2019: Fitzpatrick Voted For A Supplemental Border Appropriations Bill
To Provide $4.6 Billion To Address Humanitarian Concerns For Migrants
At The U.S.-Mexico Border. In June 2019, Fitzpatrick voted for the
Senate version of the border crisis bill. According to Congressional
Quarterly, the bill "would authorize a total of $4.6 billion in
supplemental fiscal 2019 appropriations to address humanitarian concerns
for migrants at the U.S.-Mexico border." The vote was on a motion to
concur in the Senate amendment. The House agreed to the motion by a vote
of 305-102. The bill was then sent to the President's desk and signed
into law. [House Vote 429,
6/27/19; Congressional
Quarterly, 6/27/19;
Congressional Actions,
H.R.3401]
Nancy Pelosi: House Democrats "Reluctantly" Passed The Senate Bill
To Authorize Aid Quickly. According to Congressional Quarterly,
"'In order to get resources to the children fastest, we will
reluctantly pass the Senate bill,' Pelosi wrote. 'As we pass the
Senate bill, we will do so with a Battle Cry as to how we go forward
to protect children in a way that truly honors their dignity and
worth.'" [Congressional Quarterly,
6/27/19]
The House Version Of The Bill Provided Less Funding To ICE And
Increased The Total Funding From $4.59 Billion To $4.61 Billion.
According to Congressional Quarterly, "The House amendment to the
Senate bill would have reshuffled funding --- adding money for
humanitarian and processing needs, subtracting money from
Immigration and Customs Enforcement and strengthening safeguards for
children in government custody. The changes proposed by the
Democrats would increase the gross total of the emergency funding
$4.59 billion to $4.61 billion." [Congressional Quarterly,
6/27/19]
The Senate Bill Included More Funding For Immigration Enforcement
And Fewer Restrictions On Appropriations. According to The
Washington Post, "The House Democratic Caucus's progressive wing
pushed a bill, which the House passed, that restricted how the
administration could use the funds and improved health and safety
standards for detained migrants. But the Senate --- backed by dozens
of Senate Democrats and facing a veto threat from Trump --- sent
back a bipartisan agreement that slimmed down the House bill's
restrictions and gave some money for immigration enforcement to the
Pentagon, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and immigration
judges. [Washington Post,
6/29/19]
The Senate Bill Took Away Guardrails Intended To Prevent The
Misappropriation Of Funds. According to the Texas Tribune, "The
two chambers were furthest apart on how much leeway to give the
Trump administration with this new funding. Perhaps the most
significant distinction in the House bill were the "guardrails," as
some members have called them --- provisions intended to prevent the
misappropriation of funds by ICE and the Trump administration.
Republicans argued that these restrictions on implementation
would severely limit the ability for the Trump administration to
administer a unilateral response in an emergency situation.
Those so-called guardrails were aimed at preventing the White House
from redirecting appropriations away from humanitarian aid and
toward immigration enforcement programs." [Texas Tribune,
6/27/19]
The Senate Version Did Less To Improve Conditions At Detention
Facilities. According to The New York Times, "House Democrats say
the Senate measure does too little to ensure that conditions improve
at detention facilities or at centers caring for children that are
run by government contractors. The House bill includes language that
would require Customs and Border Protection to establish plans and
protocols to deliver medical care, improve nutrition and hygiene,
and train personnel to ensure the health and safety of children and
adults in custody." [New York Times,
6/26/19]
The House Version Of The Bill, Rejected By The Senate, Provided
Funds For Legal Services. According to the Texas Tribune, "Unique
to the House bill was $17 million in allocations to the Department
of Justice prescribing legal services for children and $20 million
to ICE to fund alternatives to physical migrant detention centers."
