Consequences for Social Security Fraud Act

Floor Speech

Mr. Speaker, before I address the specifics of this bill, I want to address what we heard from the Speaker a few minutes ago.

The Speaker said that section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act cannot be used to ``shut down the border.''

Former President Trump agreed with him. He tried to do exactly what Speaker Johnson says in 2018. That action was immediately enjoined and declared unlawful.

You cannot use section 212(f) of the INA to shut down the border, but the Speaker knows this. That is why he had the House pass H.R. 2. If 212(f) were sufficient, why did we need a bill?

The Republicans passed H.R. 2, but the Republicans should know that this is a bicameral institution, and there is also a President.

H.R. 2 can go nowhere. The Senate won't even look at it, but we know that conservative Republicans in the Senate and Democrats in the Senate have been negotiating for a very, very strong, very powerful, very conservative immigration bill, which they have come up with, much too conservative for many Democrats--I am not sure I am going to vote for it--far more conservative than anything we have considered on the floor besides H.R. 2.

Yet, the Speaker says he won't hear of it. Why? Because the former President said he wants the issue. He was very clear, as was Mr. Nehls: Don't pass anything so that former President Trump can campaign on immigration in the fall.

Don't solve the problem. Save the problem as a campaign issue. That is what they are doing. If they weren't doing that, they would seriously consider the Senate bill.

What is even more pernicious is that they have joined together the close the border issue, the border issue, which is a valid issue, but they have lumped it together with aid to Israel and aid to Ukraine.

I was on the steps of the House with the Speaker and many others touting our solidarity with Israel. Yet, what are we going to do?

Trump and the Speaker, doing Trump's bidding, don't want us to pass an immigration bill, which they have tied up with aid to Israel and aid to Ukraine.

We are not going to aid Israel. We are going to let Putin take over Ukraine. We are not going to send arms to Taiwan. We are not going to send humanitarian aid.

We are going to abandon Ukraine. We are going to abandon Israel. We are going to abandon Taiwan. We are going to abandon our Pacific allies.

Why? Because President Trump wants a campaign issue on immigration. This is shameful. Shameful. The Speaker knows it to be the case, and I challenge the Speaker to bring the Senate bill to the floor. Let's see what happens.

When the Senate passes a very conservative bill, which they seem on track to do, bring it to the floor of the House, and let's see what happens. I bet it passes, but let's see what happens.

Mr. Speaker, addressing this bill, let's be clear: Social Security fraud is a serious issue. It is also largely already a deportable offense.

If H.R. 6678 closed an actual gap in current law, Democrats would gladly support it. Unfortunately, this bill represents another unserious attempt by my Republican colleagues to target and scapegoat immigrants, and to score cheap political points, while doing nothing to fix our immigration system.

While I have several concerns with this bill, I would like to focus on the issue of deportability because that is the most troubling aspect of this legislation.

H.R. 6678 eliminates the requirement that we first charge and convict a person for Social Security fraud before we make them deportable.

This is concerning and stands in stark contrast to most other criminal deportability grounds within our immigration laws.

Barring a few exceptions, criminal offenses require a conviction to render a noncitizen deportable. This is especially important given who would be most impacted by this legislation.

This section of H.R. 6678 is not about deporting undocumented immigrants who are, of course, already deportable, and it is not about preventing people from entering the United States.

The deportability provisions in this legislation target lawful, permanent residents, people who have put down roots in our communities, many of whom have U.S. citizen spouses and children and who have truly established themselves here in the United States.

A lot of these individuals are eligible to become U.S. citizens today. This bill would make these people deportable without even requiring that they be convicted of a crime.

Do we really want to be deporting lawful, permanent residents without due process and without them having their day in court?

Additionally, if this bill were to become law, it would result in absurd consequences. It would actually be easier to deport someone for offenses related to Social Security fraud than it is to deport someone for murder, rape, or sexual abuse of a minor, because for those crimes, a conviction is required. Is this really what my Republican colleagues are looking to accomplish?

For years, Republicans have claimed that they support legal immigration. They are opposed to illegal immigration, as we all are, but they support legal immigration, so they say.

By stripping people of their due process and playing political games with this bill, they are showing us that it is all just empty rhetoric.

We should be working together in a bipartisan way to modernize our broken immigration system. Instead, we are wasting our time with a bill that has no chance to become law and does nothing to address the real problems facing this country and that destroys due process for legal permanent residents.

Members should oppose this overbroad legislation that would deport people who have never even been charged with a crime.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Bentz says that the person to be deported has to be shown to have been guilty by clear and convincing evidence. I always thought the standard of proof for a crime was evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. This just shows again how destructive of due process this bill is.

Jayapal) the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on Immigration Integrity, Security, and Enforcement.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief in closing. This legislation does nothing to improve our immigration system while making a mockery of basic due process. That is why it should be defeated.

I urge all Members to oppose it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

As I have repeatedly said, fraud, regardless of whether it is Social Security fraud or fraud related to COVID loans or grants, is a serious issue. This amendment, however, suffers from the same defect as the underlying bill. As written, it would eliminate the requirement that we first charge and convict a person for a fraud offense before we make them deportable.

Let's remember who would be most impacted by the deportability provisions in this amendment. This is not about deporting undocumented immigrants, who are, of course, already removable. It is not about preventing people from entering the United States.

The deportability provisions in this amendment target lawful permanent residents, people who have put down roots in our communities, many of whom have U.S. spouses and children. This bill would make these people deportable without even requiring that they be convicted of a crime. Do we really want to be deporting lawful permanent residents without any due process?

Additionally, this amendment, just like the underlying bill, would lead to absurd consequences. It would actually make it easier to deport someone for fraud related to COVID loans or grants than it is to deport someone for murder, rape, or sexual abuse of a minor, because for those crimes, a conviction is required. Is that really what the author of this amendment is trying to accomplish here, make it easier to deport people for COVID fraud than for murder, rape, or sexual abuse of a minor? Is that really what Mr. D'Esposito wants?

This is not sound policy, and it makes no sense. I hope my Republicans colleagues will realize how shortsighted this amendment is. I oppose this amendment, and I urge all Members to do the same.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, the other gentleman from New York has not put forward any evidence that immigrants, documented or undocumented, were involved in defrauding the COVID relief funds. Moreover, everything he said basically was irrelevant to this bill.

We are not talking about the southern border crisis. We are not talking about the general policies of the Biden administration or the Trump administration or H.R. 2 or the Senate bill. All of that is beyond the scope of this bill.

What we are talking about in this bill is not making, as the gentleman said, illegal immigrants, but lawful permanent residents, deportable for fraud on COVID loans or grants without being convicted of a crime, something you cannot do for lawful permanent residents accused of murder, rape, or sexual abuse of a minor, because for those things a conviction is required.

This bill would set aside due process and say no conviction is required to deport someone for the crime of COVID fraud, although such a conviction is required for much more serious offenses. It makes no sense and it is abhorrent to our legal system to make people have heavy penalties, people who have lived in this country for many years, to be deportable without any due process and without conviction of a crime.

For that reason, this amendment and this bill should be defeated.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source