Speech #980210742

Mr. Chairman. in the 97th Congress I had serious misgivings regarding the Immigration Reform and Control Act which this body debated late in the session but came to no final resolution on. While I recognize the need for significant changes in our Nations immigration laws and policy. I was unable to support the legislation for I felt it was neither workable. nor would it achieve the benefits expressed by its authors. I regret that the legislation before us today contains most of the shortcomings of last sessions bill and that this body is once again debating immigration reform legislation which falls sorely short of its intended purpose of immigration control. My major concern with H.R. 1510 is that it fails to achieve any real control over our Nations borders. In my view. the first step which must be taken if the United States is to achieve true immigration reform is to provide the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) with the resources and personnel necessary to secure our Nations borders. Only when an effective immigration control system is fully in place at our Nations borders and interior should Congress even consider proceeding with the type of legalization program called for in H.R. 1510. For too long. Congress has failed to make the necessary commitment to devote sufficient resources to INS for its vital enforcement activities. the result. to a certain degree. has been a situation of uncontrolled illegal immigration into the United States. The INS. for example. has stated that there is only one officer per 12.5 miles of border. As the Judiciary Committee notes in its report on H.R. 1510: The lack of attention and appreciation of the responsibilities of the (INS) has been largely to blame for the chaotic state of our present immigration system. In my view. however. H.R. 1510 fails to make this urgently needed commitment to enforcement. While the bill includes authorization for increases in the number of border patrol and other enforcement authorities of INS to deter illegal entry into the United States. it is unlikely that sufficient funding levels will be appropriated. As we are all too well aware. Mr. Chairman. appropriations and authorizations are two very different things. Moreover. in this period of fiscal restraint in all areas of the Federal budget. there is certain to be reluctance to provide the level of funding needed to allow INS to adequately secure our borders and enforce immigration laws. Indeed. H.R. 1510 imposes significant new burdens and responsibilities on INS personnel and resources. With passage of H.R. 1510. INS would become responsible for the implementation of the bills legalization provisions. which would require processing the millions of illegal aliens who are expected to come forward to claim legal status. as well as the employer sanctions. asylum processing. and enforcement provisions of H.R. 1510. Mr. Chairman. it therefore hardly strikes me as prudent policy to proceed with an amnesty program until it has been adequately demonstrated that our borders can be reasonably secured. To go forward with the legalization provisions of H.R. 1510. which makes illegal aliens who have resided in the United States since January 1. 1982 eligible for permanent resident status. would send a signal to the rest of the world that the United States lacks the will and resources to secure its borders and to enforce its immigration policies. Certainly. this cannot be the message which this body seeks to send to the millions of potential immigrants throughout the world. However. even if the United States had regained control of its borders. I still could not support the type of mass legalization program provided for in H.R. 1510. Granting a basically blanket amnesty to illegal aliens residing in the United States. in my view. would essentially reward those who have broken U.S. laws and would be grossly unfair to those who have waited patiently for years to enter the country legally. Indeed. amnesty would actually encourage further illegal immigration by offering the hope of another amnesty in the future and by attracting aliens who hope to fraudulently qualify for the amnesty. Moreover. serious questions exist concerning the number of illegal aliens in the United States who may take advantage of our offer. how many will be eligible for Federal assistance. and how this legalization program will affect our stillhigh unemployment rate. Finally. while H.R. 1510 provides for a ban on eligibility on most forms of Federal benefits. estimated costs of the bill to the Federal Government range as high as $6.3 billion. I am not suggesting. by my opposition to the liberal amnesty provisions of H.R. 1510. that our Nation embark on a program of mass deportation of aliens residing in the United States illegally. H.R. 1510 does. however. provide for a more limited legalization process for those individuals who have been in the United States for an extended period of time and who have developed significant equities in society. This approach. which called for moving the registry date from 1948 to 1973. is. in my view. a more prudent and controlled approach than the type of mass legalization program called for in H.R. 1510. This registry date will allow the Attorney General to lawfully admit. at his discretion. undocumented aliens who have resided continuously in the United States since 1973. are of good moral character and eligible for citizenship. and who are not inadmissible because of certain past actions. While the registry date is a less generous solution to the problem of illegal aliens residing in the United States. it is a more practical approach which is far preferable to the controversial amnesty proposal. The registry approach would allow the legalization program to be tested on a more modest scale. would allow for more efficient processing of deserving illegal aliens by utilizing established INS procedures. and would allow time to refine any problems connected with employer sanctions. an identification system. and the costs of the program. I also have serious reservations concerning H.R. 1510s responsiveness to the needs of agriculture. particularly as it relates to the harvest of highly perishable crops such as citrus. strawberries. lettuce. and other vegetables. Growers in my district have repeatedly told me that the H2 program does not work for them and I am concerned that the issues of speed. availability. and numbers of workers are insufficiently addressed by the Judiciary Committees bill.