2017: Schweikert Voted For The Criminal Alien Gang Member Removal Act. In September 2017, Schweikert voted for legislation that would have it made it easier for the federal government to deport suspected immigrant gang members. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Passage of the bill that would define a criminal gang as a group of five or more persons that has the primary purpose of the commission of one or more certain criminal offenses and would prohibit individuals defined as foreign criminal gang members from entering the United States. It would prohibit a criminal gang member, who is not a U.S. citizen or U.S. national, from being eligible for certain immigration benefits such as asylum, special immigrant juvenile status, and temporary protected status." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 233 to 175. The Senate took no substantive action on the legislation. [House Vote 517, 9/14/17; Congressional Quarterly, 9/14/17; Congressional Actions, H.R. 3697]
Rep. Michelle Lujan Grisham (D-NM): "The Bill Broadly Overreaches And Puts Americans And Immigrants At Risk Of Being Unjustly Profiled." According to The Hill, "But critics, including civil liberties groups, said the legislation would threaten due process rights. 'The bill broadly overreaches and puts Americans and immigrants at risk of being unjustly profiled,' Congressional Hispanic Caucus Chairwoman Michelle Lujan Grisham (D-N.M.) said. 'We all support efforts to make our cities and neighborhoods safer, including a crackdown on gang violence. But this legislation infringes on constitutional protections, and is irresponsible and dangerous.'" [The Hill, 9/14/17]
Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA): Legislation's Definition Of A Gang Was Overly Broad, Potentially Impacting Religious Organizations. According to The Hill, "The bill would also define a criminal gang as a group of five or more people whose primary purpose is to commit a felony drug offense, fraud or violent crime, importing or harboring people in the U.S. illegally or obstruct justice. Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), a senior member of the House Judiciary Committee, said that the broad definitions could apply to groups of people that aren't really gangs. She offered religious organizations offering shelter and assistance to undocumented immigrants as an example of what could fall under that definition. 'This may seem reasonable until you look at the offenses listed. These offenses could sweep in many people that no reasonable person would think of as a gang member,' Lofgren said. 'That means that under this bill, a religious organization that aids undocumented immigrants could be a criminal gang.'" [The Hill, 9/14/17]
2023: Schweikert Voted To Require DHS To Restore Detention Facilities. In May 2023, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted for the Secure The Border Act, which, "Among other immigration enforcement provisions, the bill would require DHS to reopen or restore the use of all Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention facilities that were in operation on Jan. 20, 2021." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 219 to 213, thus the bill was sent to the Senate. [House Vote 209, 5/11/23; Congressional Quarterly, 5/11/23; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2]
2023: Schweikert Voted To Establish A System Based On The E-Verify Pilot Program To Verify Whether Workers Were Eligible To Work In The U.S. In May 2023, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted for the Secure The Border Act, which would "require DHS to create a system based on the E-Verify pilot program to verify whether prospective employees are eligible to work in the U.S. and gradually require all employers to begin using the new system over 24 months, with 36-month deadline for agricultural sector employers." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 219 to 213, thus the bill was sent to the Senate. [House Vote 209, 5/11/23; Congressional Quarterly, 5/11/23; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2]
All Employers Would Be Required To Implement The New E-Verify System Within 24 Months, While Agricultural Employers Could Implement The System Within 36 Months. According to Congressional Quarterly, "require DHS to create a system based on the E-Verify pilot program to verify whether prospective employees are eligible to work in the U.S. and gradually require all employers to begin using the new system over 24 months, with 36-month deadline for agricultural sector employers. [Congressional Quarterly, 5/11/23]
Some Republicans Were Concerned That Expanding E-Verify Without Reworking The Agricultural Visa Program Would Make It Harder For Rural Farmer To Find Workers. According to CNN, "There were also concerns over a provision in the bill to expand E-verify with some Republicans worried that without reworking the agricultural visa program, the provision could make it more difficult for rural farmers to find a pipeline of workers." [CNN, 5/11/23]
The Bill Would Resume The Border Wall Construction, Raise Funding For Border Agents And Upgrade Border Equipment, Re-Implement The "Remain In Mexico Policy," Create New Restrictions On Asylum-Seeking, And Enhance E-Verify. According to CNN, "The bill would restart construction of a border wall, increase funding for border agents and upgraded border technology, reinstate the 'remain in Mexico' policy, place new restrictions on asylum seekers, and enhance requirements for E-verify, a database employers use to verify immigration status." [CNN, 5/11/23]
