On the recordJanuary 14, 2015
I yield myself 2 minutes. Madam Chair, this amendment is premised on a mistake in the understanding of how USCIS actually works. Here is a fact that some people may not know: the USCIS is funded not by the taxpayers, it is funded by the fees of the applicants. The amendment seems to assume that, if you are out of status, somehow, somebody else is paying for you--the taxpayers or some other applicant. That is not the case. Each applicant pays enough money to cover the cost of processing his own fee, and it does not delay others. What this amendment would do would not just deal with DACA applicants; it would impact people whom I don't think we want to delay in terms of the processing of their petitions. For example, people who are victims of torture can come to the United States and make a case--a plea--for political asylum. They file petitions to do that. This amendment would say that their petitions can't be heard. There are people who are victims of domestic violence. We created a visa category that allows domestic violence victims to petition so that they can be free to leave their abusers. Those petitions could not be heard in a timely manner. Victims of sex trafficking are eligible for a T visa. That is something we created in law. According to this amendment, people who apply--sex trafficking victims--would not be eligible to have their petitions processed in a timely manner. Here is something else: most of the petitions that are adjudicated are family-based.…
