Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2014

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ELLISON. Madam Chair, I would just like to point out that I do specifically challenge the gentleman from Iowa's claim that the President's deferred action program is unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court did rule in Arizona v. United States that the Federal Government, under the supremacy clause, does have the authority to set immigration policy over and above that of any State. Inherent in the authority to enforce the immigration laws is the right to be able to prioritize how that policy will be prioritized and how that policy will be executed.

Now, the fact is that the executive branch has the authority, has the right to decide that they will take action on some cases and will take action on others in a prioritized fashion. That is the very heart and soul of what DACA represents.

So for the gentleman to argue that there is some constitutional infirmity with deferred action is wrong. He's wrong on the law. He's wrong on his constitutional argument.

The fact is that it's important for the people of the United States to hear that these specious, weak arguments about lack of constitutionality are incorrect.

I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ELLISON. Madam Speaker, before the body is a simple amendment of leaders of four separate caucuses, Members of this body--the Congressional Progressive Caucus, the Congressional Black Caucus, the Congressional Spanish Caucus, and the Congressional Asian Pacific Islander Caucus--who join together to support a simple amendment to this important legislation.

Now, Madam Speaker, it is important to point out that the hardworking staff employees of DHS deserve respect and honor. They keep our country safe. We appreciate that. We appreciate all law enforcement, especially when they put their lives on the line for our safety. No one questions the public service and the professionalism demonstrated by security officials every day.

However, occasionally reports of racial and ethnic and religious profiling do occur. We see them in the news and we hear about them from civil liberties organizations. Too many Americans who are simply going about their business have been discriminated against solely because of race, color, ethnicity. This is wrong, and it is well-rooted in our society that this is not an acceptable value or practice, and it's not what America is all about.

This amendment we are offering today would simply help to put an end to it. Our amendment--straightforward--simply cites the Constitution and existing antidiscrimination laws to affirm that no funds made available by this law can be used to engage in racial, ethnic, or religious profiling. This is not a controversial amendment, nor is it partisan. In fact, it was a former Bush administration official who said that religious, ethic, and racial stereotyping is not good policing.

Now, we simply ask that this amendment receive the support of the body and that we, again, affirm our Nation believes in equality under the law, and that it is behavior that should inform law enforcement decisions, not simply identity.

I ask for a ``yes'' vote, and yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source