2023: Schweikert Voted For An Amendment That Would Express That Implementing The E-Verify Program Would Address Any Adverse Impact On The Agricultural Workforce, Operations And Food Security. In May 2023, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted for an amendment to the rule provided by H.Res. 383, which would "also express the sense of Congress that, in implementing the E-Verify Program, DHS shall ensure any adverse impact on the nation's agricultural workforce, operations and food security are considered and addressed." The vote was on the adoption of an amendment. The House adopted the amendment by a vote of 236 to 190. [House Vote 206, 5/10/23; Congressional Quarterly, 5/10/23; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 383; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2; Congressional Actions, H.Amdt. 172]
2021: Schweikert Voted Against Replacing The Current Federal E-Verify Employment Verification System With A New Electronic System And Against Requiring All System Users, Including Agricultural Employers, To Use The New System. In March 2021, Schweikert voted against the Farm Workforce Modernization Act of 2021 which would, according to Congressional Quarterly, "replace the E-Verify employment status verification system with a similar system for use by the agricultural sector [...] It would require DHS to terminate the existing federal E-Verify employment status verification system and administer a new electronic system to determine the eligibility of individuals to work in U.S. It would require agricultural sector employers and users of the current system to use the new system." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 247-174. The Senate did not take substantive action on the bill. [House Vote 93, 3/18/21; Congressional Quarterly, 3/18/21; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1603]
The Bill Would Fortify Enforcement Of The Federal E-Verify System, Not Even Providing Exemptions To Small Farmers. According to Vox, "The bill tightens up enforcement, requiring farm employers to participate in the federal E-Verify program, with no exemptions for small farmers." [Vox, 3/18/21]
The Bill Would Maintain The Federal Minimum Wage For A Year And Limit Increases At 3.25% For Following Nine Years. According to Vox, "It would freeze the minimum wage set by the government for one year and cap increases at 3.25 percent for the next nine years." [Vox, 3/18/21]
2021: Schweikert Effectively Voted Against An Amendment That Would Allow Homeland Security To Delay A New E-Verify Employment Authorization System For Up To 180 Days If There Were To Be A High Number Of Pending Applications For Certified Agricultural Worker Status. In March 2021, Schweikert effectively voted against the manager's amendment to the Farm Workforce Modernization Act which would, according to Congressional Quarterly, "allow the secretary to delay E-Verify implementation for up to 180 days if a significant number of applications for certified agricultural worker status are pending." The vote was on the adoption of the rule. The House adopted the rule by a vote of 216-204, thus automatically adopting the manager's amendment. [House Vote 79, 3/16/21; Congressional Quarterly, 3/16/21; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1603; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 233]
2021: Schweikert Effectively Voted Against An Amendment That Would Allow Homeland Security To Delay A New E-Verify Employment Authorization System For Up To 180 Days If There Were To Be A High Number Of Pending Applications For Certified Agricultural Worker Status. In March 2021, Schweikert effectively voted against the manager's amendment to the Farm Workforce Modernization Act which would, according to Congressional Quarterly, "allow the secretary to delay E-Verify implementation for up to 180 days if a significant number of applications for certified agricultural worker status are pending." The vote was on a motion to order the previous question. The House agreed to the motion by a vote of 212-200. [House Vote 78, 3/16/21; Congressional Quarterly, 3/16/21; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1603; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 233]
2021: Schweikert Effectively Voted Against An Amendment That Would Ensure The PRO Act Would Not Modify Existing Immigration Laws That Forbid Employers From Knowingly Hiring Undocumented Workers. In March 2021, Schweikert effectively voted against the manager's amendment to the Protecting the Right to Organize Act which would, according to Congressional Quarterly, "state that none of the bill's provisions would modify existing immigration law that generally prohibits employers from knowingly hiring undocumented individuals." The vote was on the adoption of the rule. The House adopted the rule by a vote of 218-197, thus automatically adopting the amendment. [House Vote 64, 3/8/21; Congressional Quarterly, 3/8/21; Congressional Actions, H.R. 842; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 188]
