2019: Schweikert 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, Schweikert 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: Schweikert Voted Against 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, Schweikert voted against 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: Schweikert 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, Schweikert 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: Schweikert 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, Schweikert 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: Schweikert Effectively Voted Against The Access To Counsel Act Of 2021. In April 2021, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert 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: Schweikert Effectively Voted Against The Access To Counsel Act. In April 2021, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert 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: Schweikert Effectively Voted Against The Access To Counsel Act. In April 2021, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert 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: Schweikert Voted Against Granting Immigrants The Right To Counsel When Detained By U.S. CBP And ICE. In July 2020, Schweikert 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]