Murphy Pushes for Senate Passage of Bill Protecting Children from ICE

WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) on Wednesday went to the floor of the U.S. Senate to ask for unanimous consent to pass his bill to prevent ICE, Border Patrol, and all DHS agents from carrying out enforcement actions at school bus stops. A Senate Republican blocked the bill, allowing the Trump Administration to continue conducting aggressive enforcement operations in full view of children.

ICE recently conducted a week-long operation in Connecticut resulting in 118 arrests, which included an arrest of a parent who just dropped their child off at their bus stop. When reports surfaced, Sen. Murphy immediately joined elected officials and immigration rights advocates, as well as thousands of protestors in Danbury, to denounce the operation. Videos released to CT Insider by Danbury Public Schools under a Freedom of Information Act request documented the scene.

"I am […] just asking my colleagues: can we come to an agreement that school bus stops should be off limits? Can we decide to have compassion for that six-year-old child who got on the bus for his second day of school, and when he got back off the bus, was abandoned?" said Murphy.

Murphy chronicled the horrors witnessed by children in Danbury during their first week of school: "On the morning of August 26, the second day of school for most school districts in Connecticut, in Danbury, Connecticut, bus drivers began reporting to the school district that they had noticed the presence of ICE agents in and around school bus stops. At one of them, a constituent of mine, a father, was waiting at the school bus stop with his six-year-old son, and just moments after saying goodbye to his son for the second day of school, and even before the school bus had fully driven away, ICE arrested and detained him."

Murphy pleaded with his Republican colleagues to consider the trauma ICE is inflicting on innocent children: "For parents in this body, you know how anxious that first day of school is, how kids are just brimming with nervous anxiety about that first day, and you know what that feels like to watch your kid walk onto that school bus. Well, what do you think it does to those kids on that first and second day of school to see ICE officers at the school bus stop? Imagine that six-year-old who boarded the school bus, and when he got back from school that day and got off, his parent wasn't there. A six-year-old feeling like he had been abandoned. In this case, he may or may not have seen the arrest because it happened almost immediately after he got on."

Murphy emphasized that ICE blatantly lied when they denied carrying out arrests at school bus stops: "While that practice is bad enough, it is important to note that ICE tried to cover up the practice. When they were presented with these stories from Danbury, DHS doubled down and said any claim that ICE targeted parents at a school bus stop is false. Then just days afterwards, we had the video evidence. This often happens-ICE says something didn't happen, and then we have the video proving that it did. And in Danbury's case, we have two separate videos taken from the school bus showing ICE operating at the school bus stop and detaining this parent."

Murphy also revealed that several Republicans have voiced opposition to Trump's heartless deployment of ICE to sensitive locations: "We came close to getting an agreement on a similar proposal before negotiations broke down over DHS funding. Senator Blumenthal, my colleague, has a piece of legislation that is even broader than the three bills I'm proposing. The idea is that there should just be a ban on the operation of ICE at sensitive locations, which would include places where children gather but also would include other sensitive locations like churches. I know my Republican colleagues were close to agreeing to that before these negotiations broke down."

After a bizarre objection from Senator Jim Banks (R-Ind.), Murphy hammered Republicans over how dishonest they are being about the terror ICE is inflicting on communities like Danbury: "I will be honest with you, I did not anticipate that one of the arguments against this bill would be that it would lead to the development of 'sanctuary bus stops.' But what do we imagine here? People are going to live at bus stops? We're going to have encampments around bus stops of people who are here without documentation? I just think it's an example of how this whole debate has gone way off the rails. It is just fundamentally detached from the reality."

A full transcript of Murphy's remarks is available below. You can watch Murphy's remarks here.

Murphy:

Mr. President, there is a pretty significant divide right now between Democrats and Republicans on the issue of the way that ICE is enforcing our immigration laws in the interior. Democrats believe that what is happening today is both illegal and immoral, and that is why right now these operations are being funded through reconciliation, because we believe that it's our constitutional obligation to refuse to fund an agency that is out of control and not in compliance with the law. Republicans broadly have supported the actions of this administration as they target both immigrants without documentation and legal immigrants for arrest and detention.

