Speech #1050092512

I understand it and my colleagues understand it. to the INS paperwork backlogs and the bureaucratic snafus and there are situations where there might be delays for families who have put down roots here. But it would be wrong as a consequence of those snafus to extend this permanently. What we should say is that as of the day that the bill is signed into law. any immigrant in this country who is trying to address their status might be considered independently and apply that. as the gentleman from California and the gentleman from Texas have already indicated. I believe this is the fairest way to deal with the situation. and not violate those good people who have legally come to this country and not cause the taxpayers a greater cost on their tax bills. The argument has been made that by allowing section 245(i) to stay on the books. the INS makes up to $150 million in revenue received from the $1.000 fee that aliens pay to obtain legal status. But. this money pales in comparison to the multibillion dollar cost imposed on taxpayers as a result of the devastating consequences of illegal immigration. At the same time many of us are concerned that our benefits system acts as a magnet for many illegal immigrants. For example. many children of illegal immigrants receive a free education in U.S. public schools at the expense of American taxpayers. driving up the cost of education and taking resources away from U.S. children. The State of New Jersey alone spends an estimated $146 million a year to educate about 16.000 children of illegal aliens. The cost associated with providing Federal benefits to illegal immigrants is astronomical. While as a society. we do not turn people away from an emergency room or deny food to the hungry. Nor should we. However. I do not believe we should reward illegal immigrants by allowing them to stay. Nevertheless. I must stress that I understand that there are extenuating circumstances due to INS paperwork backlogs and bureaucratic snafus. And there are situations where. because of these delays. families who have put down roots. would be split up because of an automatic cessation of 245(i). Because of this. we should create a timetable for the sunsetting of 245(i). We should say that as of the day the bill is signed into law. any immigrant in the country. who is trying to adjust their status with the INS and would be considered in violation of the law under an expiration of 245(i). will be allowed to stay and complete the process. But as of that day. any new immigrant to this country will be subject to the new law that does not include the 245(i) loophole. I believe that this is the fairest way to deal with this situation. I urge my colleagues to oppose permanent extension of section 245(i) and to work in a good faith effort to solve this problem fairly while remaining true to immigration law reform. This motion urges opposition to a permanent extension of 245(i). It does not preclude any discussion on finding the fairest way to phase out this section with the least possible impact on those involved.