Speech #970273173

Budgets at all levels of government are already straining. and are there enough new taxpaying jobs to finance the moderate estimate of Attorney General William French Smith of $18 billion a year in combined Federal and State costs for amnesty? The State of California has already figured that without Federal funding. it would cost them $1.3 billion a year in added welfare and medical expenses. Perhaps the biggest "unknown" in the amnesty question is the number of illegal Immigrants already in this country. Estimates of eligible illegals who have lived here since 1980 range from 3 to 12 million people. The administration currently uses estimates running between 3.5 and 6 million persons. It is not known how many of these people are currently working. dependent on welfare programs. or financially independent. I oppose the very concept of such a mass amnesty. but I do believe there is a more reasonable alternative. The registry date provision approved by the Judiciary Committee would sitriply update an existing section of our immigration laws. The present law provides a "registry date" procedure allowing all aliens who can show good moral character and continuous residence in the United States since 1948 to receive permanent resident status. The committee proposal moves the 1948 date to January 1. 1973. allowing illegal aliens who can prove they entered the country prior to that date to apply through the INS. The registry date provimion has been In our books since 1929. it is a tested and proven procedure. one that the INS is throughly familiar with. and I believe it is the fairest approach in dealing with the undocumentedillegalalien problem. Another very important aspect of this bill is the placement of an overall ceilingor capon total annual legal immigration. The administration originally asked for a ceiling of 425.000 legal admissions per year. excluding refugee admissions and the spouses and children of U.S. citizens. The other body concurred with this proposed cap. but all ceilings were removed in the version passed by the House Judiciary Committee. The United States currently accepts more than twice as many permanent residents annually as the rest of the world combined. No other country can boast of an "open door" policy more open or lenient than Americas. We should continue this open policy. but only within reason. In my opinion. a fixed cap is necessary on legal immigrants. and that it be enforced so that we can get a grip on the problem this bill was originally intended to address: the control of our borders and reform measures to limit within reason the level of immigrants arriving in this country. Further. if this Nation is to achieve true control over its immigration. all entrants should fall under the annual ceilings. An absolute ceiling should include refugees. immediate relatives of U.S. citizens. and all other categories currently not subject to the cap requirements. Another aspect critical to a successful immigration policy is that of having adequate enforcement officers along our borders and other INS officials to handle the backlog of admissions and projected admissions under this legislation. The immigration and Naturalization Service. and its enforcement armthe Border Patrolhave been underfunded for many years. and certainly the new reform measures contained in this bill will further strain these limited resources. It is my hope that. in accordance with the language contained in this bill. the 98th Congress follow through by appropriating additional funds for increased activities in these agencies. I would also urge my colleagues to oppose changes in this bill which would weaken the very limited temporary worker program now operating. The H2 program. as it works now. primarily benefits the nonagriculture sector and allows foreign workers to enter the country on temporary visas to fill certain temporary jobs. This bill makes some modifications to streamline the H2 admissions process. making it easier for both the employer and the worker to take advantage of the program. A respectable guest worker program is needed in many regions of our country. particularly in the United StatesMexico border States. to fill the need for many seasonal jobs not normally taken by American workers. and I believe it can be operated by our Government in a manner respectful of the rights of the employers and the guest workers. Another focal point of the bill revolves around the use of employer sanctions to help control the flow of illegal aliens into this country. In the House version. as passed by the committee. civil penalties are imposed on employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens. with criminal penalties for those who repeatedly violate our laws. A "paperwork exemption" is allowed for small employers with three or fewer employees. eliminating the requirement that they check a Job applicants documentation. but still places them under the civil and criminal sanctions as are other employers. The sanctions apply to new hires only. While I have no strong objections to employer sanctions. I think it would be a serious mistake to presume that such penalties will by themselves deter illegal immigrants from crossing our borders. The penalties will be nearly impossible to enforce without substantially increased INS manpower. and even then the absence of a fraudresistent identification system for determining work eligibility will undermine our attempts for tougher enforcement. The legislation instructs the President to design and implement such an identification system within 3 years. In the meantime. rigid criminal penalties. including heavy fines and up to 5 years imprisonment. will be applied to those convicted of using. selling. or manufacturing counterfeit or altered identification documents. Again. it will be necessary to bolster our enforcement activities if we hope for these penalties to carry any weight. We do need to pass a comprehensive immigration bill to update. and hopefully strengthen the outdated laws now on the books. Outside of the fact that it has been some 17 years since we last signed into law major immigration reformsalmost a generation in which conditions have changed dramatically both domestically and on the international scenewe need to act decisively on a problem that the American public is overwhelmingly in favor of resolving. In my own district. Arizonas Fourth. citizens are more cohesive on this one issue than almost any other problems facing our Nation today. Last year. I sent out a questionnaire survey on several issues and received more than 15.000 responses. By far the most onesided response was on a question relative to immigration. Over 94 percent of the respondents answered "yes" to the question: "Should Congress institute tougher reforms to prevent illegal aliens from receiving Federal benefits?" Clearly. the public understands the seriousness of the problem and wants change. Many years of work are behind the "SimpsonMazzoli" immigration bill. and I applaud those who have worked so diligently to mold this comprehensive bill. But more flaws remain in the House verson as I have indicated. and I urge my colleagues to thoughtfully consider amendments to be offered which would truly reform and put some long needed controls in our Nations immigration policies. There can be no perfect immigration bill. nor are there any easy answers to the very complex and seemingly uncontrollable influx of illegal aliens into our Nation. As a free and open society. we are committed to preserving the rights and liberties of our citizens. The luxury of permitting uncontrolled numbers of people into our Nation. as much as it has been ingrained into American tradition and benefitted our growth and prosperity. does have its limitations. No country in the world today can claim a more generous immigration policy and nothing in this bill. with the recommendations I have made. will change that distinction. Most all Americans recognize the need for reasonable reforms and will support them accordingly.