[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 60 (Monday, May 16, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: May 16, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                              IMMIGRATION

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, last Monday the Washington Post newspaper 
ran an insightful editorial that was entitled ``On Not Blaming 
Immigrants First.''
  The editorial rightly admonished those involved in the immigration 
debate to avoid the pitfalls made earlier when there were great waves 
of immigration to the United States.
  The Post editorial, I think, hit the nail on the head when they said:

       Off and on since the great waves of immigration in the 
     1840s and 1850s, politicians have been tempted to explain 
     whatever happened to be ailing the country at the time by 
     blaming newcomers for causing all kinds of problems for which 
     the native-born could not possibly have responsibility.

  Mr. President, the Post editorial concluded by showing that there are 
legitimate issues to be raised about immigration, both legal and 
illegal immigration. And also, under current law, many loopholes exist 
which allow people to cheat the system.
  The point is, Mr. President, we need to engage in the politics of 
constructive reform and avoid the politics of immigrant scapegoating. 
But we do have to do something about immigration.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the editorial to which I 
referred be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                    On Not Blaming Immigrants First

       Off and on since the great waves of immigration in the 
     1840s and 1850s, politicians have been tempted to explain 
     whatever happened to be ailing the country at the time by 
     blaming newcomers for causing all kinds of problems for which 
     the native-born could not possibly have responsibility. 
     Native-born voters often like to hear that sort of thing, 
     which further encourages some politicians.
       The issue of immigration is surging again, and the 
     battlegrounds are as varied as the California governor's race 
     and the meeting rooms of the House Ways and Means Committee. 
     Take first Ways and Means. Last Wednesday, the committee 
     rightly voted down an amendment offered by Rep. Rick Santorum 
     (R-Pa.) to deny Supplemental Security Income benefits to most 
     legal immigrants who are not yet citizens. The amendment was 
     even more important than it sounded because the effect of 
     denying. SSI benefits was also to deny Medicaid benefits. 
     This, in turn, raises the question of who would pay when a 
     poor, legal immigrant walked into an emergency room with a 
     severe illness.
       The vote went the right way, but the margin was close, 20-
     to-16, with Rep. Harold Ford (D-Tenn.) abstaining. Three 
     Democrats voted with the Republicans, but the most disturbing 
     vote was Mr. Ford's. A liberal on many issues and the 
     chairman of the welfare subcommittee, Mr. Ford threatened to 
     join the anti-immigrant bloc. He was finally persuaded to 
     abstain instead on the grounds that the issue of benefits to 
     immigrants should be considered in the context of President 
     Clinton's welfare reform plan. Mr. Ford's position is a 
     portent of how deep the anti-immigrant feeling runs.
       In California, meanwhile, Gov. Pete Wilson, a Republican, 
     has partially resurrected his once sagging political fortunes 
     with strong attacks on the federal government's failure to 
     stem illegal immigration. Mr. Wilson has gone to court to 
     demand that the feds reimburse states (such as his) bearing a 
     disproportionate share of the social service and health costs 
     of illegal immigration that is the federal government's 
     responsibility.
       What Mr. Santorum is trying to do in Washington and what 
     Mr. Wilson is saying in California would seem consistent. 
     Exactly the opposite is the case. As the National Conference 
     of State Legislators and the National Governors' Association 
     pointed out, the effect of Mr. Santorum's amendment would be 
     to increase the burdens on states with large immigrant 
     populations. The amendment, said Raymond Scheppach, executive 
     director of the governors' group, ``would shift to states and 
     localities millions of dollars in income assistance and 
     health care costs now borne by the federal government.''
       There are legitimate issues to be raised about immigration, 
     legal and illegal, and also about abuses of social programs 
     by immigrants and non-immigrants alike. But wholesale 
     assaults on immigrants are not only wrong, they also lead to 
     bad policy.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, scapegoating immigrants have no place in a 
just and moral society. And, it certainly should not find shelter and 
life in a country that prides itself on being a nation of immigrants. 
The ugly anti-immigrant sentiments, which are often targeted at today's 
immigrants are no different, and no less repugnant, than the bigoted 
Irish bashing that occurred during the 19th century Irish Potato famine 
migration.
  However, what we all have to remember is that just as those who are 
considered immigration's proponents are not all in favor of open 
unrestricted immigration, similarly, those who seek tightening and 
enforcement of our immigration laws are not all in favor of eliminating 
immigration and placing blame for society's ailments on immigrants. All 
parties must recognize this principle if meaningful immigration reform 
is ever going to be carried out.
  Mr. President, I believe that our current immigration laws must be 
reformed in order to adequately deal with the many problems our country 
is currently facing--education, welfare, crime. Day after day we see 
news stories detailing new troubles associated with immigration. 
Whether it is undermanned law enforcement on our borders, threats to 
our obligation of ensuring a healthier environment for the future 
because of escalating immigration, or the dramatic failure of our 
asylum laws to efficiently process asylum claims, there is something 
fundamentally wrong with the current policies.
  The mail that I have received on immigration is significant. It has 
especially been heavy because I have been in favor publicly of changing 
immigration law as it applies to illegal and legal immigration.
  It is easy, Mr. President, to stand and talk about illegal 
immigration. And I am going to talk about it today; we need significant 
changes in that. It is more difficult to talk abut legal immigration, 
but we also need to do that.
  Mr. President, some in this body and in the White House during the 
last two administrations felt, because we had come up with the theory 
of employer mandates, that it would take care of illegal immigration 
because it switched the burden from the Government to the employers. As 
a result of that, Congress and the President changed legal immigration 
to where it is now approaching 1 million a year. We simply cannot 
handle that and we have to cut back to a more reasonable number.
  But as I said, the volume of mail I get on immigration is enormous. 
What I have come to appreciate in reading this correspondence is that 
most people are deeply upset and frustrated--not at immigrants--but at 
the combined lack of equity, certainty, and protection that our laws 
are supposed to provide. To allow these laws to remain unchanged is a 
recipe for disaster.
  In March, I introduced S. 1923, the Immigration Stabilization Act of 
1994. I believe this comprehensive immigration reform legislation will 
do much to remedy the current problems. Today, I am addressing the 
Senate on a specific immigration related problem addressed by my bill: 
abuse of the asylum laws. Those seeking smoking gun proof of the 
failure of our immigration policies need look no further than the 
current asylum laws.
  The United States was founded on a belief that people fleeing 
persecution because of their race, religion, or political views deserve 
refuge.