2021: Schweikert Effectively Voted Against An Amendment That Would Ensure The Bill Would Not Modify Existing Immigration Laws That Forbid Employers From Knowingly Hiring Undocumented Workers. In March 2021, Schweikert effectively voted against the manager's amendment to the Protecting the Right to Organize Act which would, according to Congressional Quarterly, "state that none of the bill's provisions would modify existing immigration law that generally prohibits employers from knowingly hiring undocumented individuals." The vote was on a motion to order the previous question. The House agreed to the motion by a vote of 213-195. [House Vote 63, 3/8/21; Congressional Quarterly, 3/8/21; Congressional Actions, H.R. 842; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 188]
2018: Schweikert Voted For A Republican Immigration Reform Measure Which Provided $9.3 Billion In Wall Funding, A Three-Year Renewable Temporary Status For DACA Recipients, And Required All Employers To Verify Immigration Status. In June 2018, Schweikert voted for a conservative immigration reform bill. Acceding to Congressional Quarterly, "Passage of the bill that would authorize $24.8 billion for fiscal 2018 through fiscal 2022 for various border security activities, including $9.3 billion for a border wall and other physical barriers and would provide individuals registered under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program with a three-year, renewable contingent non-immigrant legal status but with no special path to citizenship. It would modify legal immigration by ending the diversity visa program and restricting most family-based immigration to allow only spouses and minor children of legal permanent residents to receive green cards. It would increase enforcement of immigration laws within the United States, including by requiring all employers to verify the immigration status and eligibility of individuals seeking jobs in the United States." The vote was on passage. The House rejected the bill by a vote of 193 to 231. [House Vote 282, 6/21/18; Congressional Quarterly, 6/21/18; Congressional Actions, H.R. 4760]
2018: Schweikert Voted Against The So-Called Compromise GOP Immigration Will That Funded The Wall, Provided A Pathway To Citizenship For DACA Recipients, And Ended The Child Separation Policy. In June 2018, Schweikert voted against the "compromise" immigration proposal between Republican conservatives and moderates. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Passage of the bill that would appropriate $23.4 billion for various border security activities. Included would be $16.6 billion for a 'border wall system,' which would be available from fiscal 2019 through fiscal 2027, and $6.8 billion for border security investments, which would be available from fiscal 2019 through fiscal 2023. It would provide those with Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals status a six-year renewable contingent non-immigrant legal status and would allow them to apply for a green card after five years, providing a path to citizenship. It would modify legal immigration by ending the diversity visa program and reallocating those visas to other classifications. The bill would require that undocumented immigrants who are charged with a misdemeanor offense for improper entry into the United States be detained with their minor children." The vote was on passage. The House rejected the bill by a vote of 121 to 301. [House Vote 297, 6/27/18; Congressional Quarterly, 6/27/18; Congressional Actions, H.R. 6136]
2018: Schweikert Effectively Voted Against Ending The Trump Administration's Policy Of Separating Children From Their Parents At The Border For Those Accused Of Entering The United States Illegally. In June 2018, Schweikert effectively voted against an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "prohibit[ed] law enforcement from detaining, separately from their child, any individual accused of illegally entering the United States with a child, in cases in which the child is under the age of 18." The underlying legislation was the so-called GOP immigration compromise bill. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 190 to 230. [House Vote 296, 6/27/18; Congressional Quarterly, 6/27/18; Congressional Actions, H.R. 6136]
The U.S. Government Is Separating Children From Their Parents At The Border If They Are Accused Of Entering The U.S. Illegally. According to Vox, "As a matter of policy, the US government is separating families who seek asylum in the US by crossing the border illegally. Dozens of parents are being split from their children each day --- the children labeled 'unaccompanied minors' and sent to government custody or foster care, the parents labeled criminals and sent to jail. [...] Family separation isn't sudden, nor is it arbitrary. While the Trump administration claims it's taking extraordinary measures in response to a temporary surge, it is entirely possible this will be the new normal. Here's what you need to know to understand it." [Vox, 6/15/18]
Family Separation Is In Part Done Because Children Cannot Be Sent To Jail With Their Parents; Jailing The Parents Is A Harsher Than Normal Penalty. According to Vox, "Typically, people apprehended crossing into the US are held in immigration detention and sent before an immigration judge to see if they will be deported as unauthorized immigrants. But migrants who've been referred for criminal prosecution get sent to a federal jail and brought before a federal judge a few weeks later to see if they'll get prison time. That's where the separation happens --- because you can't be kept with your children in federal jail." [Vox, 6/15/18]
