[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 136 (Friday, September 27, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11514-S11519]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CONFERENCE REPORT TO ACCOMPANY ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION REFORM AND IMMIGRANT
RESPONSIBILITY ACT OF 1996
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, we will soon begin a debate on the
conference report entitled ``Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act of 1996.'' I am concerned that, when we commence
that debate, we are not going to be in as advanced a position as we
should be, for several reasons--two in particular.
One of those is that, when this legislation was considered in the
House of Representatives, a provision was attached which would have
given to individual States the prerogative of denying public education,
elementary and secondary education, to the children of illegal
immigrants. That provision became so inflammatory that it tended to
focus total attention on this legislation on that single provision.
That provision has now been eliminated. It has been withdrawn.
Therefore, we are now focusing for the first time on the totality of
this legislation.
A second reason why we are not in as advanced a position as we should
be for legislation which is as significant as this, has to do with the
process by which this conference committee prepared its report. First,
it was an elongated process that took many weeks and months to reach
the conclusion that is now before us. But it was also essentially a
closed process. Not only were many of the members of the conference
committee not given the opportunity to participate, at the conclusion
of the conference they were not even allowed to offer amendments to try
to modify provisions which were found to be objectionable. So we have a
product today which has not had the kind of thoughtful dialog and
debate which we associate with a conference report which is presented
to the U.S. Senate for final consideration.
For this reason, I joined those who urge that objectionable
provisions in
[[Page S11515]]
this act--and I will use the bulk of my time to attempt to outline what
I consider some of those objectionable provisions--be excised, be
eliminated, from this conference report, or, failing to do so, then
that the conference report, regrettably, be rejected.
I speak to this position based on some principles of fundamental
fairness to all of those who will be affected by this legislation
entitled ``Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act
of 1996.'' I speak not only for the legal immigrants who will feel the
full weight of this report, which is supposed to deal not with legal
immigrants, but, by its title, with illegal immigration; but I also
speak of the apparent, and not so apparent, adverse effects that this
will have on the States and local communities in which most of the
persons affected live.
This Congress has spent an enormous amount of time discussing
immigration. I fully support the mandates which were passed to help
assure that individuals do not enter this country illegally. The U.S.
Government has a fundamental responsibility to enforce the laws which
this Congress passes. Unfortunately, we have failed to do so as it
relates to our immigration laws, and, thus, we have millions of illegal
aliens within our society.
I am proud of the fact that this legislation includes steps such as
strengthening our Border Patrol. These are the hard-working officers
who are our first line of defense against illegal immigration. I do not
contest, but, in fact, fully support, better enforcement and funding to
prevent illegal immigration, including those steps that would
demagnetize jobs as a reason why illegal aliens come to the United
States.
Our Government has brought an unfair and strenuous burden to many
States in the form of allowing thousands, in some cases millions, of
illegal immigrants to enter within their borders. Florida has been
particularly affected because of its unique geographic location, its
diverse population, its temperate climate.
Our Government, for several decades, has made Florida the gateway to
immigrants arriving from South America and the Caribbean basin. A large
majority of those who seek to be called Americans are Floridians. These
new arrivals, those who come legally, those who come playing by the
rules, are, in large part, law-abiding citizens. They work hard, they
pay taxes, they ask nothing of our Government other than the
opportunity to eventually be called a citizen of the United States of
America.
But on occasion, as may happen to native-born Americans, a
circumstance arises where assistance is needed. In the past, our State
and local communities have scraped by doing all that was possible to
assist these newcomers. The Federal Government was frequently a partner
of States and communities in providing assistance in unexpected
emergency conditions.
Mr. President, we are now faced with the prospect of trying to
continue our humanitarian efforts without that Federal partner and,
thus, with even fewer resources available from the National Government
a greater demand for those resources from the States and local
communities which are affected.
In some ways, we have come to the conclusion that eliminating even
minimal benefits to legal immigrants will somehow solve our illegal
immigration problem. This is not true. In reality, it only hurts those
who follow the rules, those who made every effort to enter the United
States in a lawful, orderly, documented manner, and it hurts our
communities, it hurts those cities and towns that provide services to
legal immigrants and now will receive no assistance from the Federal
Government.