I'm going to offer a request to pass a bill by unanimous consent that does not seek to repair that divide. Instead, it seeks to try to bring us together on a very narrow question-a question that arises from a set of incidents that have happened in my state of Connecticut over the course of the last month and a half. On the morning of August 26, the second day of school for most school districts in Connecticut, in Danbury, Connecticut, bus drivers began reporting to the school district that they had noticed the presence of ICE agents in and around school bus stops. At one of them, a constituent of mine, a father, was waiting at the school bus stop with his six-year-old son, and just moments after saying goodbye to his son for the second day of school, and even before the school bus had fully driven away, ICE arrested and detained him. This practice was reported all around the state: ICE gathering at school bus stops, waiting until a young child had boarded the school bus, and then detaining and arresting the parents.

For parents in this body, you know how anxious that first day of school is, how kids are just brimming with nervous anxiety about that first day, and you know what that feels like to watch your kid walk onto that school bus. Well, what do you think it does to those kids on that first and second day of school to see ICE officers at the school bus stop? Imagine that six-year-old who boarded the school bus, and when he got back from school that day and got off, his parent wasn't there. A six-year-old feeling like he had been abandoned. In this case, he may or may not have seen the arrest because it happened almost immediately after he got on. To me, it's pretty obvious that the intent here, with this new practice of ICE showing up at school bus stops, is to traumatize the children. But you don't have to agree with me that the intent is to traumatize the children to just come to the conclusion that ICE does not need to be at school bus stops in order to enforce the law. There are a myriad of other settings in which ICE can operate to carry out arrests while staying clear of school bus stops, where the intent or at least the result of those operations is to leave little kids in trauma.

I've introduced three pieces of simple legislation to say that ICE should not operate at daycare centers, they shouldn't operate at children's playgrounds, and that they shouldn't operate at school bus stops. I am asking unanimous consent today for only one of those pieces of legislation that I think is the most urgent, and while I don't expect the results to be agreement, I hope that we could find agreement on this narrow question: that ICE should just stay away from school bus stops. They shouldn't be traumatizing children at school bus stops and taking parents in the middle of the school day because there are so many other ways that ICE could operate so as to detain the people that they feel they need to detain without it being done in this deeply traumatic way.

In fact, we came close to getting an agreement on a similar proposal before negotiations broke down over DHS funding. Senator Blumenthal, my colleague, has a piece of legislation that is even broader than the three bills I'm proposing. The idea is that there should just be a ban on the operation of ICE at sensitive locations, which would include places where children gather but also would include other sensitive locations like churches. I know my Republican colleagues were close to agreeing to that before these negotiations broke down. And so today, I am taking a small slice of that broader proposal and just asking my colleagues: can we come to an agreement that school bus stops should be off limits? Can we decide to have compassion for that six-year-old child who got on the bus for his second day of school, and when he got back off the bus, was abandoned?

The last point I'll make is this: while that practice is bad enough, it is important to note that ICE tried to cover up the practice. When they were presented with these stories from Danbury, DHS doubled down and said any claim that ICE targeted parents at a school bus stop is false. Then just days afterwards, we had the video evidence. This often happens-ICE says something didn't happen, and then we have the video proving that it did. And in Danbury's case, we have two separate videos taken from the school bus showing ICE operating at the school bus stop and detaining this parent. So my hope is that we can come together and just make a decision that while we have big differences over the broader issue of ICE enforcement, ICE should stop preying upon our kids at sensitive locations, and in particular, school bus stops.

My motion is this: notwithstanding Rule 22 and as if in legislative session, I would ask unanimous consent that the committee on the judiciary be discharged and the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S 5435. I further ask consent that the bill be considered to be read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered, made, and laid upon the table.

Banks:

Look, this is just another attempt after many other attempts by Democrats to stop ICE from doing their job and enforcing our immigration law. As you're seeing today, Democrats will do anything that they can to stop ICE-our men and women who are in federal law enforcement-from securing our nation and keeping families safe.

