Speech #980214030

Mr. Chairman. let me perhaps sum up where we are. at least I hope where we are. First of all. the gentleman from Kentucky supports the amendment offered by the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts . the gentleman from New York . and I do so for the basic reasons that the Commissioner of the Immigration Service. Mr. Nelson. has advised us that if a search warrant were to be required for open field work. this would dramatically impair the ability of INS to enforce our immigration laws. Mr. Nelson. the Commissioner. concludes that this section. which is the search warrant section. will in effect create a haven for illegal aliens in rural agriculture areas and for these reasons would allow employers to hide in plain view undocumented workers who are unlawfully in this country. Undocumented workers would be able to be shifted from field to field and this. of course. would thwart the whole idea of enforcement of our immigration laws. Also a search warrant would restrict tracking operations which are used in order to locate undocumented workers. Furthermore. Mr. Chairman. the Attorney General of the United States advised our committee last year in a letter to the distinguished chairman of our committee. the gentleman from New Jersey . that to extend the warrant requirement as it was proposedand. of course. as the committee eventually wound up doingwould give rise to a host of enforcement problems. not the least of which is the ease with which workers could be hidden or abscond or be moved from field to field. at least in the 4 to 6 hours it would take to get a warrant. Furthermore. the search warrant proviso would impair the morale of the activities of the Border Patrol and the other members of the Immigration Service. And. of course. the Supreme Court in the Oliver case. while not specifically on the point for INS officers. does suggest that the open fields doctrine is a valid legal doctrine. For those reasons.