This, Mr. President, is wrong. We speak so often of the Federal-State
partnership. The Federal Government, in this case, is no longer a
partner to our States and communities. This is unfair--and for many
reasons, of which I will only discuss a few this evening.
It is within the purview and responsibility of Congress to act to end
and to avoid further extension of this unfairness. My State of Florida
brought suit in the Federal courts, brought suit on the basis that our
State had been asked to shoulder hundreds of millions of dollars of
responsibilities for legal and illegal immigrants, responsibility which
should have been a national obligation.
As the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals explained in its 1995 decision,
Chiles versus the United States:
The overall statutory scheme established for immigration
demonstrates that Congress intended whether the Attorney
General is adequately guarding the borders of the United
States to be ``committed to agency discretion by law'' and,
thus, unreviewable. Florida must seek relief in Congress.
We conclude that whether the level of illegal immigration
is an ``invasion'' of Florida and whether this level
violates the guarantee of a republican form of government
presents nonjusticiable political questions.
Essentially, what the court was saying is, do not come to us for
justice. You must seek justice in the political arm of the Federal
Government, the Congress of the United States.
I state tonight, Mr. President, that the legislation which is before
us is not just and does not treat our communities and our States
fairly.
What are some of the bill of complaints against this legislation,
that it is unfair to the States and communities of America? Let me list
a few of those complaints.
This legislation extends a concept which has been in our immigration
law and which was used extensively in the immigration changes made as
part of the welfare reform bill passed earlier in this session of
Congress, referred to as ``deeming.''
What is deeming? Deeming, essentially, is a concept that states that
the income of the individual who sponsored a legal immigrant into the
United States is deemed--d-e-e-m-e-d--deemed to be the income of the
person who was sponsored. This concept of deeming is now applied to
persons who came into the United States in the past, when the concept
behind the law of sponsorship was different, where the sponsor's
affidavit of sponsorship was not legally enforceable.
The rules have changed on these law-abiding citizens in the middle of
the game. The sponsor who put his name behind a legal immigrant coming
to the United States under the rules that existed up to 5 years ago is
now being told retroactively, ``You have just taken on very significant
new financial responsibilities.''
Under the welfare bill, these new deeming restrictions only apply to
newly arrived immigrants. Under this conference report, deeming is
applied retroactively to legal immigrants who came to the United States
within the last 5 years. As a result, sponsored legal immigrants who
came into the United States under the old rules stand to lose access to
dozens of programs, including prenatal care, nonemergency Medicaid,
Head Start and job training.
These provisions will require a further cost shift to the States who
will now have to shoulder the burden of these Federal programs which
will no longer be available.
Another item in that bill of particulars of unfairness is Medicaid.
Even though the welfare bill contains no immigrant restrictions on the
use of emergency Medicaid, the conference report provides that if a
legally sponsored immigrant has an emergency and uses Medicaid, the
sponsor becomes liable for the entire cost of care, without limitation.
What does this mean, Mr. President? This means that if a sponsor has
brought in a legal immigrant and that legal immigrant is hit by a truck
or contracts cancer or any of the other items that might result in a
serious emergency circumstance, the sponsor would be legally
responsible for all of those medical costs. Realistically, most
sponsors would not be able to pay, and, therefore, what will happen?
This will just become another uncompensated burden on the hospital or
health care provider.
While I support the idea that sponsors should be required to provide
housing, food, or even cash assistance to immigrants who have become
unable to provide for themselves, even the most responsible sponsor may
not always be able to finance health care, care for illness or serious
disease or injury.
Mr. President, as I said, we are going to apply, retroactively,
standards to those persons who have sponsored legal aliens, such as
their parents or a child, into the United States and now,
retroactively, are going to have to take on additional responsibilities
which were unknown to them at the time that they entered into that
sponsorship relationship.
[[Page S11516]]
Also, I will discuss some of the changes which have been made in
Medicaid, the program that provides health care to indigent Americans,
which today is available to legal--legal--aliens. I underscore that
difference between those persons who are here because they follow the
rules and those persons who are in the country because they broke the
rules. We are talking now exclusively about people who are here
legally.