In my state of Indiana, just over this last weekend, an illegal with an ICE detainer, drunk and behind the wheel of a vehicle, killed an innocent 33-year-old woman, Tamara Thomas, who was walking near a gas station in downtown Indianapolis. Tamara unfortunately is not the first Hoosier who lost her life because of an illegal immigration crisis in this country. In February, an illegal ran a red light and killed 64-year-old Terry Schultz in Avon, Indiana. In the same month, an illegal semi truck driver who entered our country using Joe Biden's CBP One app swerved into oncoming traffic and killed four Amish men near my hometown in Jake County in Northern Indiana. A couple of months ago, Indianapolis police arrested an illegal from Mexico who now faces 30 separate charges, including rape, sexual assault, and kidnapping, and this illegal came into our country under the Biden administration. Last year, a 35-year-old illegal who was living in Indianapolis was sentenced to 35 years in prison after he sexually exploited and abused a 15-year-old girl. Hoosiers are going to keep getting killed and harmed by illegals unless we let ICE officers do their job.

The madness has to end and it needs to end right now. We need to support our ICE officers. ICE needs to be allowed to do their job without Democrats getting in their way. I've been in the Senate for two years and over and over again the Democrats have tried to obstruct ICE from doing their job. This bill that I'm about to object to today will prohibit ICE from operating near school bus stops. But we know that illegal aliens are often at or near bus stops. So here's the deal Mr. President: in Virginia last year, ICE arrested a 36-year-old illegal alien from Mexico, a convicted pedophile, who exposed himself to a child at a school bus stop. How can anyone hear a story like that and think that the answer is to block ICE officers from doing their job at a school bus stop? Mr. President, if we prohibit ICE from operating at school bus stops, you know what will happen: we'll just create sanctuary school bus stops. All the illegals, the criminals, the pedophiles will end up at school bus stops because they know they'll be protected there. All those illegals in this country will hide out at bus stops, and knowing that ICE won't be allowed to touch them, you'll see more stories like what you saw happen in Virginia last year. It's just crazy to me to think that we would prevent ICE officers from going wherever they need to go to do their job, even if that means at a bus stop, on those rare, very rare, circumstances and occasions. ICE needs to be allowed to operate wherever the job takes them, especially at places where illegal aliens can harm our children.

And look, ICE is not the enemy. Democrats are trying to make our ICE officers out to be the enemy, and they are not. Just a couple of weeks ago, ICE conducted a five-day operation in my home state which resulted in the arrest of 426 illegals. These criminals included people who were charged with robberies, drug trafficking, sex crime, sex crimes, and more. And ICE also arrested an illegal from Guatemala who illegally voted in national elections in Indiana. Mr. President, the Democrats all say that never happens, but they arrested an illegal just a few weeks ago in Indiana who did that. So here we go again with another attempt by Democrats to obstruct our federal law enforcement. Instead of giving ICE more resources to do the job that they need to do, instead of doing anything that we can to deport illegals from our country, Democrats are here asking for unanimous consent to tie ICE's hands behind their backs and prevent them from doing their job. I won't let that happen. That's why I came to the floor today, Mr. President. ICE needs to be allowed to enforce the law and do their job, and for that reason, Mr. President, I object.

Murphy:

Just three final points. I think Senator Banks articulates the Republican position which is that immigrants are, by definition, a safety threat to the United States of America, and that is just not true. I don't draw issue with the fact that there are immigrants who commit crimes but there are natural-born citizens that commit crimes at higher rates than immigrants do. The fact of the matter is that immigrants commit crimes at a lower rate than people who were born here in the United States. We should just keep people safe in this country no matter the country of origin or birth of the perpetrator.

Second, I think you can make the decision that I should be able to operate in the interior while keeping certain sites off limits. In fact, this was the Trump administration policy in the first term. So Republican administrations in the past have come to the decision that certain sites should be off limits for ICE. And in fact, when I talk to Trump supporters in Connecticut, who broadly do support the president's immigration policy, they also believe that they went too far in Connecticut. There were a lot of Republicans who showed up at our big rally the day after this incident happened, so it is not true that you can only support robust enforcement operations in the interior if you support ICE being at school bus stops.

Finally, I will be honest with you, I did not anticipate that one of the arguments against this bill would be that it would lead to the development of sanctuary bus stops. But what do we imagine here? People are going to live at bus stops? We're going to have encampments around bus stops of people who are here without documentation? I just think it's an example of how this whole debate has gone way off the rails. It is just fundamentally detached from the reality. You want to support Trump's immigration policy. You can do that while still saying that we shouldn't have ICE officers patrolling school bus stops with the purpose of traumatizing little children. That could be a consensus position, and we could choose to still disagree over the broader Trump immigration policy.