  I have been reading, Mr. President, Durant's ``History of 
Civilization,'' and it is interesting to get the overall perspective of 
why we had so many people come to United States from Europe. It was 
because of the persecution that was taking place there, principally on 
the basis of religion, that we had the huge wave of population emigrate 
to the United States.
  So this element of compassion be preserved. That was part of the 
reason for founding of this great country.
  But in recent years, American policies offering generous asylum and 
unlimited judicial review of rejected claims have been grossly abused.
  Now, asylum is one of the easiest routes to gain admission to this 
country. Virtually anyone--underscore and underline anyone--arriving at 
a U.S. port of entry--including terrorists, criminals, and drug 
dealers--can today gain immediate admission into our country if they 
merely claim that magic words political asylum and claim they will be 
killed or persecuted if they are returned home. The magic words are 
``political asylum.'' And the abuse does not stop there. Individuals 
who entered this country illegally will often raise meritless asylum 
claims at their deportation proceedings to avoid prompt deportation. 
Likewise, individuals who entered the country legally but thereafter 
overstayed their visas also avail themselves this seemingly perfect 
defense. Claiming asylum has become the proverbial dog-ate-my-homework 
excuse. This excuse is used by many but believed by few.
  How do we know this to be the case? Well let us examine the numbers. 
In 1973--while South Africa's apartheid politics kept Nelson Mandela in 
prison for 27 years, and Soviet-imposed dictatorships continued to 
spring up around the world--there were less than 5,000 claims for 
political asylum in the United States. In 1973, when Mandela was jailed 
and the Soviet Empire was at the height of its strength, we had less 
than 5,000 claims for political asylum in the United States. In 1994, 
with Nelson Mandela out of prison and assuming the Presidency of South 
Africa, and the Soviet empire in complete disarray and being 
dismantled, there could be as many as 200,000 claims for asylum in our 
country. According to the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the 
total number of claims in 1993 were in excess of 150,000. Keep in mind 
that these numbers merely represent the number of applications filed. 
Claiming asylum has become a de facto method of gaining permanent 
admission to our country. The backlog to hear these claims is growing 
at an alarming rate and some estimates say there may be as many as 
500,000 claims in need of adjudication for political asylum in the 
United States by the end of this year.
  Before fashioning an appropriate remedy to this problem we must first 
understand the reasons for the abuse and the consequences of the abuse. 
The reasons are simple: Lax laws without any standards or certainty of 
enforcement will always be abused. One only has to look at the 
incredibly tough provisions included in the House and Senate crime 
bills to realize the validity of this axiom.
  The consequences are as clear as they are frightening. Last year's 
murder of a CIA employee at the entrance of the CIA, which is located 
not far from my home here in the Washington, DC, area, and the home of 
the President pro tempore and other Members of this body; the bombing 
of the World Trade Center, and the uncovering of a terrorist conspiracy 
targeting New York City are all examples of what can happen when we 
fail to properly screen individuals seeking entrance to our country.