One of the changes that has been made in the Medicaid Program states
that a sponsor, including those who are being swept up in this
retroactive provision, will now have to be financially responsible for
the emergency medical services provided under Medicaid to those persons
who they have sponsored into this country. If their mother that they
sponsored contracts cancer, or a child is hit by a car and suffers a
serious injury, those kinds of costs now will become the responsibility
of the sponsor. Even more egregious, if the sponsor is unable to meet
those expenses, it then becomes an obligation of the provider to accept
those costs as unreimbursed medical expenses. In most cases, they are
going to end up being the unreimbursed medical expenses of an emergency
room in a public hospital.
One final part of this is that if the sponsor can't pay, and if the
person who they sponsored can't pay, then that sponsored individual
will be barred from becoming a naturalized citizen of the United States
until the bill is paid, which means that this child, who may have
suffered this injury in youth, is going to be permanently precluded
from becoming a U.S. citizen, unless they are able to achieve a
financial status to pay off this emergency medical bill.
A third problem with this legislation, Mr. President, relates to the
treatment of communicable diseases. This conference report, I find,
unbelievably, provides that under no circumstances will the Federal
Government provide funding for the treatment of HIV and AIDS-infected
patients who are legal immigrants. This, I thought initially, this must
have been a misprint. But when you read the conference report on page
239, it states explicitly,
The exception for treatment of communicable diseases is
very narrow. The managers intend that it only apply where
absolutely necessary to prevent the spread of such diseases.
The managers do not intend that the exception for testing and
treatment for communicable diseases should include treatment
for the HIV virus or Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome.
I represent a State where we have many persons who come from areas of
the world--many within this hemisphere--which have a high incidence of
HIV and AIDS. What this bill says is if a person is in this country as
assailees, refugees, parolees, or whatever status, is found to have HIV
or AIDS, the Federal public health service cannot use its resources to
treat those persons. Mr. President, I find this to be unbelievable. Are
we just going to ignore this deadly disease and hope that, for
humanitarian reasons, or public health concerns, the State or local
agency will again shoulder this national obligation for persons who are
in this country under national immigration laws?
The Medicaid provisions, the deeming provisions, and sponsor
affidavits are currently nothing more than a means of shifting costs to
States, local government agencies, and our Nation's hospital system.
Simply, if people are sick and cannot afford to pay for coverage of a
disabling condition, somebody will absorb those costs. The question is
whether the Federal Government will help to pay a portion of that cost,
or whether such cost will be shifted entirely to States, local
governments, and health care providers.
This bill does not protect the health care providers, even though it
is the Federal Government's health care policy which requires the
health care provider to render such medical assistance.
The Federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act requires that
all persons who come to a Medicare-participating hospital for emergency
care be given a screening examination to determine if they are
experiencing a medical emergency, and if they are found to be
experiencing such a medical emergency, that they receive stabilizing
treatment before being discharged or moved to another facility.
Federal law requires all hospitals that have emergency rooms, that
receive Medicare participation, must provide those services, without
regard to the ability of the person who has presented themselves for
such care to pay. And now we are saying that the Federal Government is
going to be a ``deadbeat dad'' by sticking those health care providers
with the full cost, without a Federal sharing and participation.
Mr. President, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the
National Association of Counties, and the National League of Cities,
has written on April 25 of this year, in anticipation of just exactly
what is before us now, with the following statement:
Without Medicaid eligibility, many legal immigrants will
have no access to health care. Legal immigrants will be
forced to turn to State indigent health care programs, public
hospitals, and emergency rooms for assistance, or avoid
treatment altogether. This will in turn endanger the public
health and increase the cost of providing health care to
everyone.
For the Medicaid caseworker as well as all other State and Federal
programs he or she must now learn immigration law as well and the
Medicaid system.
As a study by the National Conference of State Legislatures notes,
this conference report would require an extensive citizenship
verification made for all applicants to the Medicaid Program.
In addition to the costs to determine eligibility, States will also
have infrastructure, training and ongoing implementation cost
associated with the staff time needed to make a complicated deeming
calculation. The result will be a tremendous, costly and bureaucratic
unfunded mandate on State Medicaid Programs.
