Fostering Undergraduate Talent By Unlocking Resources for Education Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2214 the ``National Origin-Based Antidiscrimination for Non immigrants Act,'' or NO BAN Act. I wish this bill was not necessary, but unfortunately, it is now more imperative than ever.

As a result of the President's relentless attempts to rewrite our immigration laws, we must take immediate steps to rein in his repeated abuse of executive authority.

As a candidate for president, Donald Trump promised to ban all Muslims from entering the United States, suggesting--without any evidence--that it would somehow make our country safer. Immediately upon entering office, he tried to make good on that promise.

Ultimately, it took the President 10 months, 3 attempts, and the inclusion of a sham waiver process to craft a ban that stood up to Supreme Court scrutiny.

In a decision rightly criticized by Justices Breyer and Sotomayor-- and many of us in this chamber--the majority concluded that despite statements calling for a ``total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States,'' the President's ban was somehow not inspired by blatant religious animus. Seeking to distance itself from these remarks, the Administration later claimed that the ban was necessary to keep our country safe from terrorist threats. And yet, a bipartisan coalition of more than 50 former national security officials found that rather than making our country safer, the ban actually undermines U.S. national security.

H.R. 2214 not only invalidates the various iterations of the Muslim Ban, it also amends the authority the President relied on in invoking the ban--section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. But rather than gutting it, as some of my Republican colleagues have claimed, H.R. 2214 maintains its basic structure, and incorporates checks and balances to ensure that it can no longer be so flagrantly abused.

H.R. 2214 will thus ensure that section 212(f) can only be used in a manner consistent with its intended purpose and historical norms, and that no President--Democratic or Republican--will be able to utilize it to usurp congressional authority.

I would like to thank my friend and colleague, Representative Chu for her leadership and steadfast commitment to this issue. Her efforts led to the introduction of this legislation and I urge all of my colleagues to support the NO BAN Act.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5581, the ``Access to Counsel Act of 2020'', a bill that will ensure that individuals who lawfully present themselves at our ports of entry are treated fairly and allowed to communicate with counsel and other parties if they are subjected to prolonged inspection.

The Immigration and Nationality Act provides individuals in removal proceedings the right to representation at no expense to the government. Although federal regulations extend this right to immigration-related ``examinations,'' applicants for admission-- specifically those in primary or secondary inspection--are excluded unless they become the focus of a criminal investigation.

However, our immigration laws are complex, and so are some questions regarding an individual's admissibility.

Access to outside assistance is important to ensure that CBP has a complete understanding of the facts and the law before deciding admissibility. That is because grave consequences can result from being refused admission--consequences that extend well beyond simply turning around and getting back on a plane.

Individuals who are refused admission may be unable to reunite with their families or receive critical medical care unavailable in their home country. They may be turned away from a U.S. employer who desperately needs their skills. Or they may be denied the opportunity to pursue higher education at a U.S. college or university.

If that weren't enough, they could also be subject to a 5-year bar to returning to the United States if they are issued an expedited removal order.

That is why this legislation is so critical.

By allowing individuals who lawfully present themselves for inspection at a port of entry to communicate with counsel or other interested parties with information relevant to their request for admission, CBP will be better equipped to correctly resolve legal uncertainties and individuals will be treated more equitably.

I would like to thank my friend and colleague, Representative Jayapal for her leadership and commitment to this issue. Her efforts led to the introduction of this legislation, and I urge all my colleagues to support the Access to Counsel Act.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source