  Who is injured as a result of this policy? Society is injured through 
the perpetration of heinous acts by individuals who otherwise would not 
be in this country. Immigrants, as a whole, are unfairly blamed for the 
misdeeds of a few. Of course, that is true. And, lastly, those people 
who are genuinely fleeing persecution or are otherwise attempting to 
play by the rules in gaining admission are losing out to dishonest 
cornercutters who realize there are no consequences for their 
misbehavior.
  I believe that the best response to this growing problem is the 
following threefold approach embodied in my proposed legislation: 
First, strengthen the review procedure at ports of entry; second, 
clarify the conditions for the granting of asylum; and, third, 
streamline the decisionmaking process for the granting of asylum.
  Let us talk about my first proposal, strengthen the review procedures 
at ports of entry.
  Current law provides insufficient screening at our ports of entry. 
Undocumented individuals who enter the United States and declare asylum 
are rarely detained pending a determination of their claim. In fact, so 
long as their claim is nonfrivolous they are entitled to immediate 
entry and employment authorization. I respectfully suggest that the 22 
percent asylum application approval rate in 1993 is compelling evidence 
of the frivolity of many of these claims. Why not simply detain these 
individuals? Well, according to the GAO, this would be ``impracticable 
and cost prohibitive.''
  It is imperative that we increase the screening of individuals at our 
ports of entry to prevent people from merely boarding an international 
flight, flying to the United States, and declaring asylum.
  Mr. President, there are millions and millions of people throughout 
the world, maybe billions, who want to come to this country. We cannot 
accept everybody who wants to come to this country.
  The provisions of my bill operate to deter individuals from entering 
the United States to illegally pursue asylum claims after they have 
failed to gain lawful admission through the other avenues of 
immigration.
  It provides for trained INS officers to interview individuals who 
seek entry into the United States if the individual has the required 
documentation, fine, go ahead and enter.
  If he does not or she does not, she or he will be excluded unless 
either indicates a fear of persecution or an intent to claim asylum.
  An individual who comes here without documentation, but tells the INS 
officer that he fears persecution or intends to claim asylum, will be 
referred immediately to an asylum officer who will interview that 
person to determine whether he or she has a credible fear of 
persecution or whether the asylum individual is coming here for 
convenience or econmic reasons, that officer's decision is subject to 
review by another asylum officer. Thereafter, judicial review is 
limited to habeas corpus petitions.
  This enhanced screening at the initial points of entry will afford 
applicants the necessary due process to ensure a fair hearing and will 
prevent the entry of those filing frivolous claims.
  Second, we must clarify the conditions for the granting of asylum.
  The granting of asylum is premised on the notion that we are 
obligated to take in those who are legitimately fleeing persecution 
because of their race, religion, nationality, membership in a 
particular social group, or political opinion. It does not include--nor 
was it ever intended to include--fear of economic deprivation.
  Those who fear economic deprivation have other avenues they can and 
should pursue. My bill simply clarifies the existing law by providing 
that individuals seeking asylum demonstrate that it is more probable 
than not that if they are returned to the country of their nationality, 
they would be arrested or incarcerated, or their life would be 
threatened on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a 
particular social group, or political opinion. It does not deny those 
who seek to come to the United States seeking a better economic 
opportunity, it simply ensures that they pursue the appropriate avenues 
for gaining admission.
  This clarification allows genuine claims of persecution to be acted 
on favorably. But just as important, it puts the world on notice that 
the loophole has been closed.
  Third, we must streamline the decisionmaking process for the granting 
of asylum.
