Q&A with U.S. Rep. Henry Cuellar 

Sandra Sanchez | ssanchez@themonitor.com
Posted: Monday, October 6, 2014 11:26 am

EDITOR’S NOTE: U.S. Rep. Henry Cuellar of Laredo was the only Democrat to vote for controversial immigration reform legislation earlier this year following a surge of undocumented immigrants into South Texas. He explains during a Sept. 26 meeting with The Monitor’s editorial board as excerpted below:

Q:You’ve been in the thick of things with immigration. What’s your view of things:

A: Certainly the numbers have gone down. There are still high numbers. If you look at 3,000 unaccompanied kids for August and if you take a family unit and say half of them are kids, then you still have about 5,000 kids coming through the lower Rio Grande area and we still have to address the issue one way or another. The issue was addressed on the House side, it’s not the way I would have liked to see it. It didn’t pass the Senate. I am hoping I can bring it up again in December when we do the Omnibus Appropriations bill. I did talk with Secretary (Jeh) Johnson and said I have some ideas on how we can address this and how we can compromise. Everyone talks about how we can be bipartisan but the moment you start being bipartisan then your own members say “Why are you working with a Republican?” I’m sure Sen. (John) Cornyn got questions why he was working with a Democrat. But the only way you can get things done is to be bipartisan. I offered the Democrats my legislation. I think people had basically gone to their own corners and nobody wanted to talk.

Q: Speaker John Boehner said this might come up next year and now you are saying December. Is it frustrating that this is obviously being put on hold until after the November elections?

A: It always is because as members of Congress we are sent up to Washington to address easy and tough issues and, generally speaking, Congress has a way of avoiding the tough issues. Immigration reform, whether it’s the unaccompanied kids, whether its ISIS or the authorization of war, everybody talks about it but when it comes to the tough votes then Congress as a whole body has a way of postponing issues.

Q: You got criticized in August with your vote with Republicans to expedite the deportation of Central Americans.

A: People got too partisan. If you look at what happened here. President Obama was on the same page. Look at a June 30 letter he sent off to the leadership in the House and Senate. He said “We need to make this change.” Nancy Pelosi was on board also, Sec. Johnson was the only one who stayed the course, everybody else changed their mind after some people started complaining that we shouldn’t do that. It was not a Democratic or a Republican issue. I felt this was the right thing. If you remember this issue was very, very quiet. I released some photographs to the Hearst papers because I didn’t like that this was being kept very quiet. I never thought how much of a debate this would create, but I did this because I thought it was important that the American public knew what was going on. Then after that, the president said there was an emergency and I disagreed with him because if you look at the numbers, they were there the year before but I think those numbers were being kept quiet because there was an effort to do immigration reform. My opinion is that the administration was keeping those numbers quiet because they wanted to see immigration reform and they wanted to say the border was under control. In March and April we were having the appropriations hearings and I sit on the Homeland Security Subcommittee and I asked them but they said some numbers had increased but they really didn’t go into depth.

Q: As a member of the Homeland Security Subcommittee, they didn’t reveal to you all what was happening?

A: They did tell us that the numbers were going up but they didn’t give us the real numbers. I remember it was on a Sunday morning that I got a call and met with some Border Patrol people and they said “Henry, we want to show you something. We’ve been told not to talk about this but we want to show you this.” And that’s when I saw the photographs, the way they were being detained and a large number of folks were here and they were being sent off to Laredo. That’s when I said I think we need to have a debate about this. So I brought this up. Afterwards, from hindsight you saw that the administration knew about this but were keeping numbers low. When we asked them in Appropriations they didn’t really paint the picture until we saw it from the men and women on the ground. Look at the videos of the hearings, at the same time I was asking Secretary (of State) John Kerry: Why are you cutting 49 percent of the money to Mexico and cutting money to Central American? This was before these (immigration) numbers were released and the secretary said “We aren’t cutting money to Mexico, your numbers are wrong.” And I said “I’m looking at this and you are cutting.”

There are two conversations I had with Secretary Kerry that, with all due respect to the administration, shows their emphasis really isn’t on the border or to Mexico or Central America. One, is last year I was saying look what’s happening in Tamaulipas, the murders and all that, and he really wasn’t aware of that. I asked why we weren’t giving more money to Mexico and Kerry’s response was “They have Carlos Slim.” [EDITOR’S NOTE: Carlos Slim Helú is a Mexican investor who was ranked the richest person in the world from 2010 to 2013.] And this year I said ‘Why are you cutting,’ And they said they aren’t. And all that is in a public forum. At the end of the day, we won over the administration. The cuts were not made to Mexico and actually money was increased to Central America.

Q: Explain the timeline.

A: In April of this year, I asked the ambassador: “Why are you all cutting money to Mexico?” And his answer was a bit insulting because he said “Mexico doesn’t have the capacity to handle this money.” So you can send $3.2 billion to Israel and they can handle it, to Pakistan and Jordan and they can handle it? There are five countries part of the $1 billion club — Israel, Egypt, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Jordan. So those countries can have the capacity but Mexico can’t handle the little money that we give them? Then in May I released the photographs and then all of a sudden they said “it’s a humanitarian crisis.”

Q: In calling it a “humanitarian crisis” didn’t that allow the administration to do things they previously couldn’t, such as opening up additional shelters for unaccompanied minors?