Mr. President, another item in the bill of particulars of unfairness
of this immigration bill relates to parolees and their inability to
work. I would put this in the specific context of an agreement which
the United States had entered into with Cuba.
Under that agreement which was intended to avoid another repetition
of the mass rafting explosion which we have experienced on several
occasions since Fidel Castro came to power in Cuba, the United States
now allows 15,000 Cuban immigrants per year to enter the United States.
Approximately 10,000 of those who have arrived per year under this
agreement have been under the category of parolees.
Under this bill, as parolees they will be prohibited from working in
most jobs 1 year after they arrive here. How can that be? It can be
because the conference report provides that after 1 year of entry into
the United States, a person who is legally in this country, classified
as a parolee for humanitarian reasons, would be ineligible to obtain or
maintain the following:
They could not receive any State or Federal grants; any State or
Federal loan; any State or Federal professional license; and, believe
this, Mr. President: They could not receive a State driver's license or
a commercial license.
Where are these legal immigrant parolees going to work without a
driver's license, without a work permit, without a commercial license?
Who will assume the burden of caring for these legal immigrant parolees
who are in our country? Of course, the cost of their care will shift to
the local community, even though it was through Federal Government
action--and in the case of the United States-Cuban agreement, Federal
Government foreign policy considerations, which brings them to this
country in the first place, and then tells them that they cannot drive
and that they cannot hold a job.
The conference report that is before us is a huge cost shift to State
and local governments that will impose an administrative burden and
huge unfunded mandate on State governments to verify eligibility for
applicants.
Mr. President, one of the first priorities of this 104th Congress was
S. 1, the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995. It was a top priority of
the House of Representatives. It passed both bodies in the first 100
days of this session.
The purpose section of the Unfunded Mandate Act stated that the:
Purposes of this act are to strengthen the partnership
between the Federal Government and State, local, and tribal
governments to end the imposition in the absence of full
consideration by Congress of Federal mandates on State,
local, and tribal governments without adequate Federal
funding.
[[Page S11517]]
Mr. President, this conference report breaks every premise and breaks
every basis of the unfunded mandate law because this conference report
on immigration requires all Federal, State, and local means-tested
programs, as well as programs such as State driver's licenses, State
licensing departments, for State occupational licenses as well as any
grant or funding to first determine whether the individual applying is
an eligible immigrant.
The National Conference of State Legislatures just yesterday,
September 26, 1996, indicated that the mandates of this conference
report will:
impose new unfunded mandates on State and local governments
regarding deeming requirements for determining immigrant
eligibility for all Federal means-tested programs. These
provisions create new unfunded Federal mandates, defying the
intent of the S. 1, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
This bill requires States to deem many immigrants currently
residing in the United States who do not have enforceable
affidavits of support. These requirements will place an
excessive administrative burden on States by shifting massive
costs to State budgets. As we have consistently stated on
numerous issues, if the Federal Government expects States to
administer Federal programs related to Federal
responsibilities, full Federal funding must be provided.
What are some examples of this massive shift? Let me use the example
of my own home State of Florida.
For professional and driver's licenses, the State of Florida
estimates that it will cost approximately $31 million to verify and
recertify 13.7 million driver and professional licenses. This figure
does not include State administration and initiation costs, nor does
the figure include the amount it will cost to verify new applications
for these licenses. This is just the cost to verify those that are
already outstanding.
Occupational licenses: To determine eligibility for occupational
licenses based on immigration status, it is estimated that $16 million
annually will be passed on to the small businesses of my State of
Florida.
AIDS patients: Jackson Memorial Hospital in Miami alone cares for
between 1,500 and 2,000 noncitizen AIDS patients annually. The
estimated cost to treat noncitizen AIDS patients for this one hospital
will be at least $4 million a year.
Mr. President, in summary, this conference report violates basic
concepts of fairness and adds new and, in many cases, retroactive
restrictions on legal immigrants. It imposes cost shifts to local and
State governmental agencies in order to comply with its unfunded
mandates. It violates the legislation which we passed and which we have
taken great pride in: The Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995.
If this is not an unfunded mandate, what could be an unfunded
mandate?
