Speech #1090138862

But if this provision were to become law. the entire case would have to be litigated in full twiceonce to meet the requirements for a stay of removal and then again on the merits. At least in some courts of appeals. that would mean the case would first have to be presented to a motions panel on the stay application and then again before the merits panel. As the American Bar Association has argued in urging the Senate to reject this provision. such a duplicative process would be a significant waste of resources. particularly at a time when the immigration caseload of the Federal courts is growing. I wish to speak for a moment about the individuals who would most likely be harmed by this new provision. and they are. of course. asylum seekers. As one Federal court has explained. imposing this new stringent standard "would mean that thousands of asylum seekers who fled their native lands based on wellfounded fears of persecution will be forced to return to that danger under the fiction that they will be safe while waiting the slow wheels of American justice to grind to a halt." Similarly. Judge Easterbrook of the Seventh Circuit noted that stays pending appeal "remain vital when the alien seeks asylum or contends he would be subject to torture if returned. The ability to come back to the United States would not be worth much if the alien has been maimed or murdered in the interim. Yet under [the clear and convincing evidence standard] . . . an alien who is likely to prevail in this court. and likely to face serious injury or death if removed. is not entitled to remain in this Nation while the court resolves the dispute." Just to give that example. The stakes are high. This provision has the potential to be devastating for asylum seekers. so devastating. in fact. that the provision was rejected by Congress just last year when it was taken out of the REAL ID Act in the conference process. and it is not even included in the current House bill. I hope the Senate will support my amendment to strike this troubling provision from the bill. Let me put a personal face on this debate. I received earlier this week a letter from the National Network to End Violence Against Immigrant Women. This is a very compelling letter. and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the RECORD.