[Texas Tribune,
6/27/19]
2019: Fitzpatrick Voted For A Supplemental Border Appropriations Bill
To Provide $4.5 Billion To Address Humanitarian Concerns For Migrants
At The U.S.-Mexico Border. In June 2019, Fitzpatrick voted for the
House border crisis bill. According to Congressional Quarterly, the bill
"would provide $4.5 billion in supplemental fiscal 2019 appropriations
to address humanitarian concerns for migrants at the U.S.-Mexico
border." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of
230-195. [House Vote 414,
6/25/19; Congressional
Quarterly, 6/25/19;
Congressional Actions,
H.R.3401]
The House Version Of The Border Crisis Bill Included More
Restrictions On Appropriations. According to The Washington Post,
"The House Democratic Caucus's progressive wing pushed a bill, which
the House passed, that restricted how the administration could use
the funds and improved health and safety standards for detained
migrants. But the Senate --- backed by dozens of Senate Democrats
and facing a veto threat from Trump --- sent back a bipartisan
agreement that slimmed down the House bill's restrictions and gave
some money for immigration enforcement to the Pentagon, Immigration
and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and immigration judges. [Washington
Post,
6/29/19]
The House Border Crisis Bill Included Guardrails Intended To
Prevent The Misappropriation Of Funds. According to the Texas
Tribune, "The two chambers were furthest apart on how much leeway to
give the Trump administration with this new funding. Perhaps the
most significant distinction in the House bill were the
"guardrails," as some members have called them --- provisions
intended to prevent the misappropriation of funds by ICE and the
Trump administration. Republicans argued that these restrictions on
implementation would severely limit the ability for the Trump
administration to administer a unilateral response in an emergency
situation. Those so-called guardrails were aimed at preventing the
White House from redirecting appropriations away from humanitarian
aid and toward immigration enforcement programs." [Texas Tribune,
6/27/19]
The House Version Of The Border Crisis Bill Did More To Improve
Conditions At Detention Facilities Than The Senate Version.
According to The New York Times, "House Democrats say the Senate
measure does too little to ensure that conditions improve at
detention facilities or at centers caring for children that are run
by government contractors. The House bill includes language that
would require Customs and Border Protection to establish plans and
protocols to deliver medical care, improve nutrition and hygiene,
and train personnel to ensure the health and safety of children and
adults in custody." [New York Times,
6/26/19]
The House Version Of The Border Crisis Bill Provided Funds For
Legal Services. According to the Texas Tribune, "Unique to the
House bill was $17 million in allocations to the Department of
Justice prescribing legal services for children and $20 million to
ICE to fund alternatives to physical migrant detention centers."
[Texas Tribune,
6/27/19]
The House Version Of The Border Crisis Bill Included More Funding
For Setting Up Additional Temporary Facilities And Providing Basic
Needs Such As Blankets, Water, And Food. According to
Congressional Quarterly, the House bill "also would provide nearly
$1.5 billion to the Homeland Security Department, $150 million
more than in the Senate bill. Some of that money would go to Customs
and Border Protection for setting up temporary facilities, providing
safe and sanitary shelter and covering basic needs such as blankets,
water and food; increase processing capacity of agencies, and
provide medical and legal services. The bill also includes $20
million to Immigration and Customs Enforcement to expand the
alternatives to detention program." [Congressional Quarterly,
6/25/19]
2019: Fitzpatrick Voted Against Establishing An Official Ombudsman To
Investigate Complaints Against DHS Border Immigration Agencies And
Personnel And Making It Easier For Migrants To Seek Asylum. In
September 2019, Fitzpatrick voted against a bill that would, according
to Congressional Quarterly, "establish an independent ombudsman for
within the Homeland Security Department to process, investigate, and
resolve complaints against DHS border and immigration agencies and
personnel and to review the compliance of Customs and Border Protection
and Immigration and Customs Enforcement personnel with departmental
policies and standards of care for undocumented immigrants in custody.
It would require the ombudsman to make a number of policy
recommendations for DHS border security operations, including to foster
cooperation between CBP, ICE, and border communities." The vote was on
passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 230-194. The bill was
never taken up in the Senate. [House Vote 546,
9/25/19; Congressional
Quarterly, 9/25/19;
Congressional Actions,
H.R.2203]
The Bill Prohibited Certain Detention Practices And Implemented
New Training Requirements. According to Congressional Quarterly,
the bill "would make a variety of changes at DHS, including
prohibiting certain detention practices, implementing new training
requirements and blocking some policies that restrict the ability of
migrants to seek asylum." [Congressional Quarterly,
9/24/19]
ACLU Endorsed The Bill. According to Congressional Quarterly,
"'By improving complaint processes and requiring stakeholder
consultation, this bill creates new vehicles to address the pattern
of abusive conduct by DHS in the border region and throughout the
nation,' said Astrid Dominguez, director of the ACLU Border Rights
Center, in a statement. 'We strongly support these much-needed
structural improvements to DHS's transparency.'" [Congressional
Quarterly, 9/25/19]
2021: Fitzpatrick Voted Against Granting Access To Legal Counsel To
Individuals Subject To Secondary Or Deferred Inspections When Attempting
To Enter The U.S., Including Accommodations For In-Person Counsel. In
April 2021, Fitzpatrick voted against the Access to Counsel Act of 2021
which would, according to Congressional Quarterly, "require the Homeland
Security Department to provide access to counsel for all individuals
subject to a secondary or deferred inspection when seeking admission to
the United States, effective 180 days after enactment [...] It would
require DHS to accommodate, to the greatest extent practicable, a
request by the individual for in-person counsel at the inspection site."