As currently drafted, the conference report would have the following
negative consequences: It shifts costs to States, local governments,
and hospitals; it imposes an administrative unfunded mandate on State
Medicaid programs; and it is not cost effective.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
immediately after my remarks a series of documents, including letters
from the National Association of Counties, from the National Conference
of State Legislatures, editorials which have appeared criticizing
sections of this immigration conference report, and a letter from the
Governor of Florida outlining the impact that this will have on our
State.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See Exhibit 1.)
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, for the reasons stated, I urge that this
Senate, before it takes up at this late hour important legislation
which will have the kind of far-reaching effect that this immigration
bill will have, that we consider carefully the impact that this is
going to have on the States and communities that we represent.
I urge that we either delete those provisions from this conference
report or that the conference report be rejected.
I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator yield back the remainder of
his time?
Mr. GRAHAM. I yield back the remainder of my time.
Exhibit 1
NACo National Association
of Counties,
Washington, DC, September 26, 1996.
Hon. Bob Graham,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Graham: I am writing to urge you to exclude
from the conference agreement on immigration (H.R. 2202)
provisions that mandate new federal requirements for
certificates and drivers licenses, and adds new deeming
requirements to determine immigrant eligibility for federal
means tested programs. The National Association of Counties
(NACo) considers these provisions to be unfunded mandates as
a well as a preemption of local authority. While NACo shares
the goal of solving the problems posed by illegal
immigration, we urge you to oppose the bill if these
provisions are not deleted from the conference report.
Although the birth certificate and drivers' license
provisions have improved somewhat by extending the
implementation date and making a general reference to federal
grant funds, these changes are minimal. Extending the
implementation date may avoid the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act threshold of $50 million a year, but it masks the fact
that county and state governments will still have to bear the
brunt of these expenses. Additionally, these are documents
that fall clearly under the jurisdiction of state and local
governments. Mandating federal standards on these documents
preempts state and local authority and is a hardship on
citizens and noncitizens alike.
The deeming requirements in the conference agreement go
beyond the stringent requirements in the Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of
1996 (P.L. 104-193). This law already made the affidavits of
support enforceable and extended deeming to federal means
tested programs for immigrants with new affidavits of
support. The conference agreement, however, would also
applying deeming to current legal residents who do not have
enforceable affidavits of support. By making this retroactive
change, the bill places additional administrative burdens on
counties and shifts more costs from the federal programs to
county general assistance programs.
NACo appreciates your consideration of these issues. We
urge you again to removed these provisions from the
conference agreement, or vote against the legislation if they
continue to be included.
Sincerely,
Larry Naake,
Executive Director.
____
National Conference of
State Legislatures,
Washington, DC, September 26, 1996.
Dear Senator Graham: On behalf of the National Conference
of State Legislatures, we again urge you to exclude from the
conference agreement on immigration legislation, H.R. 2202,
provisions that (1) federalize the current state and local
driver's license and birth certificate issuance process and
establish federal document content standards for both, and
(2) impose new unfunded mandates on state and local
governments regarding deeming requirements for determining
immigrant eligibility for all federal ``means-tested''
programs. These provisions create new unfunded federal
mandates, defying the intent of S. 1, the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act. They unnecessarily preempt traditional state
auhtority. The provisions also create a ``one size fits all''
administrative process, contradicting the entire spirit of
devolution. Furthermore, NCSL believes that these provisions
will create an identification nightmare for citizens and
legal immigrants. We share with you the goal of managing and
resolving issues regarding illegal immigration. However,
should these provisions remain in the conference report, NCSL
urges you to to oppose the bill.
We have noted in previous communications that
federalization of the driver's license and birth certificate
processes is unnecessary, inappropriate and a misguided
intrusion into a traditional state and local government
responsibility. The conference agreement does improve on
language from S. 1660, allowing states to be exempted from
using Social Security Numbers on driver's licenses if they
satisfy certain federal requirements, moving the
implementation date to the year 2000, and alluding to some
federal grant funds that may be available to help states pay
for the new mandates. However, these are minimal changes at
best. We see no compelling public policy reason for the
federal government to strip states of their authority
regarding driver's licenses and birth certificates nor to
endorse an identification mechanism fraught with potential
for fraud and abuse. The bill still places enormous unfunded
federal mandates on state and local governments.
