Speech #1040267327

Mr. Speaker. I intend to vote in favor of the conference report on H.R. 2202. the illegal immigration bill. because it includes many important provisions to help the United States get control of its borders: 5.000 new Border Patrol agents. stricter penalties for alien smuggling and document fraud. and procedural reforms that would make it easier to deport people who have abused our hospitality. I strongly support these provisions. Mr. Speaker. we no longer live in an age when everyone from anywhere in the world who would like to live in the United States can do so. In an age of instant communication and easy transportation. border control has become not just a national prerogative but a practical necessity. Particularly when it comes to illegal immigrants. the American tradition of generosity is tempered by commitment to fairness and orderly procedures. I am pleased that the House deleted provisions in the bill that would have imposed drastic cuts in the numbers of legal immigrants and refugees. The House adopted my amendment to delete a provision that would have imposed a statutory cap on the number of refugees who can be admitted into the United States. The cap would have been 75.000 in fiscal year 1997 and 50.000 in each year thereafter--less than half the number we admitted in fiscal year 1995. This may sound like a fairly high number. but even at their current levels. refugees are only about 8 percent of those who immigrate to the United States each year. Proportionally. refugees would have taken an even bigger hit than family or business immigrants. The cut would have hurt people who are in trouble because they share our values: "old soldiers" and religious refugees from Vietnam. Christians and Jews from extremist regimes in the Middle East. Chinese women who have fled forced abortion. and those who have escaped the tyranny of Fidel Castro. So I am pleased that the House adopted the SmithSchiffGilmanSchumerBoucherFoxSouder amendment to preserve the American tradition of providing safe haven for genuine refugees. Unfortunately. the bill still contains provisions that subject legal immigrants. refugees. and U.S. citizens to unnecessarily harsh treatment. I think in particular of the requirement that a U.S. citizen must earn 140 percent of the official national poverty level in order to sponsor other family members. This provision leaves the unfortunate impression that family reunification is a luxury for the welltodo. rather than a fundamental and laudable goal of millions of American families. An even more unfortunate provision. section 633. would explicitly authorize the State Department to discriminate. by race. gender. and nationality in the processing of visas for legal immigrants. The case of LAVAS versus Department of State. which this provision would attempt to overrule. is a carefully reasoned opinion by Judge David Sentelle. a highly respected Reagan appointee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. It reflects the courts shock and dismay that the State Department was violating Federal statutes as well as its own regulations by practicing nationalitybased discrimination in order to force legal immigrants from Vietnamtypically the immediate relatives of United States citizensback to the country they had fled. The tragic consequence of the State Departments position is that many of those who have returned to Vietnam. on the assurance that their immigrant visas will be expeditiously processed by the United States. have languished for months or years because hostile and corrupt Vietnamese Government officials have refused to give them exit permits. Fortunately. the harsh effects of section 633 can be cured by regulation. or even by sound administration. The President should direct the State Department to change its policy and to process these legal immigrantsand never. never again to discriminate invidiously by race. by gender. or by national origin. Despite these and other deficiencies in the bill. I am voting in the affirmative. not only because I support the provisions that are directed against illegal immigrants. but also because of two provisions that cure important deficiencies in current law. Mr. Speaker. the antiterrorism bill passed by Congress in April contained several provisions that had nothing whatever to do with terrorism. One of these sections provided for the summary exclusion of persons attempting to enter the United States without proper documentation. It is important that we exclude persons who would abuse our generous immigration laws. and it is important that the process of exclusion be a speedy one. It is also important. however. that the process be fairand particulariy that it not result in sending genuine refugees back to persecution. The counterterrorism legislation provided that no person shall be summarily excluded if. in the opinion of an asylum officer at the port of entry. he or she has a credible fear of persecution. Unfortunately. the definitions of "asylum officer" and of "credible fear of persecution" were not as clear as they might be. H.R. 2202 goes at least part of the way toward the necessary clarity. In particular. the antiterrorism legislation defined an asylum officer as someone who has "professional training" in asylum law. country conditions. and interviewing techniquesbut did not state how much training or what kind. The immigration bill makes it clear that this training is to be equivalent to that of members of the highly respected Asylum Corps. The best way to ensure that this standard is met is to provide by regulation that only experienced members of the Asylum Corpspeople who by training and experience think of themselves as adjudicators rather than as enforcement officerswill exercise the extraordinary power to send people summarily back to dangerous places. I think it should also be clear that our asylum officers will need to be very careful in applying the "credible fear" standard. In a close case. they must give the benefit of the doubt to the applicant. There are also some countriessuch as Cuba. China. North Korea. Iran. and Iraq--in which persecution is so pervasive that almost any credible applicant would have a significant chance of success in the asylum process. I hope that regulations will be promptly adopted that explicitly provide for these and other safeguards in the expedited exclusion process. In any event. however. the current legislation is a substantial improvement over the regime that would go into force on November 1 if this legislation were not adopted.