Investor Visa Program. While the proposed DHS regulations would go a long way toward addressing many of our longstanding and serious concerns with the program, there is no substitute to a meaningful legislative solution.

I remain confident that we can accomplish these important legislative reforms this Congress and I look forward to continuing to work with you.

I have taken a particular interest in the EB-5 Investor Visa program because I believe it has drifted far from the program initially envisioned by Congress.  As a result the communities that need investment the most – specifically, rural and distressed urban areas – struggle to benefit from the program and are unfairly placed in direct competition with developed, affluent areas.

When Congress established the EB-5 investor visa program in 1990, the intention was to create jobs for American citizens and to bring new investment capital to the United States.  To help encourage investment and job creation in rural or high unemployment areas, the EB-5 Program offered a reduced investment level of $500,000 for projects in designated Targeted Employment Areas (TEAs).

However, as reported by the GAO, academics, The Wall Street Journal, and many other news sources, the vast majority of EB-5 investment funds are going to projects in some of America’s wealthiest corridors.  They qualify as TEAs, or economically distressed, only by aggregating census tracts across many miles, and often across natural boundaries such as rivers.

This practice has been criticized by the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, noting that “the EB-5 Regional Center Program has dramatically deviated from its original purpose – to spur job creation and development in rural and high unemployment areas.”  Steering investments to projects in our cities’ well-to-do neighborhoods comes at the expense of EB-5 funds for urban and rural communities. 

According to the Center for American Progress, the Congressional District that I represent, for instance, is the second-most impoverished district in the United States.  I am pleased to say that under the Obama Administration our economic environment began to improve.  It is slow, and we have a long way to go.  But for those Americans living in my city of Detroit, and in many other cities across the country, manipulation of Targeted Employment Areas has diverted a potential source of jobs and neighborhood improvement away from those it was intended to help.

The Department of Homeland Security’s proposed rules make a number of important reforms:

First, the rules would raise the higher investment level to adjust for inflation from 1 million to 1.8 million and would raise the lower investment amount from $500,000 to $1.35 million.

Second, the rules would reduce the difference between the statutory and Targeted Employment Area investment levels and would allow for conforming adjustments based on inflation beginning five years from the effective date.

Third, the rules would significantly reign in manipulation of targeted employment areas.

I am encouraged by this development from the Department of Homeland Security and consider the proposed rulemakings as movement in the right direction. However, I must reiterate, to achieve the necessary reforms to the EB-5 program there is no substitute to a meaningful legislative solution. And, absent significant reform – either regulatory or legislative – I will not be able to support continued authorization of the program.

In closing, I want to thank the witnesses for their willingness to appear before our Committee and I look forward to an open and honest debate about the proposed regulations and the future of the EB-5 Program.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©