Speech #1100052999

I do not expect there will be a lot of controversy about that. What is more controversial. what I want to address. is the second part. That has to do with excluding from the benefits under this bill individuals who have already come into our country in violation of our immigration laws. who have been detained. who have had due process. a trial. who have had their day in court and then. once they were ordered deported. rather than agree to show up and be deported. they simply went on the lam and went underground and melted into the great American landscape. A second category is people who have had their day in court. who have been deported but then who have reentered illegally. Under section 234 of the Immigration and Naturalization Act. both of those actions would constitute felonies. I think it would be a grave error for this bill to reward individuals who have committed that sort of open defiance of our laws. For. whatever you can say about other people who have entered the country in violation of our immigration laws. certainly those who have had a day in court. who have been ordered by court to exit the country but who have gone on the lamn. or those who have reentered after they were deported. represent a different type of lawbreaker. I do not believe we should reward those by conferring upon them a Z visa. outlined in the underlying bill. The Senator from New Jersey. Senator MENENDEZ. argued my amendment would amount to an unconstitutional ex post facto rule because of its retroactive application. This is a misreading of the bill. In order for any immigration provisions to have immediate effect. it is imperative that they apply to conduct and convictions that actually occurred before enactment. If prior conduct and convictions were not covered. you would have an immigration regime that essentially welcomes the following peoplethis is not how the U.S. immigration should operate. Consider an immigration regime where a known criminal gang member could not be removed unless the Department of Homeland Security can show he was a member after the statute was enacted. even if the DHS had videotaped evidence. or even a confession from last month. showing the alien involved in gang activities. Surely that could not be construed as unconstitutionally retroactive or ex post facto. Another example would be an undisputed terrorist fundraiser who would not. unless we agree to this amendment. be barred from naturalization on terrorism grounds. Not only would the citizenship application of someone who has been engaged in terrorist activity not be barred for that reason. unless the terrorist activity occurred after the date of enactment. but this effective date could also be used to call into question the use by the Department of Homeland Security of existing discretionary authority to determine a terrorist did not possess good moral character. To create a regime that turns a blind eye to these known facts would be foolish and would not be in our countrys national interest.