This view breaks the statement into its steps and names what each one does.
Mr. President, Promise · 63 wordsin a few minutes, I am going to ask unanimous consent to pass the SECURE Act to ensure that we don’t force individuals who have been legally residing in the United States under temporary protected status--some for as many as 27 years--to return to countries where they will face danger and, instead, to provide them with a secure path toward lawful permanent residency. Claims · 258 wordsThe need for Congress to do this, to take this step, has never been more urgent because, just over a month ago, the Trump-packed Supreme Court, in a 6-to-3 decision, allowed the administration to move forward with terminating temporary protected status for hundreds of thousands of individuals who originally came to the United States from Haiti and Syria and to force them back--force them back--to countries where their lives would be at risk.1 That decision puts them and other TPS holders at risk of deportation to countries where violence, instability, and humanitarian crises continue to threaten their lives. There are already reports that ICE is planning to target Haitian TPS holders for deportation as soon as this week, 2which would force hundreds of thousands of people to return to a country that our State Department warns is unsafe for travel.3 In other words, the Trump administration would force people back to a country where the State Department says: Don’t go there because it is unsafe. The Trump administration has also moved to lift lower court orders preventing the termination of TPS for other countries as well, putting thousands more lives at risk. In other words, these lower courts have said they have paused the ability for the administration to deport people on TPS, but the administration is moving to deport them anyway. In 1990--in 1990--Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle, Republicans and Democrats, came together to create the TPS program because we all agreed that keeping our neighbors safe should not be a partisan issue.4 Reasoning · 22 wordsWhen conditions in another country make it unsafe for people to return, America should not force those people back into harm’s way. Claims · 240 wordsAnd for over three decades that bipartisan principle has guided the TPS program. I think we all recall the Trump administration--at least the President--promised that they were going to target the ``worst of the worst.’’ But that is not what they have been doing. Instead, it has targeted people, in the case of TPS recipients, with lawful status, targeting people who are here legally. TPS recipients are people who have already been determined that it would be dangerous to force them to return to their countries of origin. They are here legally, and the TPS eligibility requirements are very strict. Recipients undergo repeated vetting and background checks. They work, they pay taxes, raise families, start businesses, and contribute every day to communities across this country. Many have lived here for years; others, for decades. They have become part of the fabric of our communities. And yet the Trump administration’s actions and recent reckless Supreme Court decisions place all of that at risk. The administration terminated work permits for Haitian and Syrian TPS holders on Monday.5 So people who had been legally here, had work permits, they have been terminated. And for those who also apply for asylum, the administration’s new policy announced just this week would funnel their pending asylum claims directly into deportation proceedings without ever receiving a hearing.6 So even people who could show individual cause of certain harm or danger could be deported under these new procedures. Positioning · 19 wordsIt is all part of the same effort to strip legal protections from people who have followed the rules.PositioningUnearned certainty Claims · 51 wordsDue to our country’s broken immigration system, the TPS program is the only legal pathway for many to remain in the United States and keep out of harm’s way, and the Court’s decision is tearing up that pathway for many TPS holders, even as the facts on the ground are clear.Unearned certainty Procedure · 3 wordsAs I said, ProcedureClaims · 145 wordsif you go to the State Department website, it says: ``Do Not Travel to Haiti.’’7 There are warning signs on that website of violent crime, gang activity, kidnappings, and widespread instability. In the case of Syria, Syria continues to face armed conflict, terrorism, and an ongoing humanitarian crisis. The State Department warns--this is from our State Department--``Do not travel to Syria for any reason.’’8 That is what the State Department says, and yet the President and the Trump administration want to force people to go to Syria. In other words, the same conditions that led the United States to grant these individuals TPS in the first place remain true, and yet the Trump administration wants to send them to these countries. So the State Department warns against travel but wants us to believe that it is safe for TPS recipients to be forced to return. Positioning · 28 wordsWhat has changed is this administration’s determination to dismantle basic humanitarian protections that have been part of our bipartisan tradition in order to enact their mass deportation agenda, PositioningClaims · 124 wordsand now this Supreme Court has rubberstamped this administration’s ongoing reckless efforts to gut the TPS program so they can terminate countries’ designations across the board to advance that mass deportation agenda. The Trump ``rubberstamp’’ Supreme Court, on a 6-to-3 decision, made the decision that rather than follow the letter of the law as Congress enacted it, the Department of Homeland Security can do whatever it wants--and free from judicial scrutiny. As Justice Kagan wrote in her dissent--she was one of three Justices dissenting from that Supreme Court decision--she said: 9In other words, Justice Kagan pointed out that the statute does make clear there should be a determination about whether or not an action taken to terminate TPS would, in fact, lead to harm. The ask · 12 wordsAnd Congress should not just sit back and allow this to happen. Reasoning · 53 wordsDecisions affecting hundreds of thousands of lives should be based on careful consideration of conditions on the ground, not political ideology or predetermined outcomes. This decision makes one thing unmistakably clear, that we, the Congress, should act to reaffirm what was clearly our intent when we passed the TPS statutes to begin with. Claims · 38 wordsAnd, for years, TPS recipients have lived in constant uncertainty, and every extension brings another deadline. Every new administration brings another question about whether the lives they have built here will disappear with the stroke of a pen. Reasoning · 19 wordsThis is no way to treat people who have been here legally and have contributed much to our country. The ask · 35 wordsThat is why we should pass the SECURE Act, legislation that provides qualified TPS and deferred enforced departure recipients with a pathway to legal permanent residence after years of continuous presence in the United States.10 Claims · 145 wordsIt protects applicants while their cases are pending and shields eligible individuals from deportation during the application process. It provides work authorization and travel authorization. It also protects applicants’ information from being used for immigration enforcement, except in limited circumstances. It increases transparency--which I would hope we would all support--by requiring the Department of Homeland Security to explain and justify future decisions to terminate TPS designations--something they have failed to do. Most importantly, it provides the certainty these families deserve after years--in many cases, decades--of living here legally in the United States. We have long used TPS to provide refuge to people who would otherwise face extraordinary danger if forced to return to their countries of origin. They sought safety and stability here. They have built new lives in our country and made lasting contributions to our communities, and the SECURE Act recognizes that reality. Reasoning · 26 wordsAs I said, we should not be forcing these individuals back to countries where our own State Department has determined it would be dangerous to go. Promise · 22 wordsThe Supreme Court decision does not have to be the end of the story. We can write the end of the story, The ask · 27 wordsand it is our responsibility as a Congress to preserve that bipartisan congressional intent from back in 1990. We must provide that certainty that these individuals deserve. Mr. President, The ask · 56 wordsnotwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged and that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 2106.11 I further ask consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
Analyzed on