Between October 2017 And The End Of May 2018, At Least 2,700 Children Were Separated From Their Parents. According to Vox, "Between October 1, 2017 and May 31, 2018, at least 2,700 children have been split from their parents. 1,995 of them were separated over the last six weeks of that window --- April 18 to May 31 --- indicating that at present, an average of 45 children are being taken from their parents each day. To many critics of the Trump administration, family separation is an unpardonable atrocity. Articles depict children crying themselves to sleep because they don't know where their parents are; one Honduran man killed himself in a detention cell after his child was taken from him." [Vox, 6/15/18]
2019: Schweikert Voted Against An Omnibus Spending Proposal Preventing Another Government Shutdown And Providing $1.375 Billion For New And Replacement Barriers, But Not The Full $5.7 Billion For The Wall. In February 2019, Schweikert voted against the FY 2019 consolidated appropriations bill. According to Congressional Quarterly, "This Conference Summary describes the agreement on H J Res 31, Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY 2019, which provides detailed, full-year funding for all seven remaining FY 2019 spending bills ---thereby completing the FY 2019 appropriations process. The centerpiece, Homeland Security, provides $1.375 billion for new and replacement barriers along the U.S. border with Mexico, including 55 miles of new fencing, along with an increase of $1.5 billion in other border security funding --- such as for new technology at ports of entry and additional Customs officers. Outside of the Homeland bill, it includes another $1.6 billion for border security, as well as a 1.9% pay increase for federal civilian employees." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 300 to 128. The bill was later signed into law by the president. [House Vote 87, 2/14/19; Congressional Quarterly, 2/14/19; Congressional Actions, H. J. Res. 31]
2017: Schweikert Voted To Allow DHS To Use Private Immigration Detention Facilities. In September 2017, Schweikert voted against an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "prohibit[ed] funds appropriated to the Department of Homeland Security to be used to enter into contracts with privatized immigration detention facilities." The underlying legislation was a legislative vehicle for an FY 2018 Omnibus appropriations bill. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 183 to 230. [House Vote 465, 9/7/17; Congressional Quarterly, 9/7/17; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 316; Congressional Actions, H.R. 3354]
2013: Schweikert Opposed Cutting $44 Million From The State-Federal Cooperative Immigration Enforcement Program Knows As 287(g). In June 2013, Schweikert voted against an amendment, sponsored by Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) that would have cut $44 million designated for ICE's 287(g) program, and directed $4.4 million of the money saved to the DHS Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. [House Vote 195, 6/5/13; Congressional Record, 6/5/13; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 99; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2217]
287(g) Program Allows State and Local Law Enforcement To Enforce Federal Immigration Law Under An Agreement With ICE. According to ICE, the program "allows a state and local law enforcement entity to enter into a partnership with ICE, under a joint Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). The state or local entity receives delegated authority for immigration enforcement within their jurisdictions." "287(g)" refers to the section of the Immigration and Nationality Act that authorizes the program. [U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 12/31/12; "Delegation of Immigration Authority Section 287(g) Immigration and Nationality Act, " ICE Website, Viewed 11/14/14]
March 2010 DHS Inspector General Audit Of 287(g) Program Found Problems In ICE Oversight Of Local Partners. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, "Immigration and Customs Enforcement is not adequately vetting, training or supervising the police forces that have been empowered to enforce immigration law, according to the March [2010] report by the Department of Homeland Security's inspector general." [Atlanta Journal Constitution, 4/26/10]
Bill Included Nearly $44 Million More Than Administration Requested For 287(g) Program. According to the House Appropriations Committee, the Committee's version of the bill included "$43,592,000 to restore the 287(g) program to the fiscal year 2013 level." [House Report 113-91, 5/29/13]
Obama Administration Objected To Bill's Additional Funding For 287(g). According to a June 2013 Statement of Administration Policy, "The Administration also objects to the funding provided above the FY 2014 Budget request for the 287(g) program, since Secure Communities is more consistent, efficient, and cost-effective in identifying and removing criminal and other priority aliens than the 287(g) program, and has been deployed nationwide." [Office of Management and Budget, 6/3/13]