I am going to strongly urge opposition to this amendment. To be honest, this amendment uses terms that are not traditionally used in the immigration code, so it is really pretty hard to understand what the impact is going to be. If the intent is for these transportation restrictions to apply to asylum seekers, then the amendment effectively ends the asylum program for everyone. I am, frankly, not sure there is even Republican consensus to do that. If it is not meant to apply to asylum seekers, then the strange drafting has really bad--probably unintended--consequences. For instance, if an individual were here on a student visa and they committed a serious crime, this amendment doesn't seem to allow for that individual to be transported for the purposes of removal because they aren't here unlawfully. That is all to say that this amendment really isn't ready for prime time, and I would urge its rejection. Vote on Amendment No. 6559 The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Share
More from Chris Murphy
Americans deserve answers on how the administration has decided to spend their taxpayer dollars and assume new national security risks with the VC-25B Bridge aircraft and the rushed retrofit program contracted to L3Harris – all in service…
This is not only an attack on jobs, affordable energy, and America’s economic competitiveness. It is an attack on the rule of law and the basic democratic principle that the federal government serves the entire country—not merely those who…
From top to bottom, these ATF rule changes are all about making sure Trump’s gun industry donors can maximize their profits by ignoring the popular, common sense regulations that prevent gun crime and save lives.
This long-overdue step will save millions in taxpayer dollars, cut red tape, and support economic development by allowing better collaboration between the Coast Guard and its surrounding communities – in places like New London…