The deeming requirements in the immigration reform
legislation go well beyond those in the recently enacted
welfare reform legislation. The welfare reform law already
makes new affidavits of support legally enforceable and
extends deeming requirements to all federal means-tested
programs for sponsored immigrants with the new affidavits.
This bill requires states to deem many immigrants currently
residing in the U.S. who do not have enforceable affidavits
of support. These requirements will place an excessive
administrative burden on states and shift massive costs to
state budgets. As we have consistently stated on numerous
issues, if the federal government expects states to
administer federal programs related to federal
responsibilities, full federal funding must be provided.
We appreciate your consideration of our positions. We urge
you again to exclude the
[[Page S11518]]
aforementioned provisions from any conference report or
oppose the report should they be included.
Sincerely,
William T. Pound,
Executive Director.
____
The Governor of
the State of Florida,
September 23, 1996.
Hon. Bill McCollum,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Bill: I'm pleased to hear that you and Clay Shaw are
conferees on the comprehensive immigration bill (H.R. 2202)
as immigration policy certainly continues to be of major
importance to Floridians.
We've previously discussed my opposition to provisions
which deny critical assistance to legal tax paying residents
of this country who have come here through the legal process
and have been law abiding members of our society. As you're
well aware, I have been particularly concerned about these
provisions and their impact on our Cuban community and am
still hopeful that Cuban/Haitian entrants will continue to be
given access to all programs as they were under Fascell/
Stone. The fiscal impact of the new restrictions on our State
and local governments is still being assessed but will
obviously be an additional burden.
However, I want to comment on what I see as major conflicts
and discrepancies in this conference version language. It
appears that the language of H.R. 2202 prohibiting any public
benefit to certain legal immigrants is even more restrictive
than the new welfare law which as a significant impact on
Florida and other states with large immigrant populations.
It has been over month since the President signed the
welfare bill into law. In those weeks, Florida has moved
aggressively forward in preparing its state plan and has
submitted it to HHS in order to begin implementation by
October 1. We have made every effort to provide for a
reasonable transition to allow affected families to explore
their options and make other arrangements for future needs.
Further sweeping restrictions for legal immigrants will
require more alterations in administrative processes and will
certainly complicate and frustrate an orderly implementation
of the law and create disruption in medical care, children's
services and other programs in our State.
I certainly understand and appreciate some of the
enforcement provisions of the bill which are directed at
controlling immigration. As you know, Florida has recently
entered into a unique partnership with the federal government
to combat illegal immigration--the Florida Immigration
Initiative--and continues to strive to assist where the State
has a role in controlling our borders.
It is my hope that you and the other conferees will focus
on these enforcement tools and delete the provisions
restricting assistance to legal immigrants in light of the
welfare reform restrictions which are already being
interpreted and acted upon in many instances.
I appreciate your continued attention to our concerns in
Florida. Please call on me if I can be of any assistance to
your efforts.
With best regards, I am
Sincerely,
Lawton Chiles.
____
Stop the Immigration Bill
(By The Miami-Herald)
Republicans in Congress eliminated one of the more onerous
provisions of the immigration bill yesterday. Resisting
pressure from presidential hopeful Bob Dole, they struck out
language that would have kept the children of illegal
immigrants out of public schools.
It was a wise and humane move, but not nearly wise nor
humane enough: The deletion simply turned a terrible, mean-
spirited bill into a very bad one.
It is every country's duty to control its borders and to
insist on orderly immigration, but this bill oversteps duty.
Its most xeonophobic provisions subvert cherished American
traditions, including the offer of asylum to the persecuted
and the guarantee of equal rights to all.
The bill would summarily--without meaningful access to
counsel--exclude asylum seekers who arrive in the United
States undocumented. This is heartless. It also violates our
international obligations, established by treaty, regarding
refugees.
