Speech #1040191487

Speaker. I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2202. Let me begin by applauding my colleagues for separating the issue of legal immigration from the rest of the bill. However. I remain very troubled with measures in the bill that hurt children and families. By stripping the bill of cuts made to legal immigration. the House has reaffirmed the invaluable contributions legal immigrants have made and continue to make to our Nation. stated chairman Pastor." This move has assured that our legal immigration system continues to support and prioritize family reunification. I must remind my colleaguesimmigrants are hardworking taxpayers. they go to war on our behalf. and they do not abuse the system. The truth of the matter is that the overwhelming majority of Immigrants support themselves without assistance. Studies by The CATO and Urban Institutes indicate that immigrants are more likely than the nativeborn population to work and contribute $25 billion more in annual taxes than they receive in benelits. First. I am extremely concerned with items in this bill that harm children and families. The Gallegly proposal added to the bill proposes to deny public education to undocumented children. This provision has a chilling effect by jeopardizing the education of children labeled as foreign. This requirement is seriously misguided since the role of our teachers is to teach. not serve as immigration enforcement agents. In addition. this requirement would deflect scarce educational funds to do the job of the INS. Second. restrictions in benefits to legal Immigrants in H.R. 2202 will hurt real people who work hard and contribute to this Nation. In addition. this bill adds great stress to State and local governments. The provisions that extend deeming requirements to all needsbased programs are too extreme. We are not looking at solving a problem here. but one created to divide our country and promote shortterm political gain. We are talking about stealing the American dream away from most Immigrants. President Roosevelt once said. "We are a nation of many nationalities. many races. many religions--bound together by a single unity. the unity of freedom and equality." H.R. 2202 proposes to greatly alter these American values. On equality and freedom will be no longer. Third. the immigrant restrictions would add great stress to State and local governments. We are talking about adding more Federal regulations and verification burdens to comply with the immigrant restrictions. Private and public entities will be required to redirect scarce resources from running programs to meeting Federal mandates. Listen to the concerns of the National Governors Association. the National Conference of Mayors. the National Conference of State Legislatures. the National Association of Counties. and the National League of Cities. In a letter to Speaker GINGRICH. they say that the immigrant provisions create mandates and cost shifts for States and localities. They describe the immigrant verification requirements as a very burdensome. topheavy approach to welfare reform. Fourth. this bill makes the Federal Government irresponsible by placing the burden of serving some people solely on State and local governments. If the Federal Government excludes noncitizens from social safety net programs. the need for this safety net will not go away. State and local governments will have to serve them under State programs. translating into a massive cost shift. That. my colleagues. is promoting irresponsibility. Last. this bill will advance a climate of intolerance. suspicion. and division. It will result in increased discrimination against anyone suspected of being a noncitizen. The courts are now reviewing constitutional concerns over Californias proposition 187. In the aftermath of proposition 187. reports document the increase in hate crimes against people for simply looking or sounding foreign. Mr. Speaker. a responsible Congress cannot accept this immigration bill. We must protect our borders. but these provisions take us beyond that. We must remain vigilant against excessive government intervention and continue to protect our most basic individual freedoms and needs. I urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 2202. The following remarks note specific provisions and my concerns: Deeming of all programs. including education and medical services: Legal immigrants access to all programs would be restricted by extending deeming until citizenship for parents. for years for spouses. until age 21 or until citizenship for minor children. or (in all cases) until the Immigrant has worked 40 "qualifying" quarters (at least 10 years). There are few exceptions. but not for such programs as school lunches. student loans. or Immunizations. In addition. there are very few exceptions for deeming to account for persons who become disabled after legally immigrating to the United States. Denial of assistance to immigrants results in a cost shift to state and local governments. The loss of federal funds would need to be offset by state and local funds. This provision would also result in capital drain In high immigrant communities. since they would be required to pay taxes while being denied access to the safetynet they help support. In addition. these provisions would jeopardize public health. Public health programs cannot be successful If they exclude segments of the community. Public charge provisions would make hard working persons deportable: Under this provision. most immigrants would be deportable if they used any needsbased assistance for an aggregate of 12 months during their first seven years of residency. Thereafter. the Immigrant would remain a deportable as a "public charge" even after decades of taxpaying prosperity. Immigrants who years later have a proven record of taxpaying prosperity would become deportable. It is absurd that an executive of a Fortune 500 company would be deportable as "public charge" because s/he needed some assistance years ago. At a minimum. a provision should be added that would allow a person who previously received public assistance to reimburse the government in lieu of deportation. This is in fact current practice. by case law and administrative Interpretation. Impedes naturalization: Applicants who obtained assistance cant natwralize until they can verify that their sponsor does not have outstanding payments due to the government for services rendered. This provision was added as part of making affidavits of support enforceable. While there Is no opposition to making affidavits of support enforceable. this provision places barriers on something as important as naturalization. Naturalization applicants should not be penalized for their sponsors violation of the law. In addition. this provision does not discern between sponsors who fully intend to settle any outstanding obligation and "dead beat" sponsors. U.S. citizen children of immigrants denied equal benefits: "Ineligible" immigrants would be precluded from collecting benefits on behalf of eligible family members. Thus. a U.S. citizen child or disabled person would be precluded from obtaining needed assistance unless that persons mother or father could prove eligible status. or unless the agency would undertake the administrative paperwork and expense of appointing a representative payee who could accept the benefit on behalf of the child. Denying benefits to U.S. citizen kids because of the immigration status of their parents Is a violation of the constitutional right to equal protection. This provision would force counties to find and monltor administrative payees to collect the benefits and distribute them to the children. This would be enormously costly and subject to abuse by unscrupulous payees. Only affluent Americans allowed to sponsor family members: To sponsor a family member. an American would be required to earn more than 200 percent of the federal poverty level. Sponsors must demonstrate that they have an Income above 200% of the poverty level for their family plus the immigrant(s) they seek to sponsor. This is an antifamily provision that would affect one hundred million Americans. Family reunification would be unattainable for less affluent Americans who would be prevented from sponsoring their spouses and children. Proposition 187 requirements and INS reporting: With few exceptions. schools. hospitals and others would have an added responsibilIty of verifying citizenship status of all program participants. All public. nonprofit. and charitable entities who administer any government funded. meanstested programs would have this responsibility. In addition to needsbased programs. contracts. business loans. and commercial and professional licenses would be subject to the verification requirement. Public hospitals would also have to report the identity of any undocumented immigrant who receives emergency services. and have that status verified by the INS. to obtain reimbursement. In addition. provisions would allow federal. state. and local agencies to report to the INS the Immigration status of Individuals. Current law prohibits public agencies from exchanging Immigration Information with INS in order to ensure the integrity of such entities. For example. current law is in place to assure the protection of witnesses who are cooperating with a police or federal Investigation. This provision may discourage privatepublic partnerships at a time when these partnerships are growing.