The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“IMMIGRATION REFORM” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Justice was published in the House of Representatives section on pages H2215-H2216 on April 15, 2015.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
IMMIGRATION REFORM
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutieerrez) for 5 minutes.
Mr. GUTIEERREZ. Mr. Speaker, the man pictured alongside me will go a long way towards determining who lives in the White House for the next few years. No, he is not a pollster or a campaign spin doctor. No, this is a Federal judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, the Honorable Judge Andrew Hanen.
The lawsuit by 26 Republican Governors and attorneys general seeking to block the executive actions taken by the Obama administration on immigration was filed in his court. He has not ruled yet on the constitutionality of the case.
He ordered a preliminary injunction, however, saying he thought the States have standing to bring the suit--or at least that the State of Texas did. That was enough for him to stop the implementation of the program nationwide.
Not surprisingly, just last week, the judge refused the government's request to lift his injunction and allow the plan to move forward.
Here is the reality: Congress mandates that about 400,000 people will be deported this year out of a total of 11 million.
The Secretary of Homeland Security developed a plan to choose between hardened criminals and those immigrants who have lived here for at least 5 years, have U.S. citizen children, and can pass a criminal background check at their own expense.
The plan also requires immigrants to renew their temporary status periodically to prove again that they have not committed crimes or fraudulently sought out services or benefits.
It is that plan for the parents of U.S. citizens in American families, people who have been working and staying out of trouble for years, that the Texas judge here believes will cause irreparable damage to the State of Texas and, therefore, must be stopped nationally.
Just as they had hoped, the judge ruled that Texas might some day in the future suffer irreparable harm because of driver's licenses. In other words, people who qualify for driver's licenses and who take the test and pay their fees for driver's licenses--if they live in Texas and apply for those driver's licenses in Texas--will be doing the State irreparable harm.
I have a driver's license. It is right here. I had no idea I was causing irreparable damage to the State of Illinois just by applying for it and paying for the driver's license and learning the rules of the road and buying car insurance; but who am I to disagree with a Federal judge?
On Friday, the Department of Justice will argue before the fifth circuit court in New Orleans that the President's executive actions should move forward. It is well known that the fifth circuit is among the most conservative.
Look what happened a couple of weeks ago in that very same circuit court. They ruled on a lawsuit related to the State of Mississippi which, like Texas, felt it might some day in the future be dealt damage by the deferred action program announced by the President for DREAMers back in 2012.
The panel of judges from the fifth circuit looked at the program, the evidence, and the cost of the State of Mississippi, and the fifth circuit judges said Mississippi is not harmed and, thus, does not have legal standing for the lawsuit.
That bodes well for the country and the President's executive actions. In the meantime, Judge Hanen still hasn't ruled on the case. Maybe he is running out the clock, trying to make the immigrants in cities like Chicago and Houston lose hope or stop preparing to sign up or maybe magically self-deport and give up on watching their children, their U.S. citizen children, grow up in America.
It might turn into a drawn-out series of rules and appeals that wind up in the Supreme Court, which could take us well into 2016.
2016 is an election year, where Latino U.S. citizens--not immigrants we are discussing, but their neighbors, cousins, spouses, and coworkers who are citizens of the United States--are not likely to vote for a party that is making sure that their neighbors, cousins, spouses, and coworkers are still a top priority for deportation.
I have a feeling the citizens will support the candidates and the parties that support their communities. I also have a feeling that the decision to drag this fight out in the courts will be one the Republican Party regrets from a political point of view; just like the decision not to allow a vote on immigration reform over the past 2 years will be seen as one of the biggest and most consequential political mistakes of all time.
How long does a vote take? Fifteen minutes--it might sound too much like a Geico commercial, but just 15 minutes could have saved the Republicans a great deal of heartache.
The failure to take those 15 minutes for a vote might mean that there are no Republican Presidents for a long time who would nominate judges like this one.
____________________