A: I don’t know about that. Now, could they move money to open up shelters without calling it a humanitarian crisis? The answer is yes.

Q: Tell us about the bill you proposed with Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas

A: We need to change the 2008 human trafficking law, among other things. On June 30, President Obama says we needs to change the law and then he also says Congress isn’t doing anything on immigration reform and so I’ll act on my own. Then some immigrant groups say President Obama shouldn’t change the 2008 law.

During that time, we were trying to get him to come down to the border. He was in Austin and Dallas, 500 miles away. He could have flown here or to Lackland AFB and seen some of the kids. When he was in Dallas he was having meetings with community leaders, but why not come down here to the border if you’re going to talk about the border?

I found it ironic because the president, who first asked us to change the law, came out at the end and said “I’m going to veto it.” A Democratic senator told me the White House didn’t want to get their hands dirty. I joke around how Republicans followed me around on this idea in the end when I tried to compromise with Democrats, no names mentioned, and said “Why don’t we do this and this?”

“Nah, not right now,” is what they told me. I asked “Do you have a better way of addressing this?”

Q: You say no names mentioned but we’re assuming a lot of that pressure came from the Hispanic Caucus.

A: Why not sit down and look at how to address the issue,? I represent part of this area here and I have a say so. With all due respect to Rubén (Hinojosa), he said “It (the legislation) doesn’t represent the Hispanic Caucus.” I said: “It never represented the Hispanic Caucus, but I represent the border. I have a right to represent my people. Many people just got very personal on this issue without sitting down and talking about it. I said if you don’t like this then offer a solution. A lot of people just think the Border Patrol get those people but there are agreements and certain things in place, like the Mexican consulate on how to agree with the kids. Does anybody even understand this?

Q: Explain the 2008 human trafficking law.

A: Basically Mexican and Canadians are treated differently. If you are a non-Mexican or non-Canadian, a non-continguous person, basically if you come in that “voluntary” part comes in Border Patrol will ask them (if you are seeking) asylum, (have suffered) credible fear or (are a) victim of trafficking? And that last question is to ask them if they want to voluntarily return themselves. If they say “no I want to return myself voluntarily” then they are handed over to the Mexican consulate. There is an agreement worked out between the Mexican government and State Department on the voluntary return of those kids. The Mexican Consulate then comes in with another layer of protection for those kids and asks “Hey, are you sure you want to turn yourself in? You can claim asylum, credible fear or human trafficking.” And if they say “No, I don’t,” then they are returned.

What we’re saying is to treat everybody the same. The most important thing is I want to put everybody before judges. Right now it takes 900-plus days to have a hearing and I want to have a hearing as soon as possible for everybody coming in.

Q: A new report shows they aren’t showing up for court.

Seventy percent of the family units aren’t. Look, If you are in Central America and you go through a very difficult thing where you might get raped, you might be assaulted and once you get here and you get picked up and you get the NTA (Notice to Appear) and then they say you’ve got to show up. After you go through all that, realistically would you say ‘Sure I’ll show up so they can return me?’ No. Let’s be honest with each other.

Q: Is everyone sent back?

A: There are three categories. We were flying 20 to 25 planes per week for adults going back. The second category is family units, and some have been returned; and then the unaccompanied kids and not too many have been returned. All I’m saying is to give everybody an opportunity to appear before a judge who will decide.

Q: But there was a very quick turnaround time you were advocating in your legislation?

A: Right. So how come nobody ever said “You know what, 7 days don’t work, 45, 60 days? Nobody even wanted to talk about compromise.

Q: So instead of waiting 900 days for everyone, filter some out earlier?

A: Exactly. The judge at the preliminary hearing could say “there is nothing here.’ You would pay for counsel, we don’t pay for it. That’s how the law is now. Then you go through a regular hearing. I just want people before a judge as soon as possible. At least you would clear some of those who claim nothing at all.

Q: Who claim nothing at all to do what?

A: To claim asylum, to claim credible fear, to claim threats and trafficking. None of the protections would change.

Q: Isn’t that preliminary review currently being done by the Border Patrol who screen where a person is from, whether they have a criminal history?

A: I want a judge to make that decision. And if a judge says there is absolutely nothing there then you get returned, otherwise you go through the system.

Q: Do we have enough judges?

A: I want more judges. The critics were saying faster deportation means no protection. And we left every protection in place; we just want it to move faster. The problem was members of Congress voted against it without reading the darn bill. We have 66,000 unaccompanied kids and family units, half of them are kids, so that’s about 100,000 kids already here. I was telling the Democrats realistically if you don’t make a change these kids will likely stay here and that’s what is happening now.

Q: You can say the president is anti-Hispanic and the deporter in chief but how did you feel when you got criticized for being anti-Hispanic? In essence, you were called a vendido (a sell out)?

A: As Hispanics we’re not supposed to think or follow the rules of law otherwise we’re a vendido? I have a brain. I’m an attorney. I can think. Do I believe that everybody who has come here illegally should stay here? The answer is: No. There are some people that we don’t want here: murders, rapists, killers, there are people that they need to serve the time and then get deported. But I don’t believe we should take the position that we don’t deport anybody. That’s wrong.

http://www.themonitor.com/opinion/q_and_a/q-a-with-u-s-rep-henry-cuellar/article_8e392c90-4d75-11e4-a034-0017a43b2370.html