Men and women fleeing oppression are often forced to seize
the moment. They don't have the leisure to gather visas and
passports. They arrive fearful and scared; often they are
unable to speak English well enough to make their plight
understood. The United States takes in a tiny share of the
men and women who ask for asylum across the world. Last year,
it amounted to less than 1 percent of asylum seekers. We can
afford to help them, and we should be glad to do it.
The reunification of families divided by legal immigration
would also be encumbered by the bill, which requires
sponsors--to have incomes significantly higher than present
law demands.
In addition, the bill goes well beyond the recently enacted
welfare reform legislation in limiting the access that legal
immigrants have to government programs. For example:
Legal immigrants would be deported if they receive certain
types of government assistance--child care and housing among
them--for more than 12 months during their first seven years
in the United States.
After a year in the United States, people who have been
paroled and who are not yet legal residents--would become
ineligible for means-tested assistance, as well as for
grants, professional or commercial licenses, even driver's
licenses.
These provisions make the immigration bill unacceptable. It
deserves a veto. President Clinton should not try to wash his
hands of responsibility, as he did with the most Draconian
elements of last summer's welfare reform. That bill was not
perfect, he essentially said then, but it was the best we
could.
The immigration reform is certainly not the best we can do,
and we should not settle for it.
____
Immigration Politics
In an effort to salvage the illegal immigration reform
bill, congressional Republicans finally backed off their plan
to penalize the school children of illegal immigrants--and
bucked Bob Dole, their presidential candidate, in the
process. Unfortunately, the bill they struggled to save is
still a severely flawed piece of work.
Though the proposal to allow states to deny public
education to illegal immigrants was a cornerstone of the
House-passed version, it faced a Senate filibuster and a
presidential veto. Anxious to save both face and the
remainder of the bill, Republicans agreed to uncouple the
education proposal from the rest of the bill and vote
separately on each.
Dole belatedly endorsed the move in a letter to conferees.
But earlier this month, he tried to strong-arm his former
colleagues into retaining the controversial amendment in an
attempt to torpedo the immigration reform bill--one he had
supported when he was in the Senate--to keep Clinton from
scoring political points. That's not just hard-ball. That's
irresponsible. Congressional Republicans deserve some credit
for defying Dole, even if they acted out of political self-
interest. The Republicans want to take an immigration bill,
even a watered-down one, back home to their constituents
before election time.
Though improved, the bill has other problems which still
merit that presidential veto. The conference report gives
virtually unchecked authority to the Immigration and
Naturalization Service to turn away immigrants, with false
papers or none, who seek asylum from genocide, political
death squads or other forms of persecution. Though the
conferees softened this summary exclusion procedure by
inserting a meager administrative review, that is still not
sufficient. Also included are restrictions on benefits to
legal immigrants more onerous than those contained in the new
welfare bill. These defects overshadow the bill's
constructive provisions, such as a doubling of the number of
Border Patrol officers.
The Clinton administration has voiced tepid concern and has
so far withheld its promise of support. But undoubtedly eager
to claim victory himself, Clinton cannot be counted on to
veto the bill even with these glaring problems. On illegal
immigration reform, like welfare, he might not be that far
behind Dole on the pander meter.
____
Immigrant Bashing
Congress is waging its usual election-year war on
immigrants. Although we suspect, in this case, the real
target of the new immigration ``reform'' bill making its way
through Congress is Bill Clinton.
Yes, Republicans have stripped from the bill--in the face
of a Clinton veto threat--a provision that would allow states
to throw the children of illegal immigrants out of school,
presumably to run wild and ignorant in the streets.
But the measure that remains is still far too punitive in
its treatment of both legal and illegal immigrants, too
lenient on U.S. employers who hire illegals and too willing
to grant the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service
chilling new authority.
This week, legal immigrants around the nation were being
told that they are no longer eligible for food stamps, thanks
to the recently enacted welfare reform bill. The anti-
immigrant measure would continue that trend of denying legal
immigrants public assistance when they are in trouble. These
are people who have permission to be here, who hold down jobs
when they can get them and who pay taxes and otherwise
support the economy.
One particularly mean-spirited provision, for instance,
would even deny legal immigrants Medicaid assistance for the
treatment of AIDS or HIV-related illnesses. Let them suffer,
chortle the bashers in Congress.