The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 217-207.
The Senate did not take substantive action on the bill. [House Vote
129, 4/21/21;
Congressional Quarterly,
4/21/21; Congressional Actions,
H.R.
1573]
Under H.R. 1573, If An Individual With Legal Travel Documents,
Including U.S. Citizens, Lawful Permanent Residents And Visa
Holders, Were To Be Detained By Border Agents When Seeking Admission
To The U.S., The Individual Would Be Able To Contact A Lawyer,
Relative Or Friend. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The
second bill (HR 1573), which passed 217-207 without a single
Republican vote, would ensure people with travel documents ---
including U.S. citizens, permanent residents and visa holders ---
may contact an attorney, relative or friend if detained by border
agents at a port of entry." [Congressional Quarterly,
4/21/21]
Republicans Claimed H.R. 1573 Would Threaten National Security And
Encourage An Influx Of Immigrants In The Southern Border.
According to Congressional Quarterly, "The bills were passed over
the protests of Republicans, who claimed the measures would
undermine U.S. national security and encourage more migration to the
U.S.-Mexico border." [Congressional Quarterly,
4/21/21]
Republicans Falsely Claimed H.R. 1573 Would Mandate The Government
Into Paying For Immigrants' Legal Counsel In The Southern Border,
Whereas H.R. 1573 Would Only Apply To Covered Individuals' With
Legal Travel Documents And Would Require Immigration Officers To
Only Grant Access To Contact Counsel At The Individuals' Expense.
According to Congressional Quarterly, "Republicans also falsely
claimed that Jayapal's bill would force the government to pay for
migrants at the southern border to have free legal counsel. The bill
only applies to those with travel documentation, like an approved
visa, and requires border agents to give detained travelers a
'meaningful opportunity' to contact counsel at their own expense."
[Congressional Quarterly,
4/21/21]
The Bill Would Permit Certain Immigrants, Who Are Detained At
Ports Of Entry Like Airports, To Access A Lawyer. According to The
New York Times, "The House also approved, 217 to 207, entirely along
party lines, a related measure that would require that certain
immigrants be allowed access to a lawyer when they are detained at
ports of entry, such as airports." [The New York Times, 4/21/21]
Republicans Argued The Bill Would Relax Immigration Instead Of
Strengthening Immigration Laws During A Surge Of Migration At The
Southern Border. According to The New York Times, "Republicans
opposed both bills; just one of them, Representative Brian
Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, crossed party lines to support the No
Ban measure. They argued that controls on immigration should be
tightened, not relaxed, given the crush of migration through the
southwestern border." [The New York Times, 4/21/21]
Supporters Of The Bill Argued This Legislation Would Ensure U.S.
Politics Never Regress Back To The Trump Administration's Campaign
To Shutdown The Entry Of All Muslims Into The Country. According
to The New York Times, "advocates say they send a clear message that
America cannot go back to the days of Mr. Trump, who called during
his presidential campaign for 'a total and complete shutdown of
Muslims entering the United States,' and then strove to put those
words into action once he took office." [The New York Times,
4/21/21]
According To The Congressional Budget Office, The Implementation
Of The Bill Would Cost $825 Million Over A Five Year Span.
According to The New York Times, "The Congressional Budget Office
estimates that the bill would cost $825 million to implement over
five years." [The New York Times,
4/21/21]
The Bill Would Allow Individuals Subject To Secondary Or Deferred
Inspection To Consult With Their Legal Counsel And A Relative Within
An Hour Of The Secondary Inspection And Consult As Frequently As
Necessary. According to Congressional Quarterly, "require the
department to allow such individuals to consult, including via
telephone, with legal representation and a relative, petitioner or
other connection within the United States within the first hour of a
secondary inspection and as necessary throughout the inspection
process." [Congressional Quarterly,
4/21/21]
The Bill Would Allow The Legal Counsel To Advocate On Behalf Of
The Detained Individual By Providing Documentation To The Examining
Immigration Officer. According to Congressional Quarterly,
"authorize the counsel to advocate on behalf of the individual by
providing documentation and other evidence to the examining
immigration officer." [Congressional Quarterly,
4/21/21]
The Bill Would Prevent A Detainee Of Rescinding Their Legal
Immigration Status Before Giving Them The Opportunity To Consult
With A Legal Counsel. According to Congressional Quarterly,
"prohibit the department from accepting paperwork from lawful
permanent residents subject to secondary or deferred inspection that
would give up such individuals' legal immigration status without
providing them the opportunity to seek advice from counsel."