  Under current law, an individual can file for asylum at almost any 
time. Thus, you have situations where an individual may come to the 
United States legally, decide to stay beyond the lawfully allotted 
period of time, and if caught by immigration officials, claim asylum. 
They typically will then disappear before any hearing is ever held.
  My bill streamlines the application process by providing that instead 
of being able to file at any time, an individual would have to submit a 
notice of intention to file for asylum within 30 days of his arrival. 
Within 45 days of his arrival he would have to file a formal 
application for asylum. There is a safety value built into my 
legislation in cases where the circumstances have changed in the 
individuals country of nationality such that he would face persecution 
if he were to return. In those cases the individual would still be 
allowed to file outside of the time limit--but only in that narrow 
instance.
  This time restriction will do much to end the abuse by people who are 
in this country unlawfully, are caught by law enforcement, and then use 
our asylum laws as a weapon to thwart their deportation and permanently 
prolong their stay.
  The asylum decisionmaking process also involves issues of due 
process. Our current laws seem to be weighted too heavily on the side 
of people who enter the country unlawfully. How much due process an 
individual is entitled to depends on whether that individual has gained 
entry to the United States. Thus, if someone is stopped at our borders 
and is detained by immigration officials, he will not be entitled to 
the same amount of due process as someone who has entered the country 
but later faces a deportation hearing. Unfortunately, some 
administrative and judicial interpretations have granted constitutional 
safeguards of due process to people who entered the country unlawfully 
by evading inspection. The inequity is obvious. Those who follow the 
rules and go through inspection at the border are given less due 
process than those who surreptitiously sneak into our country. This is 
outrageous. My bill remedies this injustice by providing that if you 
enter this country unlawfully, and you are caught within 1 year after 
doing this, you will be given the same amount of due process as you 
should have received, but for the fact that you entered the country 
unlawfully.
  My legislation also reduces the layers of duplicative review that 
allow claims to continue in perpetuity and provides for more timely 
hearings. Rather than having claims heard by an asylum officer in the 
INS and an Immigration judge in the Executive Office of Immigration 
Review--which allows for successive determinations of the same claims--
my bill streamlines the review so that claims are heard by specialized 
officers within the INS. It also directs that hearings be held within 
45 days of the filing of an application and that decisions be rendered 
30 days thereafter.
  Last, those applicants filing frivolous claims or who fail to appear 
for their asylum hearings, will be ineligible for any benefits under 
immigration law.
  I believe the staggering numbers of individuals applying for asylum 
is prima facie evidence of the failure of our current policies. It is 
morally wrong to blame all the individuals using this system but it is 
an abdication of our congressional responsibility to allow these failed 
laws to stand unreformed.
  The current situation reminds me of a busy intersection without a 
stop sign, a traffic light or a cop. Of course people will continue to 
go through the intersection at any speed without stopping. With no 
clear authority to stop, yield, go or follow the speed limit, drivers 
set their own rules and approach the intersection in whatever manner 
they want. That is what is happening with our immigration laws. 
Certainly, there are many who will act responsibly and in the best 
interests of society, but the reason we have stop signs, traffic 
lights, speed limits, and cops is so that all will act responsibly, 
with the knowledge that to act otherwise, would simply not be 
tolerated. Absent a traffic cop, there will always be accidents. Absent 
asylum reform we risk repeating the World Trade Center tragedy.
  Again, asylum is just one aspect of a much larger problem. The time 
to act is now, and I invite others to cosponsor my legislation on this 
pressing matter.

                          ____________________