And what about unscrupulous employers who hire illegal
immigrants for slave wages, thus encouraging still more
undocumented aliens to flock to this country? Congress
couldn't be bothered to crack down too hard on such
practices. Tougher penalties for such practices were deleted
from the bill.
One of the most ominous provisions of the bill would grant
an unprecedented degree of autonomy to the INS. Under the
measure, no court, other than the U.S. Supreme Court, would
be authorized to grant injunctions against that police agency
when it acts in a legally questionable manner. That's an
immunity not afforded the IRS, the FBI, the Drug Enforcement
Agency or any other federal police force. Giving it to the
INS would constitute a frightening precedent.
[[Page S11519]]
The bill isn't all bad. It authorizes a much-needed
increase in the size of the U.S. Border Patrol. It would
establish new, more efficient procedures for verifying the
status of legal immigrants. It would provide tougher
penalties for document fraud and for those who smuggle aliens
into the country.
But there are so many harsh, immigrant-bashing provisions
in the bill that, on balance, it deserves a veto. This is an
issue that cries out for resolution after the election--when
lawmakers are less inclined to use the immigration issue as a
political football.
If President Clinton vetoes the measure, Republicans are
sure to paint him as ``soft'' on illegal immigrants. Indeed,
Bob Dole is already hitting on that very theme because of the
president's unwillingness to purge the classrooms of the
children of illegal aliens.
But as a matter of principle, Clinton should stand up to
the Republicans this time and refuse to participate in their
immigrant-bashing.
This is another case where politics makes for bad public
policy.
____
A Dangerous Immigration Bill
(New York Times, Editorial)
As the White House and members of Congress make final
decisions this week about a severely flawed immigration bill,
they seem more concerned with protecting their political
interests than the national interest. The bill should be
killed.
Debate over the bill has concentrated on whether it should
contain a punitive amendment that would close school doors to
illegal-immigrant children. But even without that provision,
it is filled with measures that would harm American workers
and legal immigrants, and deny basic legal protections to all
kinds of immigrants. At the same time, the bill contains no
serious steps to prevent illegal immigrants from taking
American jobs.
Its most dangerous provisions would block Federal courts
from reviewing many Immigration and Naturalization Service
actions. This would remove the only meaningful check on the
I.N.S., an agency with a history of abuse. Under the bill,
every court short of the Supreme Court would be effectively
stripped of the power to issue injunctions against the I.N.S.
when its decisions may violate the law or the Constitution.
Injunctions have proven the only way to correct system-wide
illegalities. A court injunction, for instance, forced the
I.N.S. to drop its discriminatory policy of denying Haitian
refugees the chance to seek political asylum.
On an individual level, legal immigrants convicted of minor
crimes would be deported with no judicial review. If they
apply for naturalization, they would be deported with no
judicial review. If they apply for naturalization, they would
be deported for such crimes committed in the past. The I.N.S.
would gain the power to pick up people it believes are
illegal aliens anywhere, and deport them without a court
review if they have been here for less than two years.
The bill would also diminish America's tradition of
providing asylum to the persecuted. Illegal immigrants
entering the country, who may not speak English or be
familiar with American law, would be summarily deported if
they do not immediately request asylum or express fear of
persecution. Those who do would have to prove that their fear
was credible--a tougher standard than is internationally
accepted--to an I.N.S. official on the spot, with no right to
an interpreter or attorney.
Scam artists with concocted stories would be more likely to
pass the test than the genuinely persecuted, who are often
afraid of authority and so traumatized they cannot recount
their experiences. Applicants would have a week to appeal to
a Justice Department administrative judge but no access to
real courts before deportation.
The bill would also go further than the recently adopted
welfare law in attacking legal immigrants. Under the
immigration bill they could be deported for using almost any
form of public assistance for a year, including English
classes. It would make family reunification more difficult by
requiring high incomes for sponsors of new immigrants. The
bill would also require workers who claim job discrimination
to prove that an employer intended to discriminate, which is
nearly impossible.
A bill that grants so many unrestricted powers to the
Government should alarm Republicans as well as Democrats.
This is not an immigration bill but an immigrant-bashing
bill. It deserves a quick demise.
Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
____________________