[Congressional Quarterly,
4/21/21]
2021: Fitzpatrick Effectively Voted Against The Access To Counsel Act
Of 2021. In April 2021, according to Congressional Quarterly,
Fitzpatrick voted for the "motion to recommit the bill to the House
Judiciary Committee." The vote was on a motion to recommit. The House
rejected the motion by a vote of 209-215. [House Vote 128,
4/21/21; Congressional
Quarterly, 4/21/21;
Congressional Actions, H.R.
1573]
2021: Fitzpatrick Effectively Voted Against The Access To Counsel
Act. In April 2021, according to Congressional Quarterly, Fitzpatrick
voted against the "adoption of the rule (H Res 330) that would provide
for House floor consideration of [...] the Access to Counsel Act (HR
1573) and the Washington, D.C. Admission Act (HR 51). The rule would
provide up to one hour of general debate on each bill." The vote was on
the adoption of the rule. The House adopted the rule by a vote 214-207.
[House Vote 124,
4/20/21; Congressional
Quarterly, 4/20/21;
Congressional Actions, H.R.
1573;
Congressional Actions, H.Res.
330]
2021: Fitzpatrick Effectively Voted Against The Access To Counsel
Act. In April 2021, according to Congressional Quarterly, Fitzpatrick
voted against the "motion to order the previous question (thus ending
debate and possibility of amendment) on the rule (H Res 330) that would
provide for House floor consideration of [...] the Access to Counsel
Act (HR 1573) and the Washington, D.C. Admission Act (HR 51). The rule
would provide up to one hour of general debate on each bill." The vote
was on a motion to order the previous question. The House agreed to the
motion by a vote 216-206. [House Vote 123,
4/20/21; Congressional
Quarterly, 4/20/21;
Congressional Actions, H.R.
1573;
Congressional Actions, H.Res.
330]
2020: Fitzpatrick Voted Against Granting Immigrants The Right To
Counsel When Detained By U.S. CBP And ICE. In July 2020, Fitzpatrick
voted against the Access to Counsel Act that would, according to
Congressional Quarterly, "require the Homeland Security Department to
provide access to counsel for all individuals subject to a secondary
inspection when seeking admission to the United States. Specifically, it
would require the department to allow such individuals to consult with
legal representation and a relative, petitioner or other connection
within the United States, within the first hour of a secondary
inspection. It would also prohibit the department from accepting
paperwork from lawful permanent residents subject to secondary
inspection that would give up such individuals' legal immigration
status without providing them the opportunity to seek advice from
counsel." The vote was on a motion to concur in the Senate amendment.
The House agreed to the motion by a vote of 231-184. The bill never
became law. [House Vote 154,
7/22/20; Congressional
Quarterly, 7/22/20;
Congressional Actions,
H.R.2486]
The Bill Granted Immigrants The Right To Counsel When Detained By
US CBP Or ICE. According to Vox, the bill "would allow immigrants
to contact an attorney or other legal service provider when they are
detained by US Customs and Border Protection or US Immigration and
Customers Enforcement. Immigrants taken into custody currently do
not have any such assurance." [Vox,
7/22/20]
The Bill Stemmed From Confusion After The Travel Ban Was Issued In
2017. According to Vox, "The Access to Counsel Act was born out of
the confusion in the days after the first travel ban was issued in
2017 [...] At that time, immigrants were detained in airports
without the opportunity to hire an attorney. Some immigration
officials even pressured green card holders and those with valid
visas to sign documents relinquishing their legal status." [Vox,
7/22/20]
The Bill Did Not Require The US To Provide Legal Counsel For
Immigrants And Therefore Many Would Still Go Unrepresented.
According to Vox, "The bill would affirm that people detained by
immigration officials in airports, at the border, and under other
specific circumstances have the right to access legal help, either
in person or remotely. They would, however, still have to find a
lawyer independently since the bill doesn't create any obligation on
the part of the government to provide counsel or information about
how to obtain counsel [...] While the bill would remove some
obstacles to obtaining legal help, it's likely that many immigrants
would still go unrepresented if it becomes law. Especially for
migrants with limited English proficiency and those who can't afford
to hire an attorney, it may be a challenge to even identify a lawyer
who will take their case." [Vox,
7/22/20]