Speech #1050102640

Justice. State. and Judiciary Appropriations bill. The first of these concerns involves the failure of this Conference Report to provide protection to illegal immigrants who are the victims of domestic violence. The Conference Report to H.R. 2267 provides that only those immigrants who have 245(i) applications for permanent legal status pending at the time of the bills enactment. may stay in the United States. In refusing to permanently extend 245(i) for most immigrants. the Conference Report makes one concession---it provides permanent extension of 245(i) for those immigrants holding employmentbased visas. It makes no exception for battered illegal immigrants. In so doing. the Conference Report undermines the strides to protect battered immigrants made in the Violence Against Women Act ("VAWA"). The Violence Against Women Act exempts battered immigrant women and their children from the three to ten year inadmissibility bars that apply to other illegal immigrants. These provisions were written to provide a way out of violent relationships for battered women and children abused by their U.S. citizen and lawful permanent resident spouses and parents. These provisions were included in VAWA in an effort to free battered immigrants to seek protection for themselves and their children from ongoing abuse and to allow them to cooperate in the criminal prosecution of their abusers. The vast majority of battered immigrant women who qualify for protection under VAWA are in the United States in undocumented status because their citizen and lawful permanent resident spouses or parents have had control over their immigration status. These spouses also often control what information their abuse victims receive and with whom they associate. Because the Conference Report does not provide permanent extension of 245(i) to battered immigrants. many of these women will be required to return to their home countries to obtain their green cards. All battered women who apply for relief under VAWA. however. must prove that their deportation will cause extreme hardship to themselves or their children. In requiring those women to return to the very country that INS agrees poses them a danger as the only means to obtain their permanent residency is dangerous and illogical. Additionally. most battered immigrant women will have difficulty raising the funds to travel abroad to obtain their permanent residency. Many more will be required to travel to countries that cannot or will not protect them from their abusers. from their abusers family or from the social ostracization that often accompanies women who publicly challenge abuse. Many victims will violate family court custody orders if they travel abroad or leave the jurisdiction where the court order was issued. Finally. many will be unable to make safe child care arrangements for their children if they are required to travel abroad or else they will have to take their children with them. Battered immigrant women should not have to be faced with leaving their children with an abuser or in a situation in which the children cannot be adequately protected from the abuser or possibly being charged with international kidnapping. Faced with these obstacles. many battered immigrants will choose to stay with their abusers. It is important that both the battered immigrant and her children be able to obtain lawful permanent residency status under VAWA without interruption in the support. counseling. and legal relief they are receiving to help them and their children address the consequences of the violence. For VAWAs immigration provisions to offer victims of domestic violence the intended protection. battered women must be able to obtain their permanent residency without leaving the country regardless of when they file their selfpetition. The second area of concern that I would like to raise with respect to the Conference report on H.R. 2267. is the compromise reached on the census provisions. The revised language in the Conference Report regarding the census states that sampling poses the risk of an inaccurate census which is the